2003-0227 - Application for a Design Review to allow a first and second story addition to an existing one-story house for a total of 3,454 square feet for a total FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 62.6% where 45% is allowed without Planning Commission review. The property is located at 934 Primrose Avenue in an R-0 (Low-Density Residential) Zoning District. (APN: 213-26-020) EW (continued from 05/12/03)

Kelly Diekmann, Project Planner, presented the staff report. He pointed out corrections to the agenda noting that the total square feet is 3,299 and the Floor Area Ratio is at 63%. He also corrected information on the Project Data Table that the lot width should be 57 feet. Staff reported that there are no Variances necessary for this application. He provided a summary of the application highlighting the neighborhood character, the architecture, mass and bulk. He stated that staff had difficulty with the competing elements being that there are no unifying elements and that the front façade does not address the proposed FAR. He also noted that there is a lack of detailing on the side façade with the absence of the side windows to avoid privacy impact. He also stated there is concern with the neighborhood compatibility. He also noted that the neighborhood has no notable character and design. He further noted that the applicant made great efforts to meet the setbacks but the second story addition is quite large and staff was unable to find balance. Staff was unable to make the required Finding and recommended denial of the Design Review.

Comm. Moylan asked staff to clarify staff objections to the proposed roof. Staff responded that the neighborhood has simple roofs and clarified the complexity of the proposed roof and the competing integration of the design.

Comm. Moylan commented that the proposed design appears to meet 3.1.E Single Family Design Technique and that it was not mentioned in the staff report. Staff responded that there is no distinct entry noting the fence in front of the entryway.

Comm. Moylan further asked staff what the applicant could have done to gain staff support. Staff responded that the conditions of approval would address the concerns if the application is approved. Staff noted, however, that staff did not dictate specific design solution to the applicant.

Vice Chair Babcock asked staff to clarify Condition of Approval #3 and whether it meant removal of the dormers on the second floor. Staff responded that the condition would address simplifying and mitigating the bulk. Staff suggested that the condition could be changed to state "shall consider removing the dormer windows."

Vice Chair Babcock commented that the removal of the dormer would be make the interior dark. Staff responded that because of the internal design, there are constraints in achieving a palatable design.

Vice Chair Babcock noted a typographical error on Condition of Approval #4 to change "they" to "that".

Vice Chair Babcock asked staff if it is possible to expand the porch to achieve a continuous flight going up. Staff responded that it would be difficult.

Comm. Chu asked staff to further clarify the corrections made to the Project Data Table. Staff responded that the overall gross floor area should be 3,299 square feet and the lot width should be 59 feet where 57 feet is required. Staff recalculated and noted that the FAR is 59.8%.

Chair Simons asked staff to clarify the recommendation "denial without prejudice." Staff responded that this is to reflect that a new application could be submitted at anytime.

Mitch Sewell, applicant/owner, presented a photograph of his house, some photographs of the surrounding neighborhood while addressing the required Findings. He commented that the dominating roof features and complexity are subjective findings. He noted that the staff report presented positive comments. He noted that the variety of roof forms, various window treatments and window planes should be considered as positive elements. He also addressed the concerns expressed by staff about the side façade which he stated was never brought up including the clerestory window and arch suggestions. He commented that the comments are purely subjective. He further noted that neighborhood compatibility is not an issue as there are multitude designs and that diversity is the dominant feature of the neighborhood. Furthermore, he addressed the concerns about the scale and bulk stating that his application is well-designed and should be judged by its own merits supporting the mass and that it is not out-of-scale or bulky. He also addressed the recommendation to remove the dormer and to replace with clerestory windows and shared roof would have an opposite effect. He stated that he is opposed to clerestory windows on the side of the house, however, he is willing to work on the features that would not add heat to the house. He noted that he is willing use Dutch gable and a desire to keep the original design of the house. He concluded that the Findings are subjective and have no merits.

Eric Sewells, son of the applicant, stated that he wants to have a two-story house. He further stated that the plans look great and hopes that the Commission would allow them to build their house.

Rey McFarlan, designer, stated that the neighborhood is predominantly ranch style house that is ready for transition. He noted that the neighborhood is evolving and the addition would move with the evolution and change of Sunnyvale. He stated that the mass is set in a balanced form. He highlighted the architectural design, which reduces shadowing and privacy impacts.

Comm. Moylan asked Mr. McFarlan if he has seen the Single Family Design Techniques. Mr. McFarlan responded that he has not seen the Single Family Design Techniques.

Chris Morrison, neighbor, stated that he is most concerned with the property maintenance. He noted some houses that have gone through remodeling and failed to maintain their properties and look terrible. He stated that he welcomes changes, new roofs and new additions and that he has no concerns with the proposed design.

Frank Zallzinger, neighbor, supported the applicant's efforts with the design. He stated that the house looks great. It is large but won’t look any larger that anything else in the neighborhood. He stated that the house would add value to their property.

Comm. Satterlee asked staff about the current practice about sharing the design techniques with the applicants. Ms. Ryan responded that the standard practice is to make aware an applicant of the tools early in the process and noted that the guidelines was made available at a meeting. She stated that the brochure is available for purchase and a reference copy is provided.

Comm. Lee asked staff about the lot coverage and the actual floor area noted the higher number in the staff report. Staff responded that the math is correct to be 59.8%. Ms. Ryan added that the threshold for Planning Commission review was 60% FAR and it was lowered to 45% FAR. She added that the vaulted ceiling makes the house appear to be of a higher FAR.

Vice Chair Babcock concurred with staff and the applicant that there is no true one design in the neighborhood. However, she likes the diversity without the appearance of a cookie cutter design. She stated that the application is at the -upper edge sizewise and could be compatible with the neighborhood as long as it meets the setback requirements. She added that with some design tweeking with staff review and approval it would work.

Comm. Satterlee did not support the motion. She noted that the photographs presented clearly demonstrate that the Single Family Design Techniques is a tool created to avoid this kind of design. She stated that the design does not meet the guidelines on her opinion. She noted that clearly the applicant wants to have a very nice house but it would not be wise to suggest a design during a public hearing but rather to ask for a redesign and allow the applicant to review the Single Family Design Techniques Guidelines to make the changes. She concluded that the complexity makes it difficult to make changes at a public hearing.

omm. Moylan concurred with Comm. Satterlee and that the presentation of the photographs clearly shows that need for the Single Family Design Techniques. He stated that it is unfortunate that the applicant did not get a copy of the Guidelines. In regards to compatibility with the neighborhood, he finds the applicant's arguments acceptable and the design is not bad along with reducing the appearance of bulk and mass. He asked staff if there is any room for tweeking and staff responded no. He stated that he prefers to approve the application as submitted without modification.

Comm. Chu stated that during his site visit, he noticed the application would be the best looking house in the neighborhood. He stated that the proposed second story looks a little busier than he prefers. He initially had questions about the dormers on the left side of house and whether they are necessary. However, after discussions, he understands that the dormers were designed for the library loft. He supported the motion although he would have preferred to see a simpler design.

Comm. Lee supported the motion. He noted that the design is compatible with the diverse neighborhood and the house would be a very nice addition. He also noted that he finds it important to get the support of the neighbors and that in this application, there is a strong support by the neighbors. He noted that the Single Family Design Techniques are meant to be used as design guidelines and not as requirements. However, he urged the applicant to work with staff on the details. He concluded that the Floor Area Ratio is only one type of measurement and that a good design makes it look smaller.

Chair Simons acknowledged the applicant's frustration with the process and apologized for the inconvenience and confusion. He stated that it is great to have the support of the neighborhood and that it is important to communicate with the community. He stated that he was supportive of the original motion and the project with the tweeking of the dormer would make the house more appealing.