Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project 260525 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heritage commission approves permit for four townhomes while preserving 1930 bungalow at 434 Crescent Avenue
Summary
The Heritage Preservation Commission voted 5–0 to approve a resource‑alteration permit for project 260525 at 434 Crescent Avenue that retains a 1930 craftsman bungalow and adds four three‑story townhomes at the rear; staff recommended approval subject to findings and conditions and applicants incorporated neighbor design adjustments.
The Sunnyvale Heritage Preservation Commission voted unanimously July 1 to approve a resource‑alteration permit for project 260525, a proposal to retain a 1930 craftsman bungalow at 434 Crescent Avenue and construct four new three‑story townhomes behind it.
"Staff recommends approving the resource alteration permit based on the findings and attachment to and subject to the conditions of approval," planner Margaret Neto told the commission during her staff report. Neto said the site is zoned R‑3 (medium density), the project meets parking and objective design standards, and the application includes relocating one protected tree to the front of the lot.
Applicant representatives described the four attached townhomes as three‑story units with an average of about 2,100 square feet per unit, 12 total parking spaces (including two serving the historic residence), and at least one accessible unit. Architect Gordon Wong described materials chosen to respect the historic bungalow while allowing differentiation: long‑lasting Hardie siding and true‑divided‑light windows on the new units, recessed balconies to reduce sightlines, and roof modifications following neighbor input. The applicant noted solar panels are shown on the roof in the project renders.
Commissioners asked about accessibility, neighbor outreach, and design differentiation; the applicants said they reduced roof height, inset balconies, and added landscape buffers after meetings with surrounding property owners.
After a closing statement from the applicants, a commissioner moved to approve "alternative one" — the staff‑recommended findings and conditions — the motion was seconded and a roll call vote recorded five yes votes (Commissioners Ben Palman, Fan, Sair, Garrett and McManis). The motion passed with Commissioners Ral and Vice Chair Sharma absent.
What happens next: Neto said the planning commission will review the site development permit and tentative map later in the month. The approved resource‑alteration permit authorizes the modifications to the historic resource and the construction described, subject to the conditions adopted by the commission.
Why it matters: The decision balances a preservation outcome — retaining the 1930 bungalow with like‑for‑like treatment of its historic features — and adding four infill townhomes intended to match neighborhood scale and provide additional housing supply.
