2004-0300 – Mark Anderson [Applicant]:  Application for related proposals on an 8,320 square-foot site located at 529 South Murphy Avenue in an R-2 (Low Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. (Negative Declaration) (APN: 209-39-004) CC (Also to City Council on 06/15/04)

·    Rezone from R-2/O (Low Medium Density Residential/Office) to  R-2/O/PD (Low Medium Density Residential/Office/Planned Development) Zoning District;

·    Special Development Permit to allow the remodel of an existing 2,185 square-foot two-story house and the construction of a new 2,014 square-foot two-story house and,

·    Tentative Map to subdivide one lot into two lots.

Commissioner Larry Klein stepped down.

Christine Cannizzo, Project Planner, presented the staff report.  She summarized the proposed project highlighting the need for a rezone, the use, site layout, architecture, landscaping, trees, parking and easement and undergrounding of utilities. She corrected the staff report that Public Works Conditions of Approval #4 should be deleted as it was added in error.  She noted that one of the neighbors reviewed the proposed plans but expressed no concerns. She reported that the design requires several deviations and that staff is in support of several of these deviations.  However, the design was not able to meet the parking and usable open space needs.  Staff noted that the proposed rear parking would have parking access difficulty and may negatively impact the privacy of residents on both lots.  Staff also noted the impact of the design with the surrounding neighborhood.  Staff was able to make the required Findings and recommended approval of the Rezone, Special Development Permit and Tentative Map.

Comm. Simons thanked staff for answering some of his concerns prior to the public hearing.  He presented a design alternative and asked for staff’s comment.  Staff responded that based on a cursory look there may be difficulties with access and that staff generally has a concern with usable open space.

Comm. Hungerford asked staff for further comments.  Ms. Ryan responded that there are factors to be considered such as the size of the house or the garage location.

Chair Babcock asked staff to explain the difference of this property with the rest of the properties in Sunnyvale where two parking spaces are allowed on the driveway making the driveway unusable.  Ms. Ryan responded that it depends on the how the garage is accessed noting that with this site plan, either side is inaccessible if there are two cars in the driveway.

Chair Babcock confirmed with staff whether Condition of Approval #17 marking between the driveways with a red curb is because it is short and small.  Staff said yes.

Chair Babcock opened the public hearing.

Tom Sweeney, applicant, noted that adjusting the site plan could be explored. Juggling of the parking would not be an ordeal and guest parking would be a non-issue.

John Hiney, property owner, asked that the record be updated that he is now the property trustee.

Ms. Ryan explained how the information is gathered and that the update has to come from the County Assessor’s office and that there is usually a time delay.

Chair Babcock closed the public hearing.

Comm. Hungerford felt that it would be premature to approve a project with the design features unknown.

Vice Chair Moylan was unable to make the required Findings for the Special Development Permit.  He felt that the proposed project would not enhance the historical house and that the proposed deviations would not solve the parking concerns but would create a parking issue.  He commented that the proposed solution is not the right solution for the property.

Comm. Simons agreed with Comm. Hungerford and Vice Chair Moylan.  He would rather see it come back with a solution to the parking concerns as well as to minimize the amount of concrete.

Chair Babcock clarified whether the motion is to deny the project or continue the decision for a redesign.

Comm. Hungerford asked staff for guidance.

Ms. Ryan stated that under the current scenario, the final action is the City Council and the Planning Commission decision is a recommendation to the City Council.  If the Commission chooses to continue the item instructions should be provided to the applicant on redesign.

Chair Babcock prefers to have the application continued.  Comm. Hungerford agreed with Chair Babcock.

Ms. Ryan suggested re-opening the public hearing to allow the applicant to state how much time is needed to address the issues expressed by the Commission.

Chair Babcock reopened the public hearing.

Tom Sweeney, applicant, stated that a two week continuance is acceptable and that he is willing to work with staff.

Staff commented that at least a month would be needed.

Chair Babcock closed the public hearing.

SUBSTITUTED MOTION:

Vice Chair Moylan did not support the restated motion.  He felt that there is no resolution to the parking concerns and he prefers denying the project.

Comm. Simons hoped to see an acceptable solution.

Comm. Fussell supported the motion and was looking forward to a redesign in four weeks.

Comm. Sulser did not support the motion and concurred with Vice Chair Moylan.

Chair Babcock supported the motion. She felt that the design needs a little bit of fine tuning.  She wanted to see the heritage house preserved.

Ms. Ryan stated that staff will request a City Council continuance on June 15, 2004.