2004-0813 – Sierra Proto Express [Applicant] Patricia Onorato Trustee [Owner]:  Application for related proposals on a 1.2-acre site located at 1108 W. Evelyn Avenue in an M-S (Industrial Service) Zoning District. (APN: 161-31-036) (Negative Declaration) RK (Also to City Council on 12/07/04)

·         Variance  from Sunnyvale Municipal Code section 19.34.070 to allow a rear yard setback of 31 feet and 6 inches where 100 feet is required for an industrial zoned property adjacent to a residential zoning district, and

·         Use Permit to allow a 6,438 square-foot addition to an existing industrial building resulting in 45% Floor Area Ratio where 35% is allowed without City Council review.

Ryan Kuchenig, Project Planner, presented the staff report.  He summarized the proposed project highlighting the use, site layout, architecture, landscaping, parking and circulation. He noted that the proposed project would improve the existing site. Staff was able to make the required Findings and recommended approval of the Variance and Use Permit subject to Conditions of Approval.  He noted that since the addition would result in a 45% Floor Area Ratio, the project is subject for review by the City Council on December 7, 2004.

Comm. Simons confirmed with staff whether the applicant should comply with existing sign codes therefore it is not necessary to include this compliance requirement in the Conditions of Approval. Staff responded yes, noting that any new signs would need to meet current sign ordinance.

Chair Moylan commented that he was unable to make Finding #3 since granting this Variance would grant a special consideration for the required 100 foot setback that is not enjoyed by the neighbors.  He added that some neighbors have similar circumstances and have met this setback requirement. Staff responded that there are other factors considered when making the Findings such as the size of the lot, the size of the building and the allowable building that could be built upon.  Ms. Ryan added that there is frequent relationship in making any of the three Findings.  She clarified that Finding #1 due to the shallowness of the lot, it is different from other neighboring properties. These properties are meeting the 100 foot setback because of the depth and length of their properties.  She commented that if these properties have exact shape and configuration, she would concur with Chair Moylan that granting the Variance would be a special privilege.

Chair Moylan asked staff to explain Finding #1 that the area is believed to be a constrained to build a second story to  achieve a 45% FAR without having to go farther into the setbacks.  Ms. Ryan agreed that going up is an option especially when the property has not been developed.  But when putting an addition to a building, it could be economically infeasible to build a second story.  The existing building may have been designed as a one story building and noted that manufacturing uses are typically one-story.  She concurred that more floor area could be gained by going up. 

Chair Moylan opened the public hearing.

Ken Bahl, business owner, explained the purpose of the project and that the growth of the business dictates the need to expand the building and accommodate the growth of about 132 to 200 employees.  He stated that one of the objectives is to make the facility more pleasant for employees.  He stated that no addition is being proposed beyond the setback that is already in existence. He added that their goal is to make it even throughout the building and that no additional setback in the rear yard is being requested.

Chair Moylan stated that there appears to be a discrepancy where the staff report stated that the existing rear setback is 60 feet and the proposed new setback is 31 feet six inches.  Staff clarified that the setback is measured from the actual building but the speaker was referring to the existing storage which encroaches beyond the sixty feet.

Mr. Bahl commented that his goal is to even up this existing storage which has been there since the business started.  He added that he would like to make the site better by evening it out and maximizing the use of the site and having a better manufacturing flow throughout the building.  He further added that the unenclosed storage in the rear yard would be enclosed replicating the front architecture and that the entrance would be straight rather than a jagged entrance.

Vice Chair Hungerford asked Mr. Bahl whether he has air emission treatment devices.  Mr. Bahl yes and is currently operating with an air permit.

Chair Moylan asked Mr. Bahl what is in the pad that has the roof with no wall that is about 30 feet from the property line.  Mr. Bahl responded that it has the waste water treatment, treating equipment, some compressors, electrical panels, air and air drying equipment and basically utilities supporting the manufacturing.

Comm. Babcock asked Mr. Bahl whether all the structure would be moved or would it be just enclosed.  Mr. Bahl responded that they would stay where they are is and would be enclosed.

Ms. Ryan added that there is a zoning requirement that allows up to 5% of the property to be occupied with unenclosed storage of equipment and there are no setback requirements for the unenclosed storage.  She concluded that storage in the rear yard is legal conforming with no setback requirement and that only the building itself has the setback requirement.

Chair Moylan then asked whether this requirement still applies despite the fact that the equipment all operate and not just stored.  Ms. Ryan responded that it is all permitted.

Comm. Simons commented that in residential areas, some equipment is counted toward setback requirements and he asked how is uncovered equipment in a business any different. Ms. Ryan responded that this requirement applies only to industrial areas and that up to 5% of the lot may be occupied by unenclosed storage of equipment.

Chair Moylan restated that storage allows operating equipment. Ms. Ryan confirmed.

Comm. Fussell commented that it seems that the equipment and chemical are part of the manufacturing operation and it is an extension of the operation.

Comm. Babcock asked staff should the addition be allowed what would prevent the owner from extending into the 30 foot setback with more equipment.  Ms. Ryan responded the current application for a Use Permit that is before the Commission could be conditioned on other restrictions on the property to meet other goals in exchange for allowing the greater than 35% FAR that can be permitted without a public hearing.

Comm. Sulser asked Mr. Bahl whether noise complaints about the equipment were received from the residential neighborhood.  Mr. Bahl responded no but they may have some complaints with equipment malfunction but not with normal operation.

Chair Moylan closed the public hearing.

Comm. Simons offered a friendly amendment to Condition of Approval 12a to replace “fast growing” with “large species as appropriate to the site.”  Comm. Babcock commented that since this is in a residential area she would prefer to have fast growing trees. Comm. Simons explained that fast growing trees are often times smaller and live shorter. Comm. Babcock suggested perhaps combining both large and fast growing trees.  Accepted.

Comm. Simons offered another friendly amendment to add Condition of Approval #12g to have neighbors’ input on landscaping and the wall design and have the plans be available for public review subject to review and approval of the Director of Community Development.  Comm. Babcock asked staff whether the surrounding neighborhood is primarily rental properties and whether this would include owners’ input. Ms. Ryan suggested providing notice to adjacent properties about the availability of the landscaping plan and final wall design rather than soliciting input.  Accepted by the maker and the second.

Comm. Sulser was unable to make the required Finding #2 and did not support the motion.  He stated that he used to live in the area behind the building and was surprised that there are no complaints. He felt that the building is a nuisance being near the apartment.

Chair Moylan did not support the motion.  He stated that he was unable to make all the required Findings.  He felt that for Finding #1, the plan could be designed going up instead of going out. He disagreed with Finding #2 that moving closer to the property line and cosmetically concealing the equipment would be aesthetically acceptable. He suggested that the 100 foot setback requirement between residential and industrial is a good idea and suggested that the Commission must be diligent in adhering to this ordinance.  For Finding #3, he stated that granting the Variance would give the applicant a special privilege. He commented that the property is not grossly shallow and that there is an option. He urged that the 100 feet away from the residential properties be observed.

Comm. Simons commented that the additional conditions would help mitigate the concerns expressed by the other Commissioners it being adjacent to the residential neighborhood. However, he concurred that he had difficulty making the required Findings.

Vice Chair Hungerford commented that should the project be approved, it would be a great one since the open area would be enclosed. However, he expressed concerns about the Variance and was unable to make the required Finding #1.  He stated that the site is not much different from adjacent lots and that 100 feet is not that far to be away from the residential neighborhood. He felt that granting of the Variance would be inconsistent with the setback requirements. He did not support the motion.

Comm. Babcock commented that she was able to make the required Findings. She added that she also considered the practicality of the project. She stated that the subject site has already encroached into the setback and is a legal conforming structure. In addition the chain link fence would be replaced. She stated that granting the Variance and approving the Use Permit would incorporate the outside materials inside the buildings and the neighbors would benefit with the landscaping and a proper wall to separate the sites. She commented that the proposed plan would be far superior than the existing site condition.

Vice Chair Hungerford has stated his opposition earlier and that he was unable to make the required Findings for the Variance.

Ms. Ryan stated that the item will be considered by the City Council on 12/07/04.

Back to Attachments