|
Principal Planner Gerri Caruso presented the staff report.
Councilmember Hamilton disclosed that she met with representatives of Trinity Church and with the applicant after the Planning Commission meeting on this application was held.
Councilmember Hamilton inquired as to how the boundary would be defined for the 180-foot buffer. Principal Planner Caruso stated within the 180-foot buffer, there would be nothing above a one-story height.
Councilmember Hamilton confirmed that the private roads within this proposed subdivision would be approximately 24 feet wide.
Councilmember Hamilton inquired as to what setbacks are in an R-2 district. Principal Planner Caruso stated a standard R-2 district is 20 feet from the front of a public street and 20 feet from the rear with minor code allowances for some encroachments. All two-story residences must have a 20-foot setback. Within a planned development (PD) which has development off private street systems, developers are able to request deviations from the setbacks and they can be set as deemed appropriate for the style of the neighborhood.
Councilmember Hamilton inquired if setback deviations come before Council for approval and Principal Planner Caruso stated that any rezoning of a PD would come before Council. Typically, Council would review the development and rezoning proposal at the same time; however, Council could have only the rezone come before them with the development going before the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Howe disclosed that he met with members of the community, an attorney and representatives from Trinity Church on this project.
Councilmember Howe asked staff to define a single-story, the maximum height in a single-story district, and if there is an elevation differential that will come into play in this project. Principal Planner Caruso stated the maximum height allowed in a single-story combining district is 17 feet with one habitable floor. Staff has not viewed a grading plan to know whether the developer will need to grade up the site to a higher level. Grading to a higher level usually occurs in a flood plain; however, some new homes request to grade the site slightly to allow for crawl spaces, which can put the ground level on a new home higher than the adjacent lot.
Councilmember Howe asked since the grading plan at this site has not been reviewed, how will staff know the height differential between Trinity Church and the one-story Eichler neighborhood in order to ensure the site diagrams are correct. Principal Planner Caruso stated staff will not know this until they receive a grading plan; however, the maximum height is 17 feet and is measured from the top of the closest public street curb. The developer could request in their development plan to grade up; however, unless the need to grade up is a building code requirement for the site, Council could determine that they want the level of the home lowered.
Councilmember Chu disclosed that he has received numerous e-mails about this project, and had discussions with an attorney representing the neighbors (who are in favor of a single-story overlay).
Councilmember Chu confirmed that staff will list the maximum height of a fence under the conditions of approval.
Councilmember Chu inquired how many buildings adjoin the Trinity property and how many are two-story. Principal Planner Caruso stated there are three adjoining buildings that are two-story and one building on the Trinity property is two-story.
Councilmember Moylan disclosed he has had several phone calls from the applicants. Councilmember Moylan inquired as to staff’s rationale for recommending a buffer zone for the four properties along the northern edge of the property and not for the dozen or so buildings along the western edge. Principal Planner Caruso stated staff originally recommended that nothing be included in the buffer (that no single-story combining district be put on the Trinity Church site). The Planning Commission believed that they could impose a boundary to the single-story that did not necessarily follow tracks, roads, or natural boundaries, and at that point staff responded with a recommendation for a 100-foot boundary as opposed to the 180-foot boundary proposed by the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Moylan inquired why staff recommended a buffer on only one of the borders. This implies that buffering is needed on the north end but not the west end. Principal Planner Caruso stated staff was responding to the Planning Commission and that they did not feel buffering was needed on the west end.
Councilmember Hamilton inquired if the office complex was rezoned as residential, how would the overlay be affected. Principal Planner Caruso stated if it was rezoned to residential use, the property owner would have to approach Council to initiate a General Plan amendment first, and then a General Plan study with a subsequent rezoning would come to Council; during the course of that review. Council could establish a single-story overlay for that district as part of the General Plan amendment and rezoning.
Mayor Lee disclosed he met with the attorney representing the neighbors applying for the single-story overlay.
Public hearing opened 7:36 p.m.
Dr. Patrick Shea stated he and his wife are the applicants for this item, are property owners in this neighborhood, and are representatives for more than 80 families who are requesting a single-story overlay for their neighborhood. Shea showed slides and gave an oral presentation.
Shea turned the presentation over to Joe Conley who lives in the neighborhood. Conley continued with the slides and oral presentation.
Councilmember Howe asked staff when applications were received from Trinity Church and from the applicant (for the single-story overlay). Councilmember Howe stated that Conley mentioned during his presentation that the neighborhood petition was filed three months prior to Trinity Church’s latest development. Principal Planner Caruso stated the application for the single-story overlay was filed on November 8, 2006, and the preliminary review by the current developer (who has an agreement with Trinity Church) was filed March 22, 2007.
Councilmember Howe confirmed with Principal Planner Caruso that Council took action on Trinity Church to exempt it from the study prior to November 2006. Councilmember Hamilton clarified that Council took action in March 2006 to exempt Trinity Church from the list of sites to be studied for rezoning.
Tom Greene, representative from Trinity Church, stated the church should be exempt from the single-story combining district because the appropriate path to address the issues that have been raised is through the planning review process. Greene identified that the Planning Commission stated during their closing statements that it was important to them to find an equitable compromise on this issue.
Greene stated the Planning Commission did not have a lot of information in front of them when addressing this issue and were not able to address all the concerns. Since the Planning Commission meeting, Greene stated members of the church have spent time looking at the concerns of the neighborhood and have reached some conclusions. Greene stated the 180-foot boundary line proposed by the Planning Commission is three times more than what is needed to provide line-of-sight and light protection from the initial two-story homes. There is a direct financial impact (in excess of a million dollars) to the church for a restriction placed on the church property. Greene stated members of the church are in favor of a more reasonable 100-foot restricted area at the northern end of their property and they urge Council to support the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Moylan inquired if Greene felt the neighbors of Fremont Terrace do not have the same needs as the Eichler neighborhood. Greene stated the Fremont Terrace homes are very different than the Eichler homes and do not have the unique features of all glass backs where the sun has a direct impact.
Peter Spielvogel, representing a number of Fremont Terrace residents, spoke in favor of Trinity Church as a great neighbor. Speaking for residents whose homes border the western edge of the proposed project, a two-story structure close to the boundary fence will have an adverse affect on their light and privacy. Spielvogel requested Council approve a single-story buffer on the north and western sides of the development to allow the residents to retain some privacy and allow for some natural light.
Councilmember Howe inquired as to what type of fence separates Fremont Terrace from Trinity Church. Spielvogel stated currently there is a concrete wall about five and a half feet high. Councilmember Howe confirmed with Spielvogel that this wall has been adequate.
Councilmember Chu confirmed with Spielvogel that the distance between his home and the fence is approximately 12 feet. Councilmember Chu confirmed with Spielvogel that the surrounding homes have similar spacing and may vary slightly by a foot.
Councilmember Chu confirmed with Spielvogel that he lives in a single-story home, south of the two-story homes.
Avery Stafford, pastor of Worship Ministries for Trinity Church, spoke about the services of Trinity Church. Councilmember Moylan stated Stafford made a great argument as to why the neighborhood needs Trinity Church and asked why they are moving. Stafford stated it is the church’s desire to be in the Sunnyvale community and the only way they can do that is to use the resources that they have.
Paul Hastings, Sunnyvale resident and member of Trinity Church, stated the reason the church is moving is simply economics. Hastings stated that after the last Planning Commission meeting, he asked the architect to do some diagrams illustrating how moving the single-story overlay northward (revising it beyond the 180 foot boundary) would meet the privacy and shadow-casting issues brought up by the neighborhood. Hastings stated the church does not have a firm plan so they made a couple of assumptions. The two illustrations that were passed out to Council identify both a narrow and wide street.
Councilmember Hamilton clarified that the setback of 20 feet is from the curb. Principal Planner Caruso stated for a typical public street the 20 foot setback is from the property line (often 11 feet back from the curb); however, in this situation with private streets, a property line can come out to the street as there is not a need for a public right-of-way.
Councilmember Howe inquired if there will be an elevation difference between the church property and either the Eichler homes or the Fremont Terrace homes. Hastings stated he could not answer the question precisely but in walking the property, there is a difference in elevation which he does not anticipate would be in excess of one foot.
Councilmember Howe inquired if there is a difference in elevation between the church and the homes to the west. Hasting stated he did not believe there was any difference in elevation. Hastings stated there is a 45-foot setback on the Fremont Terrace side currently in the development plan.
Councilmember Hamilton inquired what plans have been made regarding the Oak tree on the church property. Hastings stated he does not know what the plan for the tree is because it has not specifically come up in the preliminary site plans.
Jim and Karen Asselin, members of Trinity Church and community members, stated the church does want to continue to be a vital resource to the community, but their current facilities are hindering the church from further outreach in the community. Jim Asselin stated the church was built in the 1950s and the facility is insufficient for the current congregation. Asselin continued to explain the constraints of the facility and the church’s ability to hold their programs.
Councilmember Chu disclosed that his residence is within 500 feet of two of the properties within the single-story overlay and therefore he will need to recuse himself from this issue.
Councilmember Chu left the dais.
Phillip Payne, a member of Trinity Church and Sunnyvale resident, stated Trinity Church recommends that Council adopt the Alternative 1.
Linda Olson, member of Trinity Church and Sunnyvale resident, stated her support for Alternative 1.
Allan Pratt stated he lives on Trenton Drive and his home backs up to Fremont Terrace. He stated he has floor to ceiling glass windows and has a single-story in back of him with a short setback. Pratt stated his view is of his neighbor’s roof and chimney and he does not have an issue with a short setback.
Pratt stated the church spoke about financial impacts and he wanted to mention that there is also a potential financial impact for the neighborhood. If the new homes impinge on their neighbor’s sunlight and privacy, that issue will impact the entire neighborhood and have a financial impact on all the homes.
Anna Scicinski requested that any infill building respect the neighbors and character of the area. Scicinski stated she wished to point out that the neighbors will be staying in the area and the church is leaving.
Matt Walterskirchen spoke in favor of the importance of preserving the single-story neighborhood.
Wilma Anderson stated she is in favor of protecting the Eichler homes with the single-story overlay. Anderson requested the Planning Department staff look at the differences in elevation and go by the Eichler design guidelines.
Jim Thayer, member of Trinity Church, spoke in favor of Alternative 1.
Bill Callahan spoke in favor of some type of single-story overlay for the Eichler neighborhood. He does question why there is no protection for the west side of the neighborhood.
Arthur Schwartz stated this issue needs to be addressed now as part of the single-story overlay and not be deferred until the actual building plans are presented.
Metin Ozen stated he personally measured the elevation difference between Trenton Drive and the proposed site. There was a seven-foot difference in elevation and this difference will cause the two-story buildings to have the appearance of a three-story structure. Ozen continued stating concerns over parking, traffic and lack of exits from the development. Ozen requested Council preserve the almost historic character of Trenton Drive.
Councilmember Howe inquired as to the exact location where the elevation was taken and Ozen stated he took it on Trenton Drive, 100 feet from the corner of what is being proposed. The second reading was taken at the corner of Fremont Avenue and Pome. Councilmember Howe confirmed Ozen identified a seven-foot difference and given the accuracy of his measuring tool, the actual difference could be anywhere from five to nine feet.
Jon Sanders, representing Trinity Church, stated although the church would prefer to go through the normal process and explore the various options, they have agreed to accept a modification of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to a 100-foot boundary. Sanders stated the church would address the Fremont Terrace homes through the Planning Commission; however, if Council wished to establish a buffer, the church would consider a setback of 40 feet.
Councilmember Swegles confirmed that Sanders was part of the first appeal that came before Council on this issue and is aware that Council issued the church a variance due to the fact they had an existing contract. Councilmember Swegles inquired if any member of the church thought to inform Council that the church had lost that contract and that the church was under a new contract. Sanders stated the Planning Commission was aware that the buyer had backed out and the church had a number of buyers waiting. Within four to five days, they received updated bids to continue the process. Sanders stated the church was under the impression that Council had approved the church for the variance, not solely because they had a buyer, but because they had been engaged in this process for nine months.
Councilmember Swegles stated in reviewing the minutes from March 21, 2006, regarding this issue, the understanding was that Council issued the variance due to Trinity Church having an existing contract.
Councilmember Hamilton inquired about the single-story overlay application that was received in November 2006 and wondered why it has taken so long for the single-story overlay to come before Council. Principal Planner Caruso stated scheduling and lack of available staff time created delays. Staff received a preliminary application from the developer of this site, but a formal application has not been received.
Councilmember Hamilton confirmed that staff informed Trinity Church that if they did proceed with a formal application, it would not be heard prior to this application being heard. Councilmember Hamilton confirmed that Trinity Church was aware that a single-story overlay application was pending.
Councilmember Hamilton asked Sanders when he heard about the single-story overlay and he stated the church was notified by the buyer of the church on November 30, 2006.
Councilmember Hamilton inquired if the church had identified a new property and Sanders stated they have identified a property, put earnest money down, and they are currently working with the City through the various processes. However, the church is open to locating elsewhere based on meeting the City’s criteria.
Councilmember Howe asked staff to explain the process, should Trinity Church be approved, to move forward. Principal Planner Caruso stated once zoning is established (stays the same or changes), then the applicant is able to design a project within the parameters of that zoning designation and they would make an application to staff. In approximately two months (assuming application is complete) it would go to the Planning Commission for a hearing. The project would not need to come before Council because there would not be any legislative action that would need to take place (as the zoning would already be designated). The Planning Commission would be the final authority on the architectural and site design unless the project was appealed, in which case it would come before Council.
Councilmember Howe talked with Principal Planner Caruso about the length of time it takes from zoning approval to a complete project that has gone through the Planning Commission. Principal Planner Caruso stated the length of time depends on how soon the applicant submits their application. A project could be done in as short a time as three months.
Jan Scicinski spoke about the positive aspects of his neighborhood, financial concerns, and how a future project on the church site will impact the neighborhood. Scicinski urged Council to support the single-story overlay and re-examine what the proper distance should be for the boundary.
Barton Hechtman, Land Use Attorney for Trinity Church, explained that he believed staff’s original report to the Planning Commission stated the overlay was not appropriate because the Trinity property was not part of the neighborhood as envisioned by the single-story overlay ordinance. Hechtman stated he believes this is a bigger policy issue because this ordinance has never been used on a land mass that is about to redevelop into its own neighborhood. Previously, the criteria used for the ordinance was whether there was continuity of structure size and architectural style. This criteria does not work in this situation as the Fremont Terrace homes, the Eichler neighborhood and the Trinity Church project have different architectural styles and structural size.
Councilmember Moylan explained that at the Bobolink neighborhood, the largest single piece of property was trying to redevelop and the neighbors voted to make the area a single-story overlay district. Councilmember Moylan inquired as to why the Trinity Church property would not be the same circumstance. Hechtman stated the Bobolink parcel is part of the subdivision, does not have its own streets, and is not able to function as its own neighborhood. Under these circumstances, the overlay is appropriate.
Councilmember Moylan stated the overlay district has the exact and implicit intention of protecting a predominantly single-story neighborhood from future development that would be two-story. Councilmember Moylan stated he did not understand Hechtman’s argument against setting precedence with approving a single-story overlay, when it appears that this project fits within the spirit of previous projects.
Hechtman stated the staff recommendation in the past has been to use the criteria of continuity of structure size and architectural style. Although, this criterion is not listed in the ordinance, Hechtman stated he believes if Council follows this structure it will be helpful in order to distinguish between overlay applications that will come forward in the future.
Councilmember Hamilton stated this is Council’s opportunity to weigh in and make policy about what they want to see developed. Councilmember Hamilton stated she disagrees with Hechtman. Councilmember Hamilton stated she views Council’s job as protecting the quality of life in the City.
Tom Greene of Trinity Church submitted closing statements. He stated the survey drawings on file at the City show the elevation difference of approximately 1 foot between Eichler and Trinity Church. Greene requested Council support of Alternative 1 as listed in the staff report.
Councilmember Howe inquired as to the length of setback to the property line for a home with this zoning and Principal Planner Caruso stated it is likely that a PD overlay would be requested, but the typical setback required is a 20-foot rear or front yard setback. The developer could ask for deviations as part of the PD request. Councilmember Howe confirmed that Council could provide direction, but since an application for the property does not exist, Council could not take any action.
Councilmember Howe asked Greene what he would accept for a setback from the property line to the building that will be built. Greene stated they could support a 40-foot corridor between the property line and the house.
Councilmember Howe confirmed with staff that the width of the streets is typically 24 feet with a little bit of landscaping between the street and the wall.
Councilmember Howe confirmed that a typical front yard setback under the PD overlay would be 20 feet and it would be likely the developer would request a reduced front yard set back; however, any reduction in setback would be discretionary on the part of the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Howe inquired why Council could not require a buffer zone. Principal Planner Caruso stated Council can establish a single-story buffer, but that will not establish setbacks.
Dr. Shea gave a concluding presentation in support of Alternative 1.
Public hearing closed 9:30 p.m.
Councilmember Howe asked City Attorney David Kahn if Council could legally make a motion that stated the project must receive a building permit within two years or the entire area would become a single-story overlay. City Attorney Kahn stated he would need to look into this question further, but his initial reaction is that he does not believe Council could put a time limit on the project at this point.
Councilmember Hamilton confirmed that Council is not able to dictate to the developer what they can build and where they can build it.
City Manager Amy Chan cautioned against commenting on a project that is not before Council. Councilmember Hamilton confirmed with City Manager Chan that Council is not able to dictate terms of the project at any point in the process.
Director of Community Development Robert Paternoster stated that Council could set direction for staff and then, if Council felt that was not done, they could appeal the Planning Commission decision themselves, at which time the project would come before Council. Council could set direction for staff of what staff should look for when reviewing a project that comes into the City.
MOTION: Councilmember Howe moved and Councilmember Moylan seconded to approve Alternative 1: Council approves the rezoning to apply the single-story combining district with a 100-foot single-story buffer on the Trinity Church site, exempting the remainder of the property
with
- addition of a 45-foot single-story buffer on the west side of the property;
- direct staff to consider the differential in elevations at Eichler and Fremont Terrace for any future project; and
- direct staff that privacy issues shall be considered for any windows that are in a second-story along the Fremont Terrace side and that any change to the windows cannot be done without a public hearing.
Councilmember Hamilton offered a friendly amendment to increase the buffer to 180 feet.
Councilmember Howe did not accept the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Hamilton stated her concerns over 100-foot buffer and explained her reasons for a larger buffer of 180 feet. She will not support the motion due to the reduced buffer.
Vice Mayor Spitaleri disclosed he met with the attorney for the homeowners group. Vice Mayor Spitaleri stated he supports Alternative 1.
Councilmember Swegles disclosed that he spoke to someone from Trinity Church over the phone.
City Clerk Katherine Bradshaw Chappelear read the title of the ordinance into the record.
VOTE: 5-1 (Councilmember Hamilton dissented and Councilmember Chu recused)
Mayor Lee called for a recess at 9:52 p.m.
Mayor Lee reconvened the meeting at 10 p.m.
Councilmember Chu returned to the dais.
|