Study Session A: 18771 E Homestead Road
The developer is planning to subdivide a 0.8-acre site near the Apple campus into five lots for single-family homes. The new homes will be arranged around a shared driveway off of Homestead Road. Three of the houses adjacent to Eichlers on Lorne Way will be single-story, in a modern style evocative of Eichler design. The homes adjacent to Homestead will be two-story homes.
Planning Commissioners were concerned with the quality of the facade facing Homestead, and the variety among the facades within the site. Neighbor Craig Molito shared a concern that residents on Lorne Way wanted to remain a cul-de-sac, and avoid the prospect of reduced safety due to cut-through traffic from Homestead. The current plans call for no access to the site via Lorne Way.
Study Session B: Consideration of Usable Open Space in Required Front Yards
City Staff are researching whether the shared front yard space in residential complexes can be counted toward their requirement for usable open space. Deviations have been granted previously for some smaller townhouse developments on corner lots, which had a lot of frontage. Planning Commissioners expressed a preference for having a flexible policy, especially for smaller developments on corner lots, but not creating an excuse for developers to swallow up usable open space at the rear of the property.
Community Outreach meetings on this topic will be held at the West Conference Room in City Hall on Thursday, August 2 at 10am, and Monday, August 6 at 6pm.
Agenda Item 2: 1441 Norman Drive
This project is to demolish a one-story home and build a two-story house. The Planning Commission needed to review this project because the floor area exceeds 3,600 square feet and the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) exceeds 45%.
The proposed house is 6 bedrooms, including an Accessory Dwelling Unit. The high quality of the design was praised by Planning Commissioners, but there was concern expressed that the Floor Area Ratio of 59% was out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood.
The owner, Nirmal Sharma, explained that due to the cost of land, it is important to build as much house as possible, so that he may provide a home for his family, multiple sets of grandparents, and the children, and that living arrangements of this nature are intuitive to families from his native India. City staff opined that while the house was large for the neighborhood, that concern was compensated for by superior design.
Voting 5-2, the Planning Commission denied the project, with instructions to staff to work with the applicant to redesign the home with a goal of around 50% FAR, including the ADU.
Agenda Item 3: 863 San Pablo Ave
This project is to add a 498 square foot addition to the second story of a two-story home. The Planning Commission needed to review this project because the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) exceeds 45%.
Due to the timing of this home expansion relative to previous home expansions, there was a concern as to whether the timing and scale of this home expansion was made to avoid a Fire Code requirement to add sprinklers to the house. The homeowner, Mr. Jagait, explained that the phased development of the house was due to construction costs, balanced with the changing needs of his growing family and that if required to do so, he would be willing to add sprinklers. City staff cautioned that sprinkler requirements were outside the authority of the Planning Commission.
Planning Commissioners were pleased with the design of the extension, and that the expansion would make the front of the house appear more balanced. The plan was approved unanimously, with amendments requiring matching window treatments on the upper and lower floors, that the Fire Code would be met, and that Mr. Jagait was encouraged to install sprinklers.
Agenda Item 4: 982 Yorktown Drive
This project is to demolish a one-story home and build a two-story house, with an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit. The Planning Commission needed to review this project because the floor area exceeds 3,600 square feet.
Spencer Tsai explained that his family has lived in the existing house on the corner for many years and that he had long yearned for a second story view. Planning Commissioners expressed concern with the security of the sliding glass door on the ADU. Due to the small size of the ADU, a sliding door was preferred over an inward-opening door. It was also noted that due to the shape of the lot, the sliding door was facing toward the side of the property, and less visible from the street. There was some confusion over a fifth parking space jutting off the side of the driveway in front of the house, which had at one point been added to accommodate the ADU, but later removed when it was noted that the ADU does not require additional parking.
An additional concern was noted that the layout of the house, which includes an upper floor and a basement, made it amenable to being subdivided into multiple unpermitted accessory-type units. Mr. Tsai explained that the layout was intended to provide adult members of the extended family some space, including a man cave in the basement.
The Planning Commission approved the project unanimously, with amendments that staff would exercise discretion in determining that the ADU door was sufficiently secure and that if desired, a fifth parking spot could be added by widening the driveway with a semi-permeable material.
Agenda Item 5: Rezone Two Lots from R-1 to R-0
The project requests that two lots be rezoned from R-1 to R-0. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council.
In Sunnyvale, R-1 and R-0 are both low-density residential zones which permit 7 units per acre. A primary difference is that the minimum lot size for R-1 is 8,000 square feet, while the minimum lot size for R-0 is 6,000 square feet. The R-1 designation provides a “large lot” feel for neighborhoods.
The applicant, Cyrus Fakhari, who lives at 1358 Hampton Drive, was concerned at plans to rebuild the neighboring 932 Eleanor Way to include a two-story Accessory Dwelling Unit in the rear, which would have a good view of surrounding neighbors. He purchased the lot to avoid this outcome. Mr. Fakhari prefers the “small home” feel characteristic of Hampton Drive. He explained his concern that the “large lot” R-1 designation had, due to economic circumstances described by the meeting’s previous applicants, become a palette for oversized homes that were inconsistent with the original intentions of R-1 zoning. Mr. Fakhari’s ambition with the proposed zoning change was to reconfigure the two large lots into three smaller lots, with modest-sized homes on each lot, which would be consistent with many of the surrounding houses.
Mary Sullivan and Henry Alexander III spoke in opposition to the zoning change, citing concerns with neighborhood character, population density, and parking. Mr. Fakhari responded that the immediate area had plentiful street parking and that three smaller homes would collectively be required to provide more off-street parking than two larger homes.
The Planning Commission, citing concerns with spot zoning, neighborhood character, neighborhood opposition, and the city’s policy to maintain different zoning designations to facilitate different housing types, voted 6-1 to reject the proposed zoning change. This recommendation will be considered by the City Council, which has final authority on zoning changes.