August 23, 2005

 

SUBJECT:	2005-0609 – Sunbro Builders [Applicant] Anders Olsen Field Jr. [Owner]: Application for related proposals on a 22,213 square-foot site located at 926 South Wolfe Road in an R-0 (Low-Density Residential) Zoning District.
Resolution   Introduction of an Ordinance	General Plan Amendment low density residential to low-medium density residential. Rezone from R-0 (Low-Density Residential) to R-1.5 (Low-Medium Density Residential) Zoning District.
Motion	Design Review  for allow four new single-family homes, and
Motion	Parcel Map to subdivide one lot into four lots.

 

REPORT IN BRIEF     

Existing Site Conditions	Single-family home with accessory structures
Surrounding Land Uses
North	Single-family residential
South	Single-family residential
East	Single-family residential
West	Medium density residential across Wolfe Road Single-family at Wolfe Road and Gary Ave
Issues	Architectural neighborhood compatibility
Environmental Status	A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines.
Planning Commission Action	Recommended Approval with Conditions
Staff Recommendation	Approve with conditions

05-251 image

 

PROJECT DATA TABLE

 

 

 

Description of Proposed Project

 

The applicant proposes to demolish an existing single-family home and duplex with accessory structures on a 22,463 s.f. lot and construct four new two-story single-family dwelling units with an average lot size of 5,615 s.f. The application includes a request to amend the General Plan from Low Density Residential (up to 7 units per acre) to Low-Medium Density Residential (up to 12 units per acre).  The application also includes a rezoning from R-0 Zoning District (6,000 s.f. min lot size) to R-1.5 Zoning District (4,200 s.f. min. lot size).  Design review is required for the architecture of the 4 single-family homes.  The applicant is not requesting any variances or deviations from the requested zoning district standards; therefore no Special Development Permit is requested.

 

The project site is located at 926 S. Wolfe Road south of the intersection of Wolfe Road with Gary/Primrose Avenues.  The lot is a remainder from previous subdivisions and has frontages on both Wolfe Road and Mangrove Avenue.  The current R-0 zoning would allow a subdivision of three lots; however, the established lot pattern for the neighborhood would suggest up to four lots.  The lot is slightly shy of the required square footage for four lots because of dedication on Wolfe Road that occurred when the surrounding subdivision was created.

 

This project was considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on August 8, 2005. The Planning Commission took public testimony.  One person spoke against the project.  The Planning Commission approved the project with a 6-0 vote with no changes (Attachment H).

 

Background

 

Previous Actions on the Site: The following table summarizes previous planning applications related to the subject site.

 

File Number	Brief Description	Hearing/Decision	Date
2004-0397	General Plan Amendment Initiation	City Council /Initiated	July 20, 2004

 

Environmental Review

 

A  Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines. An initial study has determined that the proposed project would not create any significant environmental impacts with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures (Attachment C, Initial Study).

 

Noise Analysis:  An acoustical analysis was prepared for the project by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. dated June 16, 2005.  The analysis recommends noise attenuating mitigations for the two homes proposed to face S. Wolfe Road.  These mitigations can be accommodated during building design and construction... No sound walls are required.  Mitigation is included in the conditions of approval.

 

Historic Analysis:  An evaluation of the historic status of the existing structure on site was prepared at the request of Council.  The evaluation was completed by Archeological Resource Management dated June 1, 2005.  The evaluation found that, although the main structure on site was constructed around 1900, it has been significantly modified over the years and does not maintain historical integrity.   The study found that the property in general did not meet local Sunnyvale, State or Federal requirements for historical significance.  This project was not reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission because the structure is not on our list of Heritage Resources.  The role of the Heritage Preservation Commission is to review changes to resources on the City’s local historic inventory. 

General Plan Amendment 

Change under Consideration: Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential.

 

Discussion of General Plan Amendment: The 22,200 s.f. project site currently has a General Plan designation of Low Density Residential.  This designation is the same as the surrounding residential neighborhood.  The adjacent residential lots were developed in 1962. 

The subject lot is currently zoned R-0 and has a single-family home, a duplex and a barn on the site.  The site fronts both South Wolfe Road and Mangrove Avenue and is the last remaining parcel of an original 15 acre ranch that dates back to 1850.  The original ranch has been parceled off and developed over the last half century.   By looking at a map of the area, the original lot pattern for the neighborhood suggests that the project site was meant to accommodate up to four single-family lots of approximately 6,000 square feet. 

At this date the site is slightly short (1,800 s.f.) of the 24,000 square feet necessary to divide the site into four lots using R-0 zoning standards.  This slightly reduced size is due to a 4,300 s.f. street dedication on Wolfe Road that occurred in 1962 as well as the slight curve of Mangrove Avenue on the second frontage of the site.  The applicant is requesting the General Plan land use designation change in order to facilitate a rezoning to the R-1.5 Zoning District that would allow for four lots.

The following General Plan goals, policies and action statements in the Land Use and Transportation Element relate to this proposed General Plan Amendment request: 

Policy N1.1

Protect the integrity of the City’s neighborhoods; whether residential, industrial or commercial. 

Action Statement N1.1.1

Limit the intrusion of incompatible uses and inappropriate development into city neighborhoods. 

Policy N1.2

Require new development to be compatible with the neighborhood, adjacent land uses and the transportation system. 

Action Statement N1.2.1

Integrate new development and redevelopment into existing neighborhoods. 

Action Statement N1.2.2

Utilize adopted City design guidelines to achieve compatible architecture and scale for renovation and new development in Sunnyvale’s neighborhoods.

A survey of the existing General Plan policies indicates that the primary issue regarding this General Plan Amendment request is the effect the potential amendment and related subsequent zoning district change will have on the development pattern of the existing neighborhood.  Based purely on an evaluation of a lot map of the area, it appears that the surrounding lots were developed in an orderly manner to leave a remainder lot that could be subdivided into four lots that fit into the rhythm of the 1960s development of the original ranch.   However, due to earlier street dedication and minor irregularity of the adjacent street curve, the remainder lot does not retain adequate square footage to develop under R-0 Zoning District standards as currently zoned.

Rezoning

 

Change under Consideration: R-0 to R-1.5.

 

Discussion of Rezoning: The R-1.5 Zoning District is one of several zoning district designations that could be considered for this site.  Staff believes that the R 1.5 Zoning District allows for a lot pattern that is consistent with existing neighborhood.

 

The site, as zoned, could be subdivided into two parcels without the need for any variances or deviations from zoning requirements (e.g. lot size, width).  Two lots of 11,100 square feet could each support one single-family home and one accessory living unit.

It is the intention of the owner to rezone the lots to R-1.5.  This is one of three zoning districts available under the Low-Medium Residential General Plan designation.   The R-1.5 zoning designation allows only single-family homes on lots as small as 4,200 square feet.   Applying the R-1.5 standards (including standard street frontage width) would allow four lots on the subject site.

Another compatible zoning designation with a General Plan Low-Medium designation would be R-1.7.  This zoning designation also allows only single-family homes, but requires a minimum 2-acre development size which the project site does not meet. 

The third available zoning designation is R-2 which is typically a district used for development of townhouses and duplexes, although single-family homes are allowed.  The R-2 designation would potentially allow 6 units. A PD combining district with an approved Special Development Permit could have the potential for 6 small single-family homes.  In this instance, a PD combining district would most likely be required to use the R-2 Zoning District.  There is adequate control by the Planning Commission and City Council to restrict the zoning to R-1.5 (with or without a PD combining district) in order to achieve a lot pattern consistent with the existing neighborhood.   

Applying a different zoning designation to the 22,200 square foot lot when it is surrounded by R-0 development begs the question of whether this would be considered spot zoning.  Staff has considered that possibility and has determined that the laws addressing spot zoning are in place to avoid egregiously incompatible land uses adjacent to each other such as an office building or an auto repair facility in the middle of a residential area.  Spot zoning was also historically used to create windfall profits for favored land owners.  There is no prohibition in the California land use laws that prevent the City from using different General Plan designations as tools to create compatible development.  Even though, in this case, the General Plan and zoning designation for this infill lot would be different from the surrounding neighborhood, staff does not find this constitutes spot zoning and believes it would be a legally defensible action particularly when the City can institute development controls through concurrent General Plan and rezoning actions.

Design Review

 

Site Layout: The applicant proposes 4 standard single-family lots.  Each site is organized with the house fronting onto the street.  All proposed structures would meet required setbacks under the requested R-1.5 Zoning District for both the first and second floors.

 

Stormwater Management:  The project is not subject to stormwater requirements.  The applicant has submitted a conceptual stormwater management pan that includes measures to increase stormwater infiltration into the site. 

 

Easements and Undergrounding:  There are no boundary lines on the project site.  Boundary lines are located on properties adjacent to the north. The applicant is required by code to underground the service drops to the new project.  A condition of approval for this requirement has been included.

 

The following Guidelines were considered in analysis of the project site design.

Single-Family Home Design Techniques	Comments
Respect neighborhood home orientation and setback patterns.	The project utilizes the same lot pattern and home orientation as surrounding homes.  The required setbacks are met.

 

Architecture:  The applicant proposes contemporary architecture with stucco exterior finishes and concrete tile roof material that is prevalent for new homes in the City and in new tracts.

 

The following Guidelines were considered in the analysis of the project architecture.

 

	Comments
Accommodate garages in locations similar to the pattern common in the neighborhood.	The garages are located in the front of the proposed homes as is common in the surrounding neighborhood
Do not locate garages forward of other habitable portions of the house unless that is the predominate pattern in the neighborhood.	The front elevations of the proposed garages are located several feet behind the living room elevations.
Design entries to be in scale and character with the neighborhood.	The entryway features have single story roofs that are compatible with the predominantly single story character of the neighborhood.
The area of the second floor should not exceed the common standard of the neighborhood.  For new second stories in predominantly one-story neighborhoods, the second floor area should not exceed 35% of the first floor area (including the garage area)	The proposed second floors are 51% of the area of the first floor including the garage.  Another two-story home in the vicinity was approved with a second story of approximately 57%.

 

Landscaping:  There are no landscaping requirements for single-family residential homes.  No landscape plan was submitted for this application.

 

A tree survey was submitted with the application.  Ten trees were evaluated. The City Arborist recommends preservation of 2 trees that are considered protected and healthy enough to save.  Most of the trees on-site are unhealthy and cannot be saved.  The applicant proposes to save the large date palm and pepper tree that were identified in the applicant’s and City’s arborists as healthy and of significant size.

 

Parking/Circulation: The applicant is proposing a lot pattern that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.  There would be two driveway cuts on Wolfe Road and two on Mangrove Avenue. 

 

The applicant has provided parking per the Municipal Code requirements for single-family homes.  There are two garage spaces and two driveway spaces for each unit.

 

Compliance with Development Standards/Guidelines: The project is in compliance with all development standards for the requested R-1.5 Zoning District.  No deviations or variances are requested.

 

Expected Impact on the Surroundings:  The proposed lot pattern for the project is compatible with the lot pattern for the neighborhood.  The project will introduce four two-story homes into a predominantly single-story neighborhood.  The proposed home meet the Single-Family Home Design Guidelines and comply with the established setbacks for the proposed R-1.5 Zoning District.  These setbacks are the same for the surrounding R-0 zoning District.

 

Tentative Map       

 

Description of Tentative Map:  The proposed subdivision is for four single-family lots.  There is no common lot associated with this project. The lot pattern is compatible with the neighborhood pattern. The lot sizes meet the minimum requirement for the requested R-1.5 Zoning District. All proposed lots have street frontage. Conditions of approval associated with the subdivision are located in Attachment B.

 

 

There are three existing units on the property.  The applicant will be required to pay park dedication fees and transportation impact fees for one unit, otherwise, no fiscal impacts other than normal fees and taxes are expected.

 

 

Planning Commission Study Session:  The Planning Commission reviewed this project at a study session on July 25, 2005.  The Planning Commission commented on various architectural details and the fact that there are no requested deviations.  There was also comment from one Commissioner regarding the height and how it related to the “boxiness” of the house form.  There were no changes made to the height of the proposed houses.

 

Notice of Negative Declaration and Public Hearing	Staff Report	Agenda
·         Published in the Sun newspaper ·         Posted on the site ·         262 notices mailed to the property owners and residents within 300 ft. of the project site	·         Posted on the City of Sunnyvale's Website ·         Provided at the Reference Section of the City of Sunnyvale's Public Library	·         Posted on the City's official notice bulletin board ·         City of Sunnyvale's Website ·         Recorded for SunDial

 

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this project on August 8, 2005.  One member of the public spoke, expressing concerns with a two0story home adjacent to his one-story home. The project was approved by a 6-0 vote (see Planning Commission Minutes, Attachment H).

 

 

Findings and General Plan Goals: Staff was able to make the required Findings for the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Design Review. Findings and General Plan Goals are located in Attachment A.

Conditions of Approval: Conditions of Approval are located in Attachment B.

Alternatives 

1.             Adopt the  Negative Declaration and introduce an Ordinance regarding 926 S. Wolfe Road to;

a.      Amend the General Plan from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential;

b.      Rezone from R-0 to R-1.5;

c.      Approve the Tentative Map and Design Review with attached conditions.

2.             Adopt the  Negative Declaration and introduce an Ordinance regarding 926 S. Wolfe Road to;

d.      Amend the General Plan from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential;

e.      Rezone from R-0 to R-1.5;

f.       Approve the Tentative Map and Design Review with modified  conditions.

3.             Adopt the Negative Declaration and do not introduce an Ordinance for the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning and deny the Tentative Map and Design Review.

4.             Do not adopt the  Negative Declaration and direct staff as to where additional environmental analysis is required.  

 

Alternative 1.

 

Prepared by:

 

Gerri Caruso
Project Planner

 

Reviewed by:

 

Trudi Ryan
Planning Officer

 

Reviewed by:

 

Robert Paternoster
Director of Community Development

 

Approved by:

 

Amy Chan
City Manager

 

Attachments: (pdf)

A.     Recommended Findings

B.      Recommended Conditions of Approval

C.     Mitigated Negative Declaration

D.     Site and Architectural Plans

E.      Map of Neighboring Second-Story FARs

F.      Draft General Plan Amendment Resolution

G.     Draft Rezoning Ordinance

H.     Planning Commission Minutes from August 8, 2005