HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-21 City Council (21)City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
DATE:July 21, 1997 CMR:337:97
SUBJECT:APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF
HOME IMPROVEMENT EXCEPTION 97-HIE-7 AT 1022
WEBSTER STREET, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
REQUEST
This report addresses an appeal of a Zoning Administrator decision, which approved a Home
Improvement Exception (HIE) for a In:st- and second-story addition to an existing single-
family house on a substandard lot with the following exceptions: 1) a total height of 22 feet,
to match the existing height, where 17 feet and one habitable floor is the maximum ordinarily
allowed; 2) an 8-foot clearance for a driveway to future covered parking where 10-foot
clearance is otherwise required; and 3) provision of two uncovered parking spaces where’one
covered and-one covered and one uncovered are otherwise required in an R-1 zoning district.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the appeal and
uphold the Zoning Administrator approval, in accordance with the proposed Findings and
Conditions (see Attachments 1 and 2, respectively). These Findings and Conditions modify
the original Zoning Administrator approval in that they add the requirement to provide a
covered, on-site parking space within 24 months of finishing the construction of the addition.
POLICY IMPLICATION~_ ’
There are two existing City policies that are relevant to this application. The first is Policy
2 in the Urban Design Element of the existing Comprehensive Plan. It states that the City
should: "Encourage private preservation of buildings which have historic or architectural
merit or both." Program 6 of this Policy further states: "Develop incentives for the retention
and rehabilitation of houses with architectural or historic merit in all zones". The approval
of an HIE to allow a first- and second-story addition, which preserves the historic merit of
CMR:33~:97 Page 1 of 5
this contributing structure as determined by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and results
in a house that meets contemporary needs, is an incentive to historic preservation.
The second policy is Policy 1 in the Housing Element of the existing Comprehensive Plan.
It states that the City should: "Maintain the general low-density character of existing single-
family areas." This policy is further expressed as a set of R-1 design guidelines for single-
family houses. Page 14 of the Single-Family Res]dential Design Guidelines (Guidelines)
states that if there is a distinct style to the house, an addition should follow and harmonize
with that style. The Guidelines further state that the materials used for an addition should
blend with the materials used on the existing house and that the roof slope of an addition
should match the slope of the existing roof. The proposed additional square footage for the
subject historic house complies with Policy 1 and the Guidelines in that it does not
substantially alter the character of the existing single-family residence. The height of the
second-floor addition will maintain the height of the existing partial second-floor and will
have the same roof slope as the existing house. The wood siding on the original house will
be carded through onto the addition and the new square footage will be consistent with the
small scale of the original structure.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The subject site is a flat, substandard, rectangularly shaped parcel of 4,500 square feet (45
feet wide by 100 feet deep). It is developed with a single-family house and detached garage,
and has been found by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) to have "contributing" status
under the Interim Historic Regulations. The attached Planning Commission staff report
provides additional detail regarding site history, general information and the Historic Merit
Screening (see Attachment 3 and its attachments).
The applicant applied for an HIE in April 1997. No one requested a public hearing for the
project, as provided in Section 18.90.025 of the Municipal Code, so the Zoning
Administrator approved the HIE on May 15, 1997. Prior to the Zoning Administrator
approval, the property owner applied for Compatibility Review under the Interim Historic
Regulations and received initial Compatibility Review approval on May 9, 1997, with several
minor details regarding windows to retum to the City of Palo Alto Preservation Architect for
fmal review and approval (see Attachment 3 and its attachments for a complete discussion
of the Compatibility Review).
The Zoning Administrator found that the three required findings needed for HIE approval
could be made. Finding 1, which states that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions must exist on the site, could be made because of the substandard lot size (4,500
square feet rather than the 6,000 square foot minimum required in the R-1 zone) and the
"Contributing Structure" status approved for the house by the HRB, according to the "Interim
Historic Regulations." Finding 2, which states that the exception is needed to preserve an
CMR:33~:97 Page 2 of 5
architectural style or neighborhood character, could be made because the addition would be
consistent with the architectural style and simplicity of the original house, and the height of
the second-floor addition would match the height of the existing partial second-floor. The
massing of the second-story addition would be consistent with the small scale of the original
house and the two uncovered spaces at the back of the site would allow room for a future
one-car covered space, which is a traditional element of houses built during the early 20th
century. Finding 3, which states that the exceptiofi will not be detrimental or injurious to
property in the vicinity, could also be made because no daylight plane or setback intrusions,
which might reduce privacy on neighboring properties, were being proposed. Dormers were
designed to be approximately half the size of a typical dormer and included small windows
at approximately six feet above floor height, which would reduce the visibility into
neighboring yards. In addition, screen planting would be provided along the north and west
property lines, which would further protect the privacy of neighboring properties (see
Attachment 3 and its attachments for a complete discussion of the Zoning Administrator’s
decision).
A neighbor on the north side of the subject site appealed the Zoning Administrator’s decision
on May 23, 1997, primarily based on an objection to. a full second-story at 22 feet in height.
The appellant also states that she has relied on the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance to prevent the type of addition being proposed on the subject site (see Attachment
3, and its attachments for a full discussion of the appellant’s rationale and staff response).
Planning Commission Action :
The Planning Commission considered the appeal at a public hearing on June 25, 1997: The
Commission recommended denying the appeal and upholding the Zoning Administrator’s
approval of the HIE application (see Attachment 4 - Planning Commission minutes, dated
June 25, 1997). The Planning Commission agreed that the three findings could be made and
that the project would be consistent with goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan and
that provisions in the Zoning Ordinance allow for minor exceptions to the standard
regulations when such findings can be made.
The Planning Commission recommended minor modifications to Findings 2 and 3 and a new
condition (number 7), which would require the provision of one on-site covered parking
space within 24 months of completion of the approved addition. The Commission
recommended these char~.ges because City Attorney and Planning Division staff advised at
the hearing that the HIE process can only be used to grant minor exceptions to site
development requirements, according to Section 18.90.010(e), and cannot be used to vary
parking requirements. A variance would be needed to grant approval of two uncovered
spaces instead of one covered and one uncovered space. The Commission therefore required
the provision of one covered.space within 24 months of completion of the approved addition
in order to give the applicant time to either provide the covered parking or apply for a
CMR:33~:97 Page 3 of 5
variance to waive the covered parking requirement. The modifications recommended by the
Planning Commission are included in Attachments 1 and 2 of this staffreport and are shown
in italics.
Applicant Response to Planning Commission Modifications
The applicant has stated that she does not object tq the modifications recommended by the
Commission, but that if she chooses to apply for the variance to the covered parking
requirement, she would like the application fees waived (see Attachment 5, letter from C.
Rossner). The applicant states that the staff incorrectly processed her application and that
she should not have to pay additional fees for that mistake. The City Council is the only body
that can waive fees, so her request is appropriately considered as part of the current City
Council action.
Planning staff would not, however, recommend approval of a fee waiver. The future
processing of a variance will require staff analysis and public hearing preparation, and the
$1,125 fee is used to at least partially cover the cost of that work. The work required to
process a variance would be required whether the variance was processed concurrently with
the HIE request or at some later date. If staff had required the applicant to apply for a
variance to the covered parking requirement concurrently with the HIE request, the fees
would not have been waived. Fees would have been paid for both the HIE and variance
applications. Processing a variance application with the HIE application could have resulted
in the applicant saving time, but would still have required an application fee. By giving the
applicant 24 months from completion of the approved addition to construct the covered
parking (or apply for a variance to the requirement), the Planning Commission has removed
the possibility of the applicant losing any time in completing the project. Staff does not
believe that there is a sound rationale for waiving any future variance application fees.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council can take one of the following actions:
Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator approval of 97-HIE-7, as
revised by the Planning Commission.
o Deny the appeal and modify the approval by imposing any conditions or restrictions
deemed necessa.q¢ to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience.
3.Approve the appeal, which would result in the denial of 97-HIE-7.
In order to approve alternative 3, the City Council will need to make denial findings for the
HIE application.
CMR:33~.’97 Page 4 of 5
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City regarding any of the actions on the appeal.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A minor modification to an existing structure is a Category 1 exemption under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
City Council action is final.
ATTACHMENTS
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Proposed Findings for Approval of 97-HIE-7
Proposed Conditions of Approval for 97-HIE-7
Planning Commission staff report (with six attachments)
Planning Commission minutes, dated June 25, 1997
Letter from C. Rossner
Plans (City Council Members only)
PREPARED BY: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: E~LY, ~.
E LY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CC:Carina Rotsztain and Marc Rossner, 1022 Webster Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Mary Connors, 574 Addison Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Cindy and Ray Inglin, 1026 Webster Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Lawrence Sosman, 548 Addison Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Stephen Player, 2600 E1 Camino Real, #410, Palo Alto, CA 94306
CMR:33~:97 Page 5 of 5
Attachment I
Proposed Findings of Approval for 97-HIE-7 at 1022 Webster Street
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same
district in that the site is substandard in terms of size and width (4,500 square
feet rather than the 6,000 square foot minimum required in the R-1 Zoning
district and 45 feet in width rather than the 50 foot minimum required to be
standard in the zoning category). In addition, the Historic Resources Board
(HRB) determined that the existing house is a "Contributing Structure"
according to the "Interim Historic Regulations". The size of the lot coupled
with the placement and historic nature of the existing house limit the
potential locations for additional square footage;
The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing
architectural style or neighborhood character, which would not otherwise be
accomplished through the. strict application of this chapter in that the
proposed modifications are consistent with the architectural style and
simplicity of the original structure. The height of the second-floor addition
will match the height of the e.xisting partial second-floor and will maintain
the "widows walk" over the original pprtion of the house. The massing of the
second-story addition is consistent with the small scale of the original
structure and the provision of one on-site covered parking space within 24
months of completion of the approved addition, will add
parkL’~ ~pacc, -;~.~c~ ]:, a traditional element of houses built during the early
20th century.
In addition, the project has been found to be in substantial compliance with
the Compatibility Review Standards for the Interim Historic Program. As
conditioned below, this HIE will be valid and time-lines for obtaining
building permits shall begin once the project complies with the remaining
details of the Compatibility Review (see Condition 2 below); and
The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity in that the project does not include
daylight plane intrusions or floor area overages. Dormers have been reduced
to approximately half the size of a typical dormer and include small windows
at approximately six feet above floor height. The use of these dormers
S :\plan\pladiv\pc\webtrmd2.ap June 25, 1997
Page 1
reduces the visibility into neighboring yards and retains the privacy of these
yards. The project as conditioned below, will also provide additional screen
planting on the site along the north and west property lines (see Condition 3
below), which will further protect the privacy on neighboring properties. The
parking lay-out includes two uncovered off-street parking spaces and will
ide pr~-’:~^~ "- ........ :"" ~’ ...... ~’ "~- ........... ~ pac
beeome-a covered space within 24 months of completion of the approved
addition ............
S :\plan\pladiv\pc\webfind2.ap June 25, 1997
Page 2
Attachment 2
7.
Proposed Conditions for 97-HIE-7 at 1022 Webster Street.
The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with plans received April
28, 1997, on file in the office of the City of Palo Alto Planning Division.
Approval of this HIE application shall be considered valid and time-lines for
obtaining building permits shall begin once the City of Palo Alto Preservation
Architect for the Interim Historic Program determines that the project complies with
the Compatibility Review Standards for Contributing Structures ( see File No. 97-
HRB-98).
Screen landscaping, including trees and shrubs, shall be planted and maintained
along the north and west property lines. Plant material shall be the choice of the
property owner.
The two trees in the public right-of-way and any private trees to be retained on site
shall be protected during construction of the project as stated in the associated
Compatibility Review (see Sections 1.D and 1.E - Street Trees and Public Right of
Way and Landscaping, respectively, in file 97-HRB-98).
Caution shall be used during demolition of the existing garage on-site to prevent
damage to existing oaks on the adjacent property to the west of the site (see Section
1.E - Landscaping - in the associated Compatibility Review, file 97-HRB-98).
All construction shall comply with the City of Palo Alto Noise standards as stated in
Chapter 9.10, Noise, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Specifically, as stated in these
standards, demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the following
hours: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday and holidays. All other applicable
sections of Chapter 9.10 also apply to this project.
One covered on-site parking space shall be provided within 24 months of the
completion of the approved addition.
S :\plan\pladiv\pe\webeond2.ap June 25, 1997
Page 1
Attachment 3
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA DATE: June 25, 1997
SUBJECT:Appeal of Zoning Administrator approval of Home Improvement
Exception 97-HIE-7 at 1022 Webster Street, Palo Alto, California
Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator approval of a Home Improvement
¯ Exception (HIE) application for a first and second-story addition to an e.xisting single-
family house on a substandard lot with the following exceptions: 1) a total height of 22
feet, to match existing, where 17 feet and one habitable floor is the maximum ordinarily
allowed; 2) an 8-foot clearance for a driveway to future covered parking where 10-foot
clearance is otherwise required; and 3) provision of two uncovered parking spaces where
one covered and one uncovered space are otherwise required in an R-1 zoning district, in
accordance With the proposed Findings and Conditions (see Attactmaents 1 and 2,
respectively):
~ATION
The subject site is a flat, substandard rectangularly shaped parcel of 4,500 square feet (45
feet wide by 100 feet deep). It is developed with a single-family house and detached
garage, and has been found by theHistoric Resources Board (HRB) to have "contributing"
status under the Interim Historic Regulations. The site is a mid-block parcel on the west
side of Webster Street. It is flanked on the north and south sides by single-family houses,
on the west side by a low-rise (one-story) apartment complex and on the east side, across
Webster Street, by an elementary school. There are no easements or encumbrances on the
S:\Plan\Pladiv\pcsr\1022Webs.sr June 25, 1997
Page 1
property that reduce its usable square footage.
Project Description
The applicant applied for an HIE on April 16, 1997 for a first and second-story addition
on a substandard lot with the following exceptions: 1) total height of 22 feet, to match the
existing roof h~ight, where 17 feet and one habitable floor is the maximum allowed; 2) an
8-foot clearance for a driveway to future covered parking where 10-foot clearance is
otherwise required; 3) provision of two uncovered parking spaces where one covered and
one uncovered space are otherwise required (see Attachment 3, Application Materials).
Optional Public Hearing
The HIE process allows for an "Optional" public hearing (Section 18.90.025). If no one
requests a public hearing, the Zoning Administration makes her decision without receipt
of public comment. The optional hearing, request period was advertised from April 28,
1997 to May 12, 1997. No one requested a Zoning Administrator public hearing so one
was not held.
~ Merit Screenirlg
The applicant applied for an Historic Merit Evaluation on January 21, 1997. On February
20, 1997, the Historic Resources Board found the site to a have "Contributing" status
according to the Interim Historic Program.
On April 16, 1997, the applicant applied f6r a compatibility review under the Interim
Historic Regulations. There was some disagreement between the applicant and the
Preservation Architect as to whether the project would demolish 50% or more of the
exterior wails and whether or not Compatibility Review was necessary. Most of this
disagreement resulted from differing calculations regarding the percentage of the exterior
walls that would be demolished. The applicant presented calculations indicating that just
less than 50% Of the exterior would be demolished. The Preservation Architect calculated
that more than 50% would be demolished when the cutting of studs was factored into the
calculation. The applicant and staff concluded that the appropriate Way to address the issue
would be for the applicant to apply for Compatibility Review. Complying with the
Compatibility Review Standards at this point in the review process would reduce the
possibility of needing additional review during the building permit review process to
determine impacts on the historic structure. Initial approval of the Compatibility Review
was obtained on May 9, 1997 from the City of Palo Alto’s Preservation Architect for the
Interim Historic Program. The Preservation Architect noted in her written evaluation that
S:\Plan\Pladiv\pcsr\1022Webs.sr June 25, 1997
Page 2
several minor details regarding window detailing needed to return to her for final review
and approval (see Attachment 4 - Memorandum to Carina Rotzstain and Mark Rossner
from Barbara Judy, dated May 9, 1997).
Z,9.Ilillg~dmi~strator Approval
The HIE approval was granted on May 15, 1997, with six conditions, one of which stated
that the HIE approval would be valid and time lines for obtaining building permits would
begin when the Preservation Architect determines that the project satisfactorily complies
with all aspects of the Compatibility Standards (see Attachment 5 - ZoningAdministrator
decision for 97-HIE-7 - dated May 15, 1997).
Neighbor Appeal
A neighbor on the north side of the subject site appealed the Zoning Administrator’s
decisionon May 23, 1997 (see Attachment 6 - Letter of Appeal from Mary Connors, dated
May 23, 1997). The appeal is primarily based on the objection to a second-story at 22 feet
in height. Additionally, the applicant states that she has relied on the Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Ordinance to prevent the type of addition being proposed on the subject site.
She believes that the addition will put her, and her home, at a serious disadvantage.
The applicant had submitted a previous HIE application on November 13, 1996. After
several public hearings on that proposal, it was denied by the Zoning Administrator due
to the inability of the proposal to meet the three findings necessary to approve the project.
Generally, the Zoning Administrator found the ftrst proposal to be inconsistent with the
historic character of the original house and incompatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. The applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator’s denial, but after several
meetings with Planning staff instead decided to submit a new HIE application addressing
the neighborhood and Zoning Administrator’s concerns. Thenew application was approved
by the Zoning Administrator and that approval has now been appealed by one of the
neighbors adjacent to the subject site.
Site Informatio~a
Table 1 summarizes the pertinent information regarding the site.
S:\Plan\Pladiv\pcsr\1022Webs.sr June 25, 1997
Page 3
Applicam:
Appellant:
Owners:
TABLE 1
Carina Rotsz~ain and Marc Rossner
Mary Connors
¯ Carina Rotsztain and Marc Rossner
Assessor’s Parcel Number:120-06-011
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Zoning District:
Existing Land Use:
Surrounding Land Uses;
Parcel Size:
Single-Family Residential
R-1
One SinglerFamily Residence with
detached garage
North: Single-Family Residential
South: Single-Family Residential
West: Low-rise (one-story) Multi-Family
Residential
East: Elementary School (Addison
School)
4,500 square feet (45 feet wide by 100
feet deep)
There are two existing City policies that are relevant to this application. The first is Policy
2 in the Urban Design Element of the existing Comprehensive Plan. It states that the City
should: "Encourageprivatepreservation of buildings which have historic or architectural
merit or both." Program 6 of this Policy further states: "Develop incentives for the
retention and rehabilitation of houses with architectural or historic merit in all zones". The
approval of an HIE to allow a first and second-story addition, which preserves the historic
merit of this contributing structure, as determined by the Historic Resources Board (HRB),
and results in a house that meets contemporary needs is an incentive to historic
S:\Plan\Pladiv\pcsr\1022Webs.sr June 25, 1997
Page 4
preservation.
The second policy is Policy 1 in the Housing Element of the existing Comprehensive Plan:
It states that the City should: "Maintain the general low-density character of existing
single-family areas." This policy is further expressed as a set of R-1 design guidelines for
single-family houses. Page 14 of the "Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines" state
that if there is a distinct style to the house, an addition should follow and harmonize with
that style. The "Guidelines" further state that the materials used for an addition should
blend with the materials used. on the existing house and that the roof slope of an addition
should match the slope of the existing roof. The proposed additional square footage for the
subject historic house complies with Policy 1 and the "Guidelines" in that it does not
substantially alter the character of the existing single-family residence. The height of the
second-floor addition will maintain the height of the existing partial second-floor and will
have the same roof slope as the existing house. The wood siding on the original house will
be carried-through onto the addition and the new square footage will be consistent with the
small scale of the original structure.
J~SSIIes a~
Thereare three findings that need to be made to approve an HIE (Palo Alto Municipal
Code 18.90.055). The discussion below summarizes the rationale used to make each of thefindings. The appellant. has not specifically addressed the findings in her appeal, but the
majority of her statements can be addressed under the third required finding.
The first finding states that there must be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in
the same zoning district.
The Zoning Administrator found that the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances on
this property were the substandard site size (4,500 square feet rather than the 6,000 square
foot minimum required in the R-1 zoning district) and width (45 feet wide rather than the
50 foot minimum required to be standard in the zoning district). In addition, the HRB
determined that the existing house is a "Contributing Structure" according to the "Interim
Historic Regulations":
The appellant did not specifically address finding number 1.
S:\Plan\Pladiv\pcsr\1022Webs.sr June 25, 1997
Page 5
HIE Finding Number 2
The second f’mding states that the exception is needed to preserve an architectural style or
neighborhood character, which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict
application of the zoning requirements.
The Zoning Administrator found that the addition ’would be consistent with the
architectural style and simplicity of the original structure. The height of the second-floor
addition would match the height o~ the existing partial second-floor and would maintain
the "widows-walk" over the original portion of the house. The massing of the second-story
addition would be consistent with the small scale of the original structure and the two
uncovered parking spaces at the back of the site allow room for a future one-car covered
parking space, which is a traditional element of houses built during the early 20th century.
In addition, the project was found to be in substantial compliance with the Compatibility
Review Standards for the Interim Historic Program.
The appellant did not specifically address Finding number 2.
HIE Findin~ Number 3
The final HIE finding states that the exception will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity. ~ ’- ~-
The Zoning Administrator found that project would not be detrimental to other properties
because it did not include daylight plane or setback intrusions which might reduce privacy
on neighboring properties. The dormers were designed to be approximately half the size
of a typical dormer and included small windows at approximately six feet above floor
height, which would reduce the visibility into neighboring yards. Screen planting would
also be provided along the north and west property lines, which would further protect the
privacy on neighboring properties. In addition, the project provided the opportunity for one
of the two uncovered parking spaces to be converted to a covered parking space in the
future.
The appellant’s comments generally address this finding. She objects to a second story at
a height of 22 feet and believes that approving the HIE would place her property at a
serious disadvantage. She states that she has relied on the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance to prevent this type of project and that she did not object to having her property
rezoned from R-2 to R-1 because she understood that the Zoning Ordinances would be
enforced.
S:\Plan\Pladiv\pc~r\1022Webs.sr June 25, 1997
Page 6
During the review of the HIE application, the Zoning Administrator could find nothing
objectionable or detrimental about the 22 foot height of the proposed addition. It is
designed to match the height of the existing 22 foot partial second story. There is no
daylight plane or setback encroachment, which might reduce the amount of sunlight or
increase the amount of shade on neighboring properties. In the absence of a specific
example of negative impact or disadvantage to the appellants property, staff concludes that
there is no negative impact on her property. .
The Comprehensive Plan does not contain prohibitions against 22 foot high buildings,
second stories or second stories on substandard size lots. The Comprehensive Plan contains
general policies and programs as addressed in the "Policy Implications" section of this
report that encourage the rehabilitationand preservation of existing historic structures. The
proposed project is in conformance with all applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and
programs.
The Zoning Ordinance does limit houses on substandard size lots to one habitable floor and
17 feet in height (Section 18.12.055 (c) and ’ (d)). .However, Section 18.90.055 of the
Zoning Ordinance allows for exceptions to these requirements when the three findings for
an HIE can be made. The existence of an unfinished partial second story at 22 feet in
height, the historic status of the house and the fact that no detrimental impacts on
neighboring properties could be demonstrated enable the three findings to be made for this
project. The appellant has not presented information that persuades staff that the findings
cannot be made.
Notices of Optional Public Hearing were mailed to all property owners and utility
customers as required by Sections ~8.90.020, 025 and 030 of the Municipal Code.. No one
requested a Zoning Administrator public hearing so one was not held. and no public
comment was received.
Notices of the Planning Commission and City Counci!. Appeal hearings were mailed to all
property owners and utility customers as required by 18.92.040 of the Municipal Code.
No additional comments regarding the appeal, besides the appeal letter, have been received
as of the writing of this staff report.
The Planning Commission can recommend one of the following actions to the City
S: \PI an\ P1 adi v\pcsr\.1022Webs, sr June 25, 1997
Page 7
Council:
1.Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator approval of 97-HIE-7.
2.Deny the. appeal and modify the proposal by imposing any conditions or restrictions
deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience. ’
3. Approve the appeal, which would result in the denial of 97-HIE-7.
In order to recommend alternative 3, the Planning Commission will need to recommend
denial findings for the HIE application.
There is no fiscal impact to the City regarding any of the actions on the appeal.
ENVIRONMENTAL ~
A minor modification to an existing structure is a Category 1 exemption under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ~
Proceed to the City Council on July 21, 1997.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Proposed Findings for Approval of 97-HIE-7
Proposed Conditi0ns of Approval for 97-HIE-7
Application Materials
Memorandum from Barbara Judy, dated May 9, 1997
Zoning Administrator decision dated May 15, 1997
Letter of Appeal dated May 23, 1997
Plans [Commission members only]
S’\Plan\Pladiv\pcsr\1022webs.sr June 25, 1997
Page 8
~OURTESY COPIES
Carina Rotsztain and Marc Rossner, 1022 Webster Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Mary Cormors, 574 Addison Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Cindy and Ray.Inglin, 1026 Webster Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Lawrence Sosman, 548 Addison Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Stephen Player, 2600 E1 Camino Real, #410, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Prepared by: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Project Planner:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Division Manager’s Approval: ./_//>".-~- (-; - fl~/. 4.~Y-x¢~"~’~"
JamesOn. Gilliland, Acting Chief Planning Official
S:\Plan\Pladiv\pcsr\1022Webs.sr June 25, 1997
Page 9
ATTACHMENT 1
p_.~posed Findings of Appr0v~l for 97-HIE-7 at 1022 Webster Street
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that
the site is substandard in terms of size and width (4,500 square feet rather than the
6,000 sqtiare foot minimum required in the R-1 Zoning district and 45 feet in width
rather than the 50 foot minimum required to be standard in the zoning category). In
addition, the Historic Resources Board (I-IRB) determined that the existing house is
a "Contributing Structure" according to.the "Interim Historic Regulations". The size
of the lot coupled with the placement and historic nature of the existing house limit
the potential locations for additional square footage;
The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing
architectural style or neighborhood character, which would not otherwise be
accomplished through the strict application of this chapte~r in that the proposed
modifications are consistent with the architectural style and simplicity of the original
structure. The height of the second-floor addition will match the height of the
existing partial second-floor and will maintain the "widows walk" over the original
portion of the house. The massing of the second-story addition is consistent with the
small scale of the original structure and the two uncovered parking spaces at the back
of the site allow room for a future one-ear covered parking space, which is a
traditional element of houses built during the early 20th century.
In addition, the project has been found to be in substantial compliance with the Compatibility
Review Standards for the Interim Historic program. As oondifioned below, this HIE will be
valid and time-lines for obtaining building permits shall begin once the project complies with
the remaining details of the Compatibility Review (see Condition 2 below); and
The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity in that the project does not include daylight plane
intrusions or floor area overages. Dormers have been reduced to approximately half
the size of a typical dormer and include small windows at approximately six feet
above floor height. The use of these dormers reduces the visibility into neighboring
yards and retains the privacy of these yards. The project as conditioned below, will
also provide additional screen planting on the site along the north and west property
lines (see Condition 3 below), which will further protect the privacy on neighboring
properties. The parking lay-out includes two uncovered off-street parking spaces and
provides the opportunity for one of the uncovered spaces to become a covered space
in the future.
S:\plan\pladiv\pc\webfind. ap June 25,1997
Page 1
o
ATTACHMENT 2
Proposed Conditions for 97-HIE-7 at 1022 Webster Street
The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with plans received April 28,
1997, on file in the office of the City of Palo Alto Planning Division.
Approval of this HIE application shall be considered valid and time-lines for obtaining
building permits shall begin once the City of Palo Alto Preservation Architect for the Interim
Historic Program determines that the project complies with the Compatibility Review
Standards for Contributing Structures ( see File No. 97-HRB-98).
Screen landscaping, including trees and shrubs, shall be planted and maintained along the
north and west property lines. Plant material shall be the choice of the property owner.
The two trees in the public right-of-way and any private trees to be retained on site shall be
protected during construction of the project as stated in the associated Compatibility Review
(see Sections 1.D and 1.E - Street Trees and Public Right of Way and Landscaping,
respectively, in file 97-I-IRB-98).
Caution shall be used during demolition of the existing garage on-site to prevent damage to
existing oaks on the adjacent property to the west of the site (see Section 1.E - Landscaping -
in the associated Compatibility Review, file 97-HRB-98).
All construction shall comply with the City of Palo Alto Noise standardsas stated in Chapter
9.10, Noise, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Specifically, as stated in these standards,
demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the following hours:. 8:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. on Sunday and holidays. All other applicable sections of Chapter 9.10 also apply
to this project.
S:\plan\pladiv\pc\webcond.ap June 25, 1997
Page 1
lication
~Architectural Review Board
[~Design Enhancement Exception
~Environmental Impact Assessment
[~Comprehensive Plan Amendment~~HorOlecled Tree Removal
me Improvement Exception
Conditional Use Permit
Variance
Site ,~nd Design.
Zone Change
Subdivision
Parcel Map
@ Properl;~ LoGa’~.ion
Address of Subject Property :
Zone District: ~-" ~--
e Reque~l;e~
Description of requested action:
Historic Category(if applicable)
O Ap~liCarrb "I~LO_T.~: The APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be la°~ ""m ....P
Address: ~ ~ ,~,- ~ ~t.__. ~cify: _~’a’~ -__~S,a,e:~ Zip: ~ Phone:
O P~op~r"~ Owrt~r’~_.O..T.~: The APPLICANT-& PROPERTY OWNER must be.placed on the submitted
Name:.3 ~mailing list in order to be notified of Meetings, Headngs or action taken.
Address:
April 16, 1997
Zoning Administrator
Department of Planning find Community Environment
Pale Alto City Hall, Fifth Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Pale Alto, CA 94301
Re: Home Improvement Exception for Cadna Rotsztain at 1022 Webster Street, Pale Alto
Dear Zoning Administrator
After working with some fresh ideas, we have found an alternative des.ign for our addition that would meet our
living requirements while at the same time addressing the concerns you raised in your last letter to us. We
would therefore like to request consideration of a different Home Improvement Exception, and your help in
pursuing this option rather than our pending appeal.
The new design shifts the rear addition ~lighfly south, leaving space along the north property line for a
driveway (albeit only 8fl wide) and a future rear detached parking structure. The change also better balances
¯the addition behind the original structure, and reflects more clearly the pyramidal design from the historic
home - imt~roving the architectural integrity of the design. Finally, by shifting south, the addition places less
of a shadow on the neighboring properties on Addison - in fact it #aces no significant additional shadow
beyond which the current structure or a l?ft.high addition at the 6ft setback would place.
The revised design better blends the addition with the original house. The change takes advantage of the l.Sft
distance betw~n the current structure and the south side setback, and uses the 2ft overhang allowance to better
balance the addition behind the original pyramid. In this design, the, expansion of width is dissembled much
better, as the maximum extension on one side is 5it (vs. the.originally proposed Sit to one side only.)
Strategically plac~i trees at the junctions, would hide most of the growth. Also, the addition is now setback
from the front facade about 1St, versus the originally proposed Sit.
The plans we are proposing here require the following exceptions..to the zoning guidelines for substandard lots
(my lot is 45X100.)
In order t~ preserve the architectural style of the original structure and effectively utilize the allowed
floor area for my size lot and not exceed the allowed footprint, we are requesting permission to
extend the existing 22’ high roof over the back.portion of the house for a .habitable second story ¯
addition.
In order to retain the option for future back rear parking, we request permission to leave only an 8’
clearance for a driveway, where a 10’ clearance is normally required. Since our lot is only 45’ feet
wide, and we want to place as much of the addition as far back on the i~t as possii’31e, for a distance
of 31’ in the rear ofthe future driveway, the clearance narrows from 14’ to 8’. However, since
¯ garage doors are only 7’ wide, this should still be suffmient room for access. We propose not to
build the back portion of the driveway or the covered parking structure at tiffs time, but to leave
space on the site for future construction. There are still two uncovered parking spaces off the street.
Due to the substandard size of the lot, and the fact that we are working to preserve a Contributing structure, we
do not have a great deal of flexibility and need special consideration with respect to zoning regulations.
The granting of tiffs application is desirable for preserving this architectural style. All of the houses of this type
have the same height roof at the same pitch on all siope.s over the entire house structure. They also have
elaborate porches and echoed details that are used as accents on the front facade. Many houses also have front.
gables and side dormers. Allowing the extension of the existing roof line would let us remove the non-historic -
and unattractive additions to the rear of the original house and create a more unified design closer to the
original architectur’dl style. It will also allow us to preserve a rear parking option.
The granting of this application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity
and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The changes visible
from the street will be in keeping with the character of the existing house and the neighboring houses. There
are tall trees on either side of our back yard (on neighbor’s property) that block most of the back of the structure
from being visible. We will be planting additional trees along our backyard property lines. We are not
imposing on any daylight planes or intruding into any setbacks. We are also within the FAR guidelines.
The granting of this application will also reduce our home’s impact on our neighbors. Shifting to this design
will reduce the shadow impact on the neighbors as the structure is now further away from the north property
line. The only side dormers included in this version are small, single-window, hipped donners that face rite
front yard. View of baekyards of adjoining properties is blocked by the wider addition in back of them.
Skylights are used elsewhere in consideration of neighbor privacy. We are also offering to plant additional
-trees along our property line.
After conversations with Barbara Judy and Nancy Lytle, we made several changes to the design to better
comply with the new Compatibility Standards. We kept the widows walk only over the original pyramid Crest,
retained porch detailing only on the front porch, and offered to use a shaped/molded galvanized steel cap on the
roof to nicely "finish" off the slope. Finally, we agreed to make the dormers half-recessed and hipped to be
more discrete, and further reduce their view on neighbors back yards. They both found the massing much more
appropriate and appreciated the fact that the new design allowed for rear detached parking. They also noted
that there is still space on the lot for two cars to park in the driveway off the street.
Barbara Judy encouraged us to file for a voluntary formal Compatibility Review, but did not expect that we
would have prob.lems with this new design. She primarily wanted us to have something on record if we happen"
to trigger the Standard when we get to our working drawings. We are preparing to submit an application to her
in the next couple of days.
Given our willingness to work so hard for a "win-win" plan, Nancy Lytle agreed to support our plan with an
accelerated processing schedule, committing to the following dates: plan’check done and optional hearing
notices mailed by 4/23; hearing request period expires 5/7; Z.A. decision by 5/14; appeal period expires 5/28.
Ifa hearing is requested, the hearing will take place 5/15 with a decision on 5/22.and appeal period over 6/5.
The granting of this appfication is needed allow usto meet all of the constraints of historieal integrity,
neighborhood compatibility, zoning, and building codes - and still have enough habitable space for our planned
family. If we receive this requested HIE, then we will withdraw the appeal pending on our earlier application. ’
Without approval for this application, we would either continue with our appeal for the earlier HIE request, Or
tear the house down and build to the full envelope of the footprint and daylight planes. We would probably
choose a mission design to’match the school across the street.
We hope that you will r~iew this application favorably. Please call if you have any questions or need
additional information. Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely
Carina Rotsztain and Marc Rossner
1022 Webster Street, Pale Alto, CA 94301 415-326-5845 carina@hybridmedia.com
Apd127,1997
Zoning Administrator
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Pale Alto City Hall, Fifth Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Pale Alto, CA 94301
Re: Home Improvement Exception for Carina Rotsztain at 1022 Webster Street, Pale Alto
Dear Zoning Administrator
We are submitting reviked drawings that make the corrections requested by Phil after his plan check. These
drawings show the floor area over 5fl tall on the second story, clearly show that the bay windows are window
seats and have no floor area into the setbacks, and remove the posts in the South setback as well as the dummy
one in the front of the addition on the North side. We also caught a couple of other mistakes we had made,
including the door from the utility room out to the yard on the.North side of the house (we had drawn it as a-
window on the elevations - oops.)
At Phil suggestion we checked back with our architect to make sure that we were drawing a house that could
actually be built. Thank goodness we did, because he pointed out that I had left aside blank bathroom spaces
that could not possibly house the needed fixtures for people of our height. The upstairs bathrooms were
especially impossible,
At his suggestion, we switched from skyfights in the master bathroom to a half-height full-hipped dormer.. The
dormer would be two windows wide and allow the vital head clearance, but since the donner will not ~ut into
the slope of the roof, the windows will only be about 1.5 ft tall and will start about 6ft off the floor. They can
also be frosted #ass. These windows will not allow us easy view of the neighbors’ back yard, they will only
allow in some light and air. The half-height dormers make our design possible, while at the same time
respe,aing the neighbors’ priva~.
The architect also pointed out that since we had obnverted the previous nursery into a master closet and
dressing room, it no longer needs a legal egress. We therefore switched the skylights in this area over to the
same half-height dormers as in the master bathroom. With this change, the small area is more usable (has more
full-height space), still has natural light, and ~ the neighbors’ privaL’y. We had always hated the look of
large skylights visible on the sides of the roof and wanted to avoid them ff at all poss!ble.
The two half-height dormers‘balance each other out and are blended into the center of their respective roof
slopes. They are far away from the front of the house, subtle, and of a style commonly used in Victorians
around the neighborhood.
We hope that you will review this application favorably. Please call if you have any questions or need
additional information. Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely
Cadna Rotsztain and Marc Rossner
1022 Webster Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 415-326-5845 carina@hybridmedia.com
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING DIVISION
Date:May 9, 1997
OWll~r1 Carina l~otzstain and Mark Rossner, 1022 Webster, Palo Alto,
CA 94301
Subject:
Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim HistoricProgram ~,
Webster: l~~ee (File No. 97-11R1~-98)
The existing residence at 1022 Webster has been designated a Contributing Residence
under the Interim Historic Ordinance. Therefore,. major undertakings affecting this
residence, including extensive remodeling of the residence, nmst comply with the
Compatibility Review Standards adopted by the ordinance.
The proposed remodeled residence for 1.022 Webster has been reviewed for compliance
with the Compatibility Review Standards. Following is a summary of the prescriptive
requirements of the Compatibility Review Standards, amaotated to reflect the design
proposed for the 1022 Webster remodeled residence. The gn,’aphic key used in the
following summa~ is:
Text is BoMltalic:This states the prescriptive requirements of the Compatibility
Review Standards for reference and clarity.
Text is ltalic:
Text is’N6rmal:
This states recommended practicesfrom .the Compatibility
Review Standards for reference and clarity.
This annotation states the design response to the
Compatibility Review Standards; responses noted in Nomaal
text indicate a complying response.
Text is Underlined:This annotation states the design response to the
Com.patibility Review Standards; response in Underlined text
indicates a non-complying proposed design that requires
design modification and resubmittal.
REVIEW OF 1022 WEBSTEI~, FOR COMPIJANCE W[’I’I[ TI IE COMPATIBIIJTY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE 1
Summary of Current Status o1" the proposed design filr 1022 Webster
This design requires modification to comply with the prescriptive requirements of the
Compatibility’ Review Standards as outlined on the attached Worksheet.
Processing of the current application for Cot,npatibility Review is now ON HOLD.
In order to conclude the Compatibility Review, you must revise the design as indicated in
underlined text in "the tbliowing Worksheet. Alternatively, you may seek a hearing with the
Planning Director’s designee, Jim Gilliland at 329-2679, to propose alternatives to the
prescriptive requiretnents of the Compatibility Review Standards as follows.
Exceptions to the Compatibility Review Standards
In cases where unusual site conditions make the strict application of the Compatibility
Review Standards an unreasonable burden, e.xceptions to the Standards may be considered.
For example, in cottage courts or other sites with multiple units, drive~vay and garage
’involve a hearing opportunity and a decision by the Phmning Director or his designee.
Based on findiugs that the proposed alternative better achieves design qu’,dity and
compatibility with the existing neighborhood than woiald the strict application of the
requirements of the Compatibility Review Standards, the proposed alternative may be
approved.
Outcome o1" R-1 7.~ning Review .
Review of the proposed replacement residence for complian~ with the R-1 Zoning
Ordinances was carried out as part of the concurrent I’IlE, application process. The review
identified three aspects of.the design that m~y only be accepted ira HIE is applied for and
granted. They are:
l - Proposal for two uncovered parking spaces in lieu of one coveredlone uncovered.
2 - Proposal for a 22-foot high buildiug, in lieu of the mandated 17-foot height.
3 - Proposal for an 8-foot driveway clearance iu lieu of the tnandated 10’-0" clearance.
Review of the above items will be concluded through the HIE process.
WOI~SSIIEET - COMPATIBILITY REVIEW STANDARDS
I’ART 1 :
STILEE’I’SCAPE AND OPEN SPACE RECOMMENDATIONS & REQUIILEMENTS
1. Ao
FRONT AND STREET SIDE SETBACKS
t~equirements:
REVIEW OF 1022 WEBSTER FOR COMI’I.IAN(?.E WIT[ ! Ti IE COMI~ATII’III.rrY’ RFA~IEW STANDARDS PAGE 2
Locate at least 50% of the front facade of the house at the prevailing setback
line, with the remainder of the front facade at or behind that line. The
prevailing setback line is the line closest to the street with 75% of the houses
localed behind it.
The existing setback is proposed to be retained; this is allowable.
If the house is on a cortter attd the original house is located closer to the street
than the prevailing setback line, then the reqnired front setback is the front
setback of the originalhouse. Side setback requirements set by zoning apply
unless the original street side facade is behtg retainet£
Note: this requirement not apl~lic.able; house is on a mid-block lot.
3.If the front facade of the original house is beingpreserved, the setback of the
original house may alternatively be the allowed setback.
The original house is being retained; the existing setback is bein’g retained.
Similarly, if the street side facade of a house on a cortter lot is preserped, the
setback of the original house is considered the allowed setback.
Note: this requirement not applicable; house is on a mid-block lot..
GARAGES
~equirement.+:
Locate the garage at the rear of the site attd detached from the house by at le~’t
12 feet. ¯ If located at least 75feet from the front property line, zoning allows the
garage to be located adjacent to the side and rear proper/y line.
No garage is proposed. Parking is located at rear, uncovered.
AlternaKvel); the garage m’ay be attached to the house, provided that it is
located no closer titan 60feet from the front property line, and that a side
setback-of at lec~,’t 6feet is maintained. Locate the side wall of the garage no
n~ore than lO feet closer to the side property line than the side wall of the front
part of the house, thux partially screening view of,he driveway attd garage
from lhe street. No part of the second slory can ~t’tend over the garage within
lO feet of the garage side wall. The garage ntu:s’l have a selmrate roof that is
the same pitch as the house roof, or less. ht this case, second floor balconiez"
art: not permitted over the garage toprotect the privacy of the adjacent property.
Note: this placement strategy is not proposed.
REVIEW OF 1022 WEBSTER FOR COMPI.IANCE WITH T! IE COMPATmlIJTY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE 3
If the house is located on a corner, the garage may be placed in the rear yard
setback and accessed from the side street. The garage must be located at least.
16feet from the street sMe property line. Alternativel); garages on corner lots
may.be attached if iocated oulside rear yard setback. The front of the garage
mils, be recessed at least 2feet.behind,he side wall of the house.
Note: this requirement not applicabl~; house is on a mid-block lot.
In a single car garage, use a garage door that is 8feet wide., or less. In a
double car garage, use two doors not more than 8feet wide separated by a
vertical support at leta’t 8 inch: wide, or use one door not over 16 feet wide.
1Yhere three car garages are permitted hA, ordinance, use one door eight feet
wide and one door 16.[’eel wide,, or les.~:
No garage doors are proposed.
,4
minimize lhe apparent width of rim doors. If the door is more lha~ eight feet
wide, design the door so that it has the al~l~earance of being divided verlically
into two distinct sections. 1)o not use Rancher style doo(s, because the strong
.horizontal proporlions eml~h~ize tile width of,he door. Do not use steel
garage doors. ~o not use non-rectangular or decorative wbtdow~ on garage"
or garage doors.
No garage do6ts are proposed.
If the garages on the two adjacent p~’ol~erties and the garage for the original
house are on tile same sides of their re~peclive houses, ihen locate lhe driveway
for the new house in this satne way ~o that the l~allern of open Slmce belween
houses is l~reserved.
The existing driveway placement is being retained; this satisfies the intent of the
ordinance:
7.
ff alleywqv access is provided, required parking shall be accessed from the alley
attd the garage., shall be located wilhin 5feet of the rear property line.
Note: this requirement is not applicable; there is no alley access.
On silbstandard lots less than 50 feet wide or 80feet deep, attd where no alley
access is available, only one on-site parking space is required and a Mngle car
altached garage is" allowed. The front of the garage mttst be recessed at least
two feet behind the main front facade of the house. If two parking space.v are
provi&,.d, Olaf: tt~USl be tattdt:tt~.
This is a substandard lot. duc to its dimensions (45" by 100") and total area (4,500
square feet). No garage is proposed; rather, the applicant proposes to have a single
REVIEW OF 1022 WF, IISTEI~ I"OR COMPLIANCE WH’t I TI IE COMPATIBII.I’I~" REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE 4
on site uncovered parking area in the footprint of the existing driveway. This
proposed design would replace an existing rear yard garage.
The .Compatibility Review Standards have five (5) criteria for addressing on-site
parking. They are:
1) The amount of paving in the~’ont yard is the minimum required for access.
2) The most prominent design element of the facade of the house is the entry
or a major window rather than the garage.
3) Side driveways provide o~r)en sI)ace and separation between houses.
4) Cars can be parked in the driveway while still being out of the front yard.
5) The diJJbrence in size between houses and garages establishes a pattern of
vat’iety in building volumes, r.ather than mostly l’argc, uniformly sized
buildings.
On comparison of these criteria.to the proposed design, the following observations
1) Cotnpatibility Unchanged: The amount of paving inthe front yard is not
increased by conversion of existing paved driveway area. to use as on-site
parking. "
2) Compatibility Unchanged: The most prominent desif~m element in the
composition will continue to be the front facade of the existing Queen Anne
Victorian cottage, whose front facade will remain.
3) Compatibility Reduced: Open spae..e and separation between neighboring
properties will be diminishe6 by the p~’oposal to construct a fence from the
projeetingnmw.w.i!,~g of the t.~ouse to the property line.
4) Compatibility Reduced: A ear parked in the designated on-site parking area
will be in the front yard, introducing an clement of clutter to the street facade
that is inconsisterft with pre-1940 neighborhoods and the current development
of this lot.
5) Compatibility.Reduced: The variety of structures that is typical ofpre-1940
neighboflaoods and the current development of this lot will be diminished.
Under fl~e prescriptive requirements of the Compatibility Review Slandnrds, the
proposed on-site p~rking a~re~ which projects into the front _yartl~ is not. permitted.
The applicant has the option of finding an example within Pale Alto of this type of
lot development and seeking acceptance of that model as a basis for seekin~ relief
from the prescriptive requirements ofthe Compatibili _ty Review Standards.
Alternatively, the applicant may propose desin;n features to minimize the
incompatible elements of the proposed new desin;n. These measures may include:
setting the new t~nce (perpendicular to the property line) back 60-feet from the
property line - this dimension corresponds to the minimum sethack for an attached
street-facing garage structure - and will increase the sense of separation between
1022 Webster and the neighboring structure; installing an irrit~ated 1.5-foot wide
planted strip along the driveway at the existing property line fence - this will
increase lhe ’garden element’ aspect ofthe front yard and distract from its use as a
parkin~ area, and/or olher measures that the applicant may propose.
REVIEW OF 1022 WEBST|:.I~ FOI~ COMPIolANCE WIT| | Ti IE COMI)ATIlilI.|TY REVIT, W KI’ANDARDS PA~3E 5
Carports are not permitted, unless they are located where the open sides cannot
be seen.[’tom a pablic street.
Carp.on is ’not proposed.
1oC.
DILIVEWAYS
lCequirements:
Alake driveways 9feet wide or less. l)riveway carb cats must have a vertical
curb and be no more than lO feet wide with a 3foot radias. I~thin 27feet of
the ~,arage doors, drivewa)w may widen to no more than the width of the garage
door(s} plus 2 f!~et, lloweve5 no tlriv~.a)’ may be more than 12feet wide
within 5feet t~ the public sidewall btterior sidewalL,~ patio~3 etc. may adjoin
Driveway is approximately 10’-0" wide; ~show driveway dimensions On future
submit-tals of the plans and reti~r to comments above in ’Garage’ tbr further
direction on the driveway design..
Indicate on plans wheflaer existing curb cut is proposed to be retained oris new;
indicate const~ction type.
B
Locate drivewa)w at least 1.S feet from the side or rearl~roperty line and at least
1.S feel from the side of lhe house to pro.vide space for planting on both sides
of lhe drivewa); "~cep! that no l~lanting sl~ace is required between the driveway
and the back half of lh.e house.
Refer to comments hbove in ’Garage’ for further direction on the driveway design.
Use the folio wing materials for driveway.surfaces: asphalt; poured cement with
a troweled or exposed aggregatefinish; real brick~ cobbles, or stone; rubblt:; or
gravel, l’?)r driveway~; do not use precast interlocking l~avers or stamped
Concrete, since these materials generally" lack the appearance of craftsmanship
associated with. traditional material~:
Driveway.is called out as exposed aggregate concrete; this is an acceptable material.
If the driveway widens to more than 18feet from arty location inside the
property line that is visible from a public street, l~rovide a wall, fence or hedge
along the property line to screen the pavin1,:
Maximum prol~oscd drive~w~y width is approximately 10’0".
I~EVIEW OF 1022 WEPlSTEI~, FOR COMPI.IANCE WITH TIlE COMPATIBII.ITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE
STREET TREES AND PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY
_Requirements:
1)o not relocate, realign or widen a ,driveway to within lO feet of any ~cisting
street tree, ttnless it is not possible to access the site and still meet this"
requirement.
Drive existing location is being retained.
Provide a tree protection proposal noted on future plan submittals to ensure that
impacts on the street trees are minimized and their healthy condition is assured
tbliowing cgmpletion of construction. Protection plan should address protection
and watering plan during const~xmtion. Applicant may consult ~vith the Ci _ty’s
Arborist, Dave Dock ter, at 617-3145, or with his/her own arborist.
2.If street trees are missing along the property frontage on the street, locate the
driveway to allow replacement of the missing trees at approximately 2S feet
intervals.
Two’street trees are existing; this is allowable.
Lit’tJit paving or hard surfaces wit.hht the parking strip to no more lhan 5.5
iiti’ear feet per street frontage, not including the driveway apron.
Indicate on plans the dimensions of the paving ,strip that is proposed in the street
frontage. .
l’rovide irrigated planting of ground cover or small shrubs in the l~ar. king stril~.
Irrigation of the planting strip is required; add notes indicating irrigation of this
a rea.
5.If there is a fence or wall along the property line, provide irrigated planting in
the ,~pace between the sidewalk attd the fence or wall.
Currently, them is no planting strip in this area. If it is added, in’igation will be
required and must be called out on the plans.
LA2qDSCAPING
l?equirements:
REVIEW OF ! 022 WF, BSTER I:OR COMPI.IANCE \~TI’[ [ T! [E COMPATIIIII.1TY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE 7
o
All valley oak attd live oak trees over 11.5 inches in diameter or 36 inches in
circttn~erence mettvured 4.S feet above natural, grade that are located in
required setbacks are protected under the City’s street tree ordinance attd must
be retained.
Add sufficient information to ti~ture, plans to confirm compliance with this
recluirement. A note stating that "No valley or live oaks trees over 11.5 inches in
diameter or 36 inches in circumference measures 4.5 feet above natm’al grade exist
on the property" may be used if applicable¯
I~rior to demolition and during construction, pro vide protective fettcing and
frequent deep watering to all plant materials that are being retained, including
¯ street tre~:
Deft ne on the plans the extent and type of protection proposed for mature trees in
the vicini _ty of construction ~¢tivi,ties. State watering strate~ for all plant materials
PART 2:
ARC -H.Y/’ECT URAL CI[AI~kCTER
COMPATIBLE AI(CH1TEcTU1Lt~L STYLE
Common ArchitecturalStyles in Palo Alto Houses:
Victorian
Queen Anne
Colonial Revival
Shingle Style
Craftsman
Bungalow
Spanish Colonial Revival
Mission Revival
Tudor Revival
Streamline ~/oderne
l~equirements:
l’lat~" which use traditional urchitectur’al features are required to identify a
style from the references: St:orion V: Common Palo Alto Architectural St_vies;
ltistoric and Architectural Resources of the Oty of l’aio Alto; .llehab Right: or
Single-zr:amily 1)e.t’(g, tt Guidelines. Only those architectural characteristics
inchtded in the description of a particular sty& in the above references rnay be
included in a single structure: unless the style is identi.fied as having influences
from another, related style in Palo Alto houses. Allernativel); i.fan applicant
can prmqde a local ~:amlde of a pre-1940 residence with the same cmnbination
of original architectural characlerislics in a sbtgle structure they may utilize
that combination of characteristics in tt, eir own plaits.
REVIEW OF 1022 WF.BSTER I:OR COMPI.IANCE WITi [ THE COMPATIBII.ITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE
The existing style to be retained is "Queen Anne Victorian". The following
description from the Compatibilit)’ Review Standards describes the features of this
style.
QLfEEN ANNE VICTOIHAN
Predominant style in: College Terrage, some parts of Old Palo Alto
- 1 or 2 stories
- Picturesque asymmetrical plans, sometimes with comer towers, gables and bays
- Steep roof pitch, complex roof forms
- Porch or veranda common
- Lacy wood ornament and trim with fish scale slfingles, variety of textures
- Materials: contrasting wood si .ding materials with shingles
WI DOWS
l~eqttirements:
Where the architectural style of the o~ginal house is being retained, reuse or
ntatch original window material~; 3Iaintain pro37ortions, detailing and
materials of original windows.
This requirement applies; the architectural style of the existing house is being
retained. ~’,lot~ on plans all existing windows proposed tobe retained. The proposed
windows shown in the separate 8½ by ~ 1 sketch are compatible new units; note on
plans the.extent of new windows... If sketch plans are the intended final appearance
of windows, add this information to elevations drawings, which currently do not
show the same winddw treatment. Add dimension separating grouped sash by a
minimum dimension of 6-inehes.
No more than one non-rectangular or "special" window may be used per street
facade.
Special non-rectangular window is not proposed.
No windows on street facade.~’ can be rafter titan tl, e top of the first floor of the
buiMing.
All windows on the street facade are sized to be lower than lhe top ofthe first
floor,
Where non-rectangMar windows are used, they must be compatible with the
architectural character ¢~’the house arid neighborhootL This limitation does
not alq@ to uqndows located on the front door.
Non-rectangular windows are not proposed.
REVIEW OF 1022 WEBSTER FOR COMPI.IANCE WITH TI II-~ COMI*ATIIIII JTY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE 9
tVindo~:~ must be wood, wood with vinyl or metal cladding, or steel. Finyl or
aluminum windows will be allowed for bathrooms attd basements but must
have the same or similar finish to "other windows. IVindows must have clear
glns~, except that glass block or frosted glass may be used in bathrooms or for
privacy along prol)erO’ lines.
Define on plans existin~ wood double hung windows on plans. Define on plans
extent of new windows, note gl~ss is clear/frosted as appropriate.
~Pindows with divided lights tnust be true divided lights, or double pane
windows.with full size (tttinitnum .-~/13" deel~) muntins attached to the exterior
attd interior of the glass.
Define on plans the muntin detail at the divided lites. Provide a 1%" scale detail
minimum to describe this construction.
l~ecessed windows: In stucco wall~; rece.s’s windowpane a minimum of 2.5
inches behind the outside wall surface, ~ot including trim around the windows,
in order to enhance the impre.~:l’ion of’the massiveness of the walls. In other
tyl;es of walls a minimttm, r.ecess of 1.5 inches is required.
Define on plans the proposed recess of 1 Vz-inches from wood siding. Provide a
1V~" scale detail minimum to describe this construction.
l)ormer windows may "be used Only where they open d~rectly into habitable
space_ This does not prechfde small, "eyebrow" tylm rot(vents, where
compatible with the architectural style.
Dormers are proposed; they open into habitable space.
2o C.
FRONT PORCI-IES AND EI’,TFRY ]’EA’I’UI~S
l~equirements:
1. If there is an established pattern of porclm.¥ on the block, (50 % of houses on
the block face or on both sides of the street combined), then provide a front
porch.
There is ma established pattern of porches on the block; the existing porch is
retained.
o Ira porch is trot incorporated, include an entry feature or principal window
(larger than other windows) in a tnain living area on the front of the house.
The proposed design includes a porch and does not include a focal window.
REVIEW OF 1022 WEBSTER FOR COMPI.IAN(;E WITH T! IF, COMPATIBII.ITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE 10
1)en:ign porches With a minimum dimet~s’ion of at leaz’t 6 f.eet in depth attd an
area of at least 60 square feet to provide both an entry area and ttsable seating
ai’ea. ¯
F, xisting porch dimensions are allowable. Note existing dimensions on the plans~
state on plans and elevations that flae existing porch and all related features will
remain.
Entry feature openings and roof eaves cannot be higher than the tol~ of the first
floor of the buildint,:
~.;xisting entry feature is proposed to be retained’, lhis is allowable. State on plans
and elevations that the gable end is existing to remain.
2.~Do
BUILDING MASSING/ROOF DESIGN
Roof line, roof details attd roof uiaterials must be coml~atible with the.i:
architectural style of the house to produce an overall, unified architectural .
style. For traditional styles~ the style nmst be identified attd the roof features
must be cot~’istent with those d ,escribed for that style in the following
references: Section. V:" Gukle to Palo Alto Architectural Stl, les; l-l’istorlc attd
Architectural Re.vources o]" the Cit_l, of Palo Alto; 11ehab Rich’t: or ~gingle-
Family Desi,. ,n Gultleline,~’. Alter.nativel); if an alq~licant can provide a local
,examl~le of a pre-1940 residence with the same combination of arch. itectural
style attd roof characteristics they may utilize that combination of’
characteristics in their O~’lt I~latls.
The applicant has indicated in the Worksheet that the existing style of the residence
will be retained. Tliis style is "Queen Anne Victorian."
Massing-revisions: Suspended bay windows are not a typical element of the
"Victorian architecture found in suburban areas, but later Victorian s _tyles such as
Shingle and early Craftsman residences did use suspended bay windows, and
provide a reasonable reference point for design of this feature in the cun’ent
proiect. Revise bay windows to achieve the detailing sugge.sted in the 8V~.y_~
sketch that was enclosed wifl~ the applicalion materials. Provide a minimum solid
wall width of 6-inches between windows to allow for appropriate trims: sash
pzpically stood alone rather than in groupin_~s. Introduce more substantial(wider)
corbels; the sketch shows versions that are underscaled. Consider deleting the inset
RF.VIEW OF 1022 WEBSTER FOR COMPI,IANCE WITH THE COMPATIBII.ITY REVIEW STANDARDS PAGE 11
patfels shown on the sketch; be advised that they are not necessaw to achieve
compatibili _ty. Make th~ bay window confipB~ration mo’re regular, as redlined on
plans, for consistency with the Crafisman/S!~ingle s _tyles. Alternatively; provide a
Queen Anne Victorian version that contains the same features as is proposed in the
current bay window design. Provide additional intbrmation regarding the proposed
widow’s walk; is it to match the existing version at the adiacent cottage? What
construction materials are proposed, and how ~vill it be detailed? Provide additional
information on the handrail at the fi’ont entr3’ steps: what construction materials are
proposed, and how will it be detailed?
The roofs over entry feahtres must have the same roof pitch attd detail as the
rest of the house. Eaves on entry feature roofi" mttsl be located no higher than
the top of the first floor of the bttilditt1,:
Roof pitch is consistent tl~roughout.
l’~or roofs, use a~phalt shingles, wood shingl~; wood shakes, genttitte clay tile,
genuin~slate, or tar and gravel
Asphal.t. shingle roof is proposed.
WALLS AND FINISI-IES
Requirements:
Slucco must be alq~lied by hand. 290 not use spray-on finish materials or
te.~:tured.naints. Use a lradilional sl’ucco.finish le.~ture foutul on znre_1940
buildings in l"alo Alto, such as 1float, Spanish, lrtission, Jl,lonterey, Californian
or English. 1)o trot ttse Lace or heavy te.x:tttres.
Stucco is not proposed.
2. Use real wood sidinl.5 not coml~osite producls, vinyl or aluminum siding.
State on plans that use of genuine wood siding is proposed.
Change from one wall material to another only where there is a change in wall
l~lane attd at an interior cortter, not at an exterior cortter, sittce this gives the
appearance that the material is" only applied to the surface attd not integral to
the strttcture of the wail
REVIEW OF 1022 WEBSTER FOR COMPI.IANCE WFI’[[ °FILE COMPA’I’IBII.ITY REVIEW STANDARI)S PAGE 12
o Wh’ere remodeling, use same materials and finishes as "~isting house.
documentation exists showing that the house originally had a different finish,
then that finish may be usetL ,
Existing finishes are continued from existing to new portions of residence. State on
plans that new wood siding will match existing in profile and dimensions.
* * * End of the Compatibility Review Standards * * *
REVIEW OF 1022 WEBSTER FOR C.OM I)I.IANCE WITH Ti IE COMI)ATIBII.1TY REVIEW S’I’ANDARDS PAGE 13
ATTACHMENT 5 ¯ Cityof Palo Alto
Depa~t of Planning a~wl
Conmnmity Environn~t
Planning DMsion
Applicatibn’No. 97-HIE-7:1022 Webster Street
Home Improvement Exception 97-HIE-7 is a/Sproved for an existing single-family residence
to allow construction of a first and second story addition on a substandard lot with: 1) total
height of 22 feet, to match existing, where 17 feet and one habitable floor is the maximum
allowed; 2) an 8-foot clearance for a driveway to future covered parking where 10-foot
clearance is othei’wise required; 3) provision of two uncovered parking spaces where one
covered and one uncovered space are otherwise required, as per attached plans, at 1022
Webster Street, R-1 Zone District, Palo Alto, California. Project approval is based on the
following findings and is subject to the conditions listed below.
FINDINGS:
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same
district in that the site is substandard in terms of size and width (4,500 square
feet rather than the 6,000 square foot minimum required in the R-1 Zoning
district and 45 feet in width rather than the 50 foot minimum required to be
standard in the zoning category). In addition, the Historic Resources Board
(HRB) determined that the existing house is a "Contributing Structure"
according to the "Interim Historic Regulations". The size of the lot coupled
with the placement and historic nature of the existing house limit the
potential loe.ations for additional square footage;
The granting of the application is desirable for the preservatima of an existing
architectural style or neighborhood character, which wouldnot otherwise be
accomplished through the strict application of this chapter in that the
proposed modifications are consistent with the architectural style and
simplicity of the original structure. The height of the second-floor addition
will match the height ofthe existing partial second-floor and will maintain
the "widows walk" over the original portion of the house. The massing of the
second-story addition is consistent with the small scale of the original
structure and the two uncovered parking spaces at the back of the site allow
room fo-ra future one-ear covered parking space, which is a traditional
element of houses built during the early 20th century.
97HIE7..lg
250HamiltonAvenue
P.O. Box10250
PaloAlto, CA94303
415.329.2441
415.329.2240 Fax
May 15, 1997
Page 1
In addition, the project has been found to be in substantial compliance with the
Compatibility Review Standards for the Interim Historic Program. As conditioned
below, this HIE will be valid and time-lines for obtaining building permits shall
be~in .nee the project complies with the remaining-details of the Compatibility
Review (see Condition 2 below); and
The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vieiriity in that the project does not include
daylight plane intrusions or floor area overages. Dormers have been reduced
to approximately half the size of a typical dormer and include small windows
at approximately six feet above floor height. The use of these dormers
reduces the visibility into neighboring yards and retains the privacy of these
yards. The project as conditioned below, will also provide additional screen
planting on the site along the north and west property lines (see ~ondition 3
below), which will further protect the pdv.acy on neighboring properties. The
parking lay-out includes two uncovered off-street parking spaces and
provides the opportunity for one of the uncovered spaces to become a
¯ CONDITIONS:
The project,shall be cons,meted in Substantial conformance with plans received April
28, 1997, on file in the of-flee of the City of Pal. Alto Planning Division.
Approval~0f this HIE application shall-be considered valid and time-lines for
obtainin~~ building permits shall begin .nee the City of Pal. Alto Preservation
Architect for the Interim Historic Program determines that the project complies with
the Compatibility Review Standards for Contributing Structures ( see File No. 97-
HRB-98).
Screen landscaping, including trees and shrubs, shall be planted and maintained
along the’ north and .west property lines. Plant material shall be the choice of the
property owner.
o
o
97HIE7.1g
The two trees in the public right-of-way and any private trees to be retained on site
shall be protected during construe, ion of the project as stated in the.associated
Compatibility Review (see Sections 1.D and 1.E - Street Trees and Public Right of
Way and Landscaping, respectively, in file 97-HRB-98).
Caution shall be used during demolition of the existin~ garage on-site to prevent
damage to existing oaks on the adjacent property to the west of the site (see Section
1.E - Landscaping - in the associated Compatibility Review, file 97-HRB-98).
May 15, 1997
Page 2
All construction shall comply with the City of Palo Alto Noise standards as stated in
Chapter 9.10, Noise, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Specifically, as stated in these
standards, demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the following.
hours: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday and holidays. All other applicable
sections of Chapter 9.10 also apply to this project.
LISA GROTE
Zoning Administrator
May 15, 1997
NOTE
This decision does not constitute final action on the Home Improvement Exception for which
application was made. The decision may be appealed by an interested party by filing a
written letter of appeal stating the reasons for appeal, an appeal form and appeal fee to the
City of Palo Alto Planning Division on or before May 26, 1997. The appeal will beheard by
the Planning Commission and City Council. If no appeal of this decision is received on or
before the above-mentior~ed date, the decision shall be final and the applieant’will receive
a copy of the final decision letter in the mail. A copy of the final decision letter should be
presented to the Building Division when applying for any building permits associated with
the project.
Property Owner:Carina.Rotsztain and Marc Rossner
1022 Webster Street
Palo Alto, CA 94501
Applicant:Same as Above
Mary Connors, 574 AddisonAvenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Ray and Cindy Inglin, 1026 Webster Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Stephen Player, 2600 El Camino Real, #410, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Lawrence Sosman, 548 Addison Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
97HIE7.1g May 15, 1997
Page 3
CITY OF PALO AtTO ATTACHMENT 6
Office o! the City Clerk
APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF ZONING ADMINISTRATDR
To be filed in duplicate within ten days from date of decision of Zoning Administrator
?" ~ - ,,~/!.-,.,’F ~:2 ReceiptApplicationNo.
Name of Appellant "" ..~-.~ ,, :, / /...?,FI,. . ,’~ ,,, ...- K-f Phone (u’./t-) ~ ...~ / ../,. "-,, "~ ,’.
,, .i /..,,-f-,’ /,, : ~Address ,:;" -:.. V ..’: "’, ,. t., ,-;J.,. ~,.,’-;-., :..~-.,... ,:.,, -/,,,.;f.,!" ~. :t.. "~;..." ,’
Street " City "Zip
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel No./..): "’/- " ,’. /’
Street Address
Name of Property Owner (i; other than appellant) ;"~ ,-~ W’ ;’ ,., ,",.
j ¯q %"Property Owner’s Address ./.~, ,:.’~.!U -"/.’~ ,’ ..,., ,, ~. .o.,,
Street "-
Zone District A~-/
City ""Zip
whereby th~ applioation of"" /~ ~ P , ",, .,.... .,.. ,
"(original applicant)
|or a
(variance/use permit). ~,~" " (ap’~rbved/denied)
reasons stated in the a~tached letter (in duplicate).
Date ,~"/,~... : .... ""’/ ~’~ ", Stgn~ltur~. of Appellant . /g-., ,~/...,,.. .
~., is hereby appealed f6r the
PLANNING COMMISSIO~ RECOMMEN.DATION .TO THE CITY COUNCIL: , ’
Date
Remarks and/or Conditions:
CITY COUNCIL DECISION:
Date
Remarks and/or Conditions:
¯ Approved " .
Approved
Denied
Denied.
SUBMITrAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED:
1.Plans
2.Labels
3.Appeal Application Forms
4.Letter
5.Fee
By:By:_ Q,~ ,
By:
By: ,,4’,( ~ .......LJ
"7%
EXCERPT of draft minutes of the 6/25/97
meeting of the Palo Alto Planning Commission.Attachment 4
The Planning Commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, June 25, 1997 at 7
p.m. in the Council Chambers with Chairperson Cassel presiding.
ROLL CALL
Present:Commissioners Beecham, Bialson, Byrd, Cassel, Ojakian, Schink and
Schmidt "
Absent:None
Staff Present:John Carlson, Assistant Director of Public Works
Debra Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attomey
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Jerry Haag, Contract Planner
Marvin Overway, chief Transportation Official
Joe Saccio, Senior Financial Analyst
Ch
wishes to speak,
The first item on our agenda is oral communications. At this time,
may speak to any item not on the agenda. Seeing no one who
will move on to the next agenda item.
Chairperson Cassel: We have
MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I su
consideration at this time.
which Commissioner Schink will speak to.
that we move Item 5 forward for
SECOND: By Commissioner Ojakian
MOTION PASSES: Chaimerson Ca sel: All those in favor.
passes on a vote of 7-0.
aye. All opposed? That
5 3009 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD: Appeal of the zoning approval of
a conditional use permit for the operation of a private ~ervice
(tennis facility) on.the site of the former Chuck Thompson’s Swim and
Center, including the reorientation of two of the four existing tennis courts,
A:lPCMins6[pc6025.reg Page 1
06-25-97
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1022 WEBSTER STREET: Planning Commission review and
recommendation to City Council regarding the appeal of the zoning
administrator’s approval of a Home Improvement Exception (HIE) application
for a first- and second-story addition to arl existing single-family house on a
substandard lot with the following exceptions: (1) a total height of 22 feet to
match existing, where 17 feet and one habitable floor is the maximum ordinarily
allowed; (2) an 8-foot clearance for a driveway to future covered parking where
a 10-foot clearance is otherwise required; and (3) provision of two uncovered
parking spaces where one covered and one uncovered space are otherwise
required. Environmental Assessment: Project exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). File Nos. 97-HIE-7.
Chairperson Cassel: I have received a letter asking that this item be continued. My
suggestion is that we give two minutes to both the appellant and the applicant to make
any comments they wish to make, and that we then decide how to proceed.
Commissioner O_iakian: I am within the 300-foot noticed area, so I will excuse myself
from this particular item.
Chairperson Cassel: I understand there has been some negotiating going on as to whether
the appellant wishes to appeal this or not. Do you wish to speak to us?
Mary Connors. 574 Addison Avenue, Palo Alto: Yes, I do wish to appeal it, but in
talking to my neighbor, I have decided that it would probably be better to go ahead, so I
am withdrawing my request for a continuance.
Chairperson Cassel: Thank you. We will proceed with the hearing. Are there any staff
comments at this time?
Ms. Grote: Yes, thank you, Chair Cassel. This is an appeal of a home improvement
exception that I approved with the exceptions noted in the staff report and on your
agenda. This is actually the second of two HIE applications that have been made on this
site. The first one I had denied because of the incompatibility of the additions with the
original, existing historic structure. I found that the three findings could not be made for
that application. The applicant rethought the project and has made a second HIE
application which was significantly scaled back from the original application. I found
A:lPCMins61pc6025.reg Page 4
06-25-97
that the three fmdings then could be made, and I approved it, as outlined in your staff
report.
Although the appellant does not address the three findings specifically, she has appealed
based on the opposition to the second story addition to the house on a substandard lot.
She has noted inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance as
the basis for her appeal. In review of the Compretlensive Plan, I have found no policies
or programs that would limit a second story on a substandard 10t. In the zoning
o~dinance, there are limitations on substandard lots to one story and 17 feet in height,
however, it provides for exceptions to that through the home improvement exception
process when the findings can be made.
I partially based my approval on the fact that there is already an unfmished, partial second
story on the building, and this would expand that to some degree but would have no
detrimental effect on the neighboring property.
A question has been raised about the covered parking situation. I had originally found
that replacing an existing two-car garage with two uncovered parking spaces was not
inconsistent with the original architectural character of the house. Upon further
examination of the code, specifically Section 1980.010(e), it appears that the home
improvement exception cannot be used to make what was basically a conforming
situation nonconforming or to vary parking regulations or requirements. That means that
technically, if there is an existing garage or covered parking on the site, that covered
parking should be replaced with at least one covered parking space, either a carport or a
garage. You may want to discuss that more in your deliberations, as well. It appears that
a condition could be added to require covered parking at some point, either now or in the
future. With that, I am recommending that the appeal be denied and that the original
approval, with some modified conditions, be upheld. That concludes the staff report.
Chairperson Cassel: Thank you. Are there questions of staff?.
Commissioner Beecham: On the issue of the covered parking space, if there is to be a
covered parking space, how does that affect the FAR on the lot?
Ms._M__~.~. rote: This site currently has a small amount of additional FAR that could be
developed. It would not be enough to accommodate a one-car, covered garage. If it were
a carport, that would not affect FAR. In other words, if it is a carport, they would not
need a further HIE or variance application because of FAR. If it is a garage, they would
need to ask for additional FAR through an HIE application.
A:[PCMins6[pc6025.reg Page 5
06-25-97
Commissioner Beecham: Does the HIE process allow for additional square footage?
Ms. ~;rote: That is correct.
Commissioner Beecham: To any limit?
Ms. Grote: Usually up to about 100 square feet.
Chairperson Cassel: If there are no other questions of staff, I will open the public
hearing. Both appellant and applicant are allowed 15 minutes. We will hear from the
appellant first, according to our rules.
Mary_ Connors, 574 Addison Avenue, Palo Alto: The property in question is directly
behind my property. As you will see from the letter that I originally submitted, I have
had virtually no time to prepare for this hearing, because I did not receive the notice. I
was traveling, and it came up much faster than I was led to believe it would. So I do not
have the documentation that I would otherwise have brought. But let me tell you what
my precise objections are.
The variance that I am objecting to is the 22-foot, second story addition. I find it
incomprehensible that there is a finding that this will not negatively impact my property.
In the original rejection of the application, which was admittedly for a somewhat different
architectural design, the statement was made in there that the roof line conflicts with the
simplicity and balance of the original pyramid-shaped roof, a prominent feature of the.
house. I maintain that it continues to conflict with that. It is basically taking a very
narrow point and extending it back across the back of my property. The finding was also
made (and this is one that I did want to check out ifI had had the time), originally it was
said that it would cast shadows on the adjacent property. The new letter that came out a
month or two later said that it does not include any daylight plane intrusions.
Industdal/commercialam not an architect. I don’t know the difference in these things, but
I would like to have checked that out further. That seems to me to be contradictory that it
would have in the past but will not now.
Let me just say that I think the city, in granting this variance, is giving an added value to
the property owner. Whether or not that is considered fair, I would not be here to protest
it one way or the other on behalf of the general citizenry. However, I feel that I am being
asked to pay for it. The rules were clear; and the ordinance was clear when this property
was purchased. Now I feel that I am being asked to suffer for it in two basic ways. I am
not objecting and have never objected to the several variances that have come and gone
A:lPCMins61pc6025.reg Page 6
06-25-97
here. They have been more a concern of the city than they have been of mine. I don’t
object to anything having to do with the driveway or the parking situation. I am focusing
my objections on the 22-foot second story. Basically, I am objecting to it from both a
look-out and a look-in standpoint. From my perspective, I have property on both sides of
me closing in. I have one place where I get a view of the sky. That is what is now an
open area that will soon be house. So I will be looking at a house, whereas now, I have a
much better view. There is another house next to ~e that can, with no variances at all,
build up substantially. That brings me to my second point. This is a step, the second law
step in a process, in which my house will start looking like it has fallen into a sink hole.
Whereas before, on this comer, we have had a number of houses all the same size, now
we are starting to have these built-up houses. I will soon be the only one in this part of
the neighborhood that looks like they have fallen into a hole.
Regarding the issue on the Comprehensive Plan, I am not maintaining that the
Comprehensive Plan says anything about second stories. My point there was that I
originally bought this property that I occupy as an R-2-zoned property. That was very
important to me when I bought the property. I thought that was a wonderful thing to have
and that someday, I may want to implement that as some sort of income stream. When
the Comprehensive Plan came out, this property was downzoned from R-2 to R-1. I
thought (and perhaps I was being naive), but I thought I had an implied contract. I
thought that by giving up my property rights to this R-2 zoning, the city was stepping
forward and saying that they were going to enforce their ordinances and that I could count
on the neighborhood at least not harming my property any further. As I say, perhaps I
was naive, but that was my understanding.
So I am here today to request that you deny the exception on the second story. If, in spite
of my objections, you decide to approve it, then I come forth with a request that the R-2
zoning that was taken away at that time be restored to my property. I would also ask,
based on what I thought was an implied contract that we had, that when the
implementation of this comes due, that I be treated with the generous variances that seem
to be being handed out. I was not aware that these variances were an option. I really do
not need any more time, because that is the heart of my argument. I feel my property is
being negatively impacted. I feel that I am losing the visuals that I have now and that the
property is going to be less attractive to people looking at it, because it looks so low
compared to the property- that is going up around it. I also want to say that I really regret
having to spend my money and my psychic energy on this, because in my view, I am just
asking the city to do what it should be doing without my involvement, that is, enforcing
its own ordinances. I particularly regret a process that forces me to oppose my neighbor.
That is why we have rules and regulations so that everybody will know them and so that
A:lPCMins61pc6025.reg Page 7
06-25-97
individuals do not have to stand up and oppose each other. I do not want to stop anyone
from enjoying their property. I just do not want it to happen at my expense. So I do
respectfully request that the city follow its own rules and deny the variance for the
second-story addition. Thanks.
Chairperson Cassel: Would the applicant please come forward next.
Carina Rossner, 1022 Webster Street. Palo Alto: First of all, I want to thank Mary for
withdrawing her request to continue. As you can see from the letter at your places, we
have been at this since May of 1996. We have had over nine months of public hearings
and all sorts of delays and frustration, so I appreciate being able to move forward now.
With respect to Mary’s specific concerns, there are a couple of areas I want to cover. One
is the issue of the daylight plane versus the shadow. Speaking specifically about the
impact to her home, we did have the architect prepare a shadow study of the impacts on
her property. Essentially, we prepared one for the original design, and since the original
design and this new HIE, in listening to these concerns, we moved the house two feet
farther away from her property, line. We moved the addition farther back, and essentially,
at the worst possible time of the year in terms of the morning in winter, the area shaded in
gray is the additional shadow that would be placed on the comer of her property. In that
comer, the additional shadow that would be placed by the addition, the shadow that
would be placed by an addition that would be 17 feet at the full envelope of the daylight
plane, is not significantly more or less. It is about the same, so we have made some
concessions. The difference between shadow and daylight plane, just to explain, is that
daylight plane means that there have been rules established by which you cannot have
your house project beyond an envelope like a tent around your house. You guys decided
that as long as you stay within that tent around your house, you are not putting an undue
impact or shadow on anyone else’s property. You are still keeping yourself to yourself.
We have definitely stayed within that daylight plane within our footprint. The shadow
that is being placed here is very nominal. It is in the comer of the back yard. Throughout
most of the year, most of the shadow appears on our property or on the street in front of
us, since we are pretty much facing north. So in terms of the impact on her property, it is
negligible in terms of the shadow.
In terms of the impact on_view, everybody buys their house and is happy or not happy
with it, depending upon their character and what they have chosen to live in. When we
were finally able to meet with Ms. Connors and discuss her concerns, I tried to figure out
what was really the gist of whether there were any areas for compromise. We were able
to go into her house and see the view she was talking about. She has a breakfast nook
A:IPCMins61pc6025.reg Page 8
06-25-97
that faces her back yard, which, in turn, faces our back yard. In sitting in particular chair
with the blinds half drawn, what she sees is our pyramid roof and our flat additions.
Behind our house directly is the Englands’, who have a mirror image, and they have just
done an addition very similar to the one that we ask for, and there is a little strip of sky
about this big between her grapefruit tree and our cone that would be covered by house
but is not currently covered by house if we were at 17 feet. There is sky above; there is
sky to the side; there are trees. We have offered to plant trees. We came up with all sorts
of compromises, but frankly the only way that we can have the habitable space in our
space on our property and not tear down the house that is there and start over and put it
flat on the setbacks is to be able to have some living space tucked inside the eaves of that
second story. Right now the second story is extended with covered-in porches that really
do not fit in with the house. If we were to extend the back of the house at 17 feet, (a) we
couldn’t have living space there, and (b) it would just look silly. None of the preservation
architects that we spoken with nor the HRB that have given us their support would
support that kind of a design.
We have worked for nine months now to come up with a compromise where a bunch of
conflicting rules within the city have said it is good. We have worked with the HRB. We
have worked with the preservation architect. We have worked with the planning
department. We have worked with the compatibility review. In many cases, to do with
our specific house, these various rules conflict. We finally found a design that people
believed would preserve most of the original structure and has an addition that reflects the
original structure. It gives us barely the space we need to have our family that we want to
start, and leaves us with a little piece, a little thumb print at the back of the house, and has
the footprint, the daylight plane envelope, etc., all within concerns.
In terms of the rules, yes, we knew the rules when we bought the house, and we knew
what the HIE process was, and we knew what the Comprehensive Plan was. I have been
involved in the city before this. We knew that if we were trying to preserve a historic
structure, it was stated over and over that the intention for a lot of these rules was that we
would have some flexibility. We would be held to historic building codes, as appropriate,
and we would be given some flexibility and latitude since our house was in a particular
position on the lot. We have tried to work very closely and have compromised
continuously over the past year with all of these different departments to find a
compromise. So in conclusion,, and pass this over to my architect who is going to talk
about the design of the concessions, we have been working for a year. We have come up
with a design for an addition that we feel significantly contributes to preserving the
historic structure and wiil make it a viable structure that is not likely to be tom down if
we move away. It is going to be financially viable. We can live in it. The preservation
A:lPCMins6tpc6025.reg Page 9
06-25-97
architect and the HRB are pleased with it. We are pleased with it. All of the other
neighbors have been pleased with it, and the planning department is pleased with it. We
are now left with this one concern of an-effect on a view from a particular position in
someone’s house. As much as we would like to have found a compromise, we pointed
out that we would be happy to make the view more pleasant and it would not be a less
significant view from behind, but we cannot seem,to find a good compromise that makes
Mary Connors happy, as much as we would like to. So I would like to ask you to uphold
Lisa’s decision and recommend to the City Council that they grant us the HIE so that we
can hopefully move on to building it and living in it. I would now like to tum the floor
over to Chris Spaulding, our architect, who will walk you through some of the
concessions we have made and all of the different things over the last nine months to try
and make everybody happy.
Chris Spaulding. 801 Camelia Street. Berkeley: I would like to go over some of the
changes we have made. Originally, we started out with a house that had a. garage. We
had that garage on the right side toward Ms. Connor’s house. It was set back.about ten
feet from the front fagade. That was the thing that upset the Historic Resources Board in
the compatibility review. So our initial design was denied primarily based on that garage.
We also tried a scheme where it was a carport instead of garage. The HRB and the
planning department seemed much more comfortable with this latter scheme, also the
city’s historic architect, Barbara Judy. It was a compromise in that we eliminated the
garage and!or carport and just left enough space in the sideyard. That gave more space
towards Ms. Connors’ house to park the car and :potentially have a carport in the.back
yard. My client does not really want to do that, as she needs her yard, but that is a
possibility.
The other thing we did was to make the dormers that looked out onto the two adjacent
side neighbors to have high windows on the wall so that you cannot see out through them
from inside the house. They provide headroom and light inside, bt~t do not pose a privacy
issue to the neighbors. As far as the neighbors’ view, it is hard to address that in meeting
my clients’ needs and trying to design within this historic house, which is set farther back
on the lot. If we built a new house, we could move it forward and this issue might go
away, but my client does not want to do that, and I don’t think the city really has an
interest in seeing that house demolished. The HRB felt that if we moved it forward, it
would diminish its relationship to its neighbor which is its twin. We looked at that
concept, too, and nobody liked that idea. That completes my comments.
Steve Player, 1874 Guinda Street, Palo Alto: I am here on behalf of the appellants. I
would like to speak briefly about this, as I have been involved in it for some months now
A:lPCMins61pc6025.reg Page 10
06-25-97
when Carina and her husband were going through the process of trying to preserve this
house. As you know, it is a very eclectic neighborhood. It has a lot of diversity, and I
feel that my clients have made a very real effort over a long period of time to comply with
all of the rules and regulations that the city has imposed upon this particular change.
In support of opposition to the appeal, I would like to say that she has complied with the
ordinances. She has gone through the process several times, trying to come up with a
design that was acceptable to the zoning administrator and within the rules of the home
improvement exception. That is what our rules are for. It is not a question of saying that
she is trying to go around the rules. She has been trying very hard to work within the
rules.
I got involved in this at the time when the initial design went through the process, and the
zoning administrator declined her application. At that time, she was going to appeal, yet
she said, maybe there’s an opportunity to try and work out a solution where we can come
back with a design that would be acceptable within the regulations of the HIE. She has
done that, at considerable additional expense. She has worked with her architect. She has
worked with staff. She has worked with the HRB. She has worked within the system to
come up with a design which the zoning administrator now feels is an acceptable design.
I don’t need to recount to you the staff report, but all of the findings can be made. It is
not a question of asking you to go away from the findings. All of the findings can be
made to support the home improvement exception in this case. There has been
considerable time and delay and money spent by this family in trying to get this house
built in a Way that makes it habitable for a young couple to live in and to build their
family in. This is the kind of thing we are looking for here in Palo Alto, encouraging
young families to come into our community, buy our houses, make them usable, and be
able to build their families within these houses. I think they have done everything they
possibly can to try and achieve that purpose, so we urge that you uphold the decision of
the zoning administrator and grant them the home improvement exception in this case.
Jennifer Rothstein, 899 Webster Street, #2~ Palo Alto: Just quickly, on Carina’s behalf, I
know that she and her husband are trying to keep the original architecture as much as
possible and keep the design. I think that is very important. Their design right now is
going to do that, and it is going to look good in the neighborhood. Second, I know it is
unfortunate and frustrat!ng for people who have homes and are trying to deal with the
growth in the area, and the city is trying to accommodate everybody, and it is very
frustrating. It is weigh and balance, and it looks like Palo Alto has made some exceptions
to try and accommodate that. Unfortunately for Ms. Connors, this fits within that -
exception. That is all I wanted to say. Thank you.
A:lPCMins61pc6025.reg Page 11
O6-25-97
Lynne Derrick Navarro, 390 Leland Avenue, Palo Alto: I wish to read a letter from my
farther, Tommy Derrick who could not be present tonight. It says, "Honorable Members
of the Palo Alto Planning Commission: I live in one of the houses that is part of Palo
Alto’s historic inventory. I have worked with the city staff, the Historic Resources Board,
the Planning Commission and the City Council in restoring and maintaining this property.
Because of this work, I am very familiar with the c, ity requirements regarding historic
properties. I have assisted and watched Marc and Carina in their process with 1022
Webster. I have seen them give up many details such as size and location of dormers,
size and location of parts of the second floor, etc., all of which were within building and
zoning requirements, just to meet the desires of neighbors. These changes were made
even though they decreased the future value of the property. The current requested
change by the appellant is totally unreasonable and would destroy the extensive amount
of work already put into this project. The impact of this addition on the appellant’s
property is minuscule, at most. The fmal approval given to their plans by the zoning
administrator does not meet Marc and Carina’s desires, but does give them a home that is
acceptable. It is time now to put this process to an end. I strongly request and urge that
you deny this appeal and send these plans on to the City Council with a recommendation
that they affirm the staff’s approval. Sincerely, Tommy Derrick, 390 Leland Avenue,
Palo Alto."
Laarni yon Ruden, 468 Channing Avenue, P~10 Alto: I am a homeowner here, and I have
seen Marc and Carina’s plans. I am excited that they are going to. try and enhance the
existing structure. So I do support their plan. Thank you.
Chairperson Cassel: The applicant and appellant each have the opportunity for a brief
rebuttal, if they so choose. You each have three minutes.- First, we will hear from the
applicant.
Ms. Rossner: I would just like to point out that we have some pretty thick files in the
office of the planning department. In those files, there are about a dozen letters of support
from neighbors, and there has been a series of people, like these neighbors who were able
to come out tonight and have spoken in our support. There are a lot of people within our
immediate neighborhood and a little farther afield within the notice area that do like our
plans and think that we are making a contribution to the neighborhood. As Marc has
pointed out to me several times, since we are trying to budget, that we are spending about
20 to 30% more on our house in trying to preserve and retain the historic structure than
we would if we started afresh on the same lot. I think it is unfortunate that this has been
so difficult for all of us, but we are trying to do the right thing. We have been working
very hard for the past year to work through all of the changes in the rules and all of the
A:]PCMins6[pc6025.reg Page 12
06-25-97
changes in the policies to do the right thing and end up with the right house, so we would
appreciate your support.
I don’t know if you want to discuss the parking issue separately or later, since it is not
really a part of the appeal, but I did want to say that it is currently a one-car garage. As
Chris, the architect, pointed out, we have been compromising between different rules for
the last year. Whether or not it is within s0meone°s jurisdiction to allow us to convert a
current, one-car garage to two uncovered spaces with the potential for a covered space
afterward, I don’t know. But all I can say is, we have put in a good faith effort to work
with the compatibility laws that say you are allowed an attached garage and a historical
board that said, we we approve your plans, and with a planning department that says, we
do not approve your plans. It went back and forth and back and forth to try to find a
compromise. If we have to start over because at the end of the day, we have a decent
house and no property to be able to have a child’s play area or anything like that, that
would be a real shame. So I think we have left space for a covered parking space. The
building code does approve a carport in that location, and it is within our fire rules, etc.
We have left space for a driveway. Anyone in the future who wants a covered parking
space there can have it, but the reality is that the lot is very narrow. The likelihood of
anybody driving all the way to the back and parking is very slim, and we think we have
done the best by designing the house so that it is as far back as possible and has two
uncovered spaces offthe street and off the front yard. So hopefully, you will consider all
this and help us with our plans. Thank you.
Ms. Connors: I would just like to reiterate that I have never objected to all of the things
that have ended up in changes, maybe one or two of them, but not very strongly. So all of
the compromises that have been made were made on behalf of the city or drive-by people
or people interested in other things, not people immediately impacted. I do not know
about the immediate neighbors. It is very interesting to hear the views of people who live
on other streets and in other neighborhoods. They are not the ones impacted by this. I
am.
I disagree, of course, with the characterization that was made of the loss of my view. I
particularly disagree with the discussion of my grapefruit tree. It is, to me, a very
significant loss, and maybe more important, one that I did not think would happen. I
thought that this was what I was bargaining away my R-2 zoning for. So to me, it is
significant, and for someone to characterize it as "minuscule" I think is very insulting. I
will not comment further on that.
A:lPCMins61pc6025.reg Page 13
06-25-97
One thing is that I do not come down in support of or against anyone unless I feel I am
immediately impacted by the decision. The Englands’ house Was one that I was not sure
what to do about, because I do not have a very good spatial sense, and I could not imagine
at the time how it would impact me. Carina is exactly right. It does impact me, and I
should have opposed that house, as well, but it impacts me much, much less than does the
one right out behind me, which is now pretty much filling my field of view. I guess I can
always go out into my back yard and look straight up and still see the sky, but that is not
quite the same thing.
I also want to make the point that I am not just objecting from the standpoint of my view.
I am objecting from the standpoint of the appearance of my house in a neighborhood that
is now developing second stories for houses that, in my view, had a right to do it, and
therefore, I expected it, and houses that did not have a right to do it, and I did not expect
it. So I really feel that in the .future, and probably within a very short period oftime,’I am
going to have to put a second story on my house, or else it is going to look really weird.
That is partially why I am requesting at this time a reconsideration of the zoning
ordinance. If the R-2 zoning were restored, that would give me a lot more to work with if
I do have to put a second story on my house. Thank you.
Chairperson Cassel: Seeing no other speakers, I will now close the public hearing and
return this item to the commission. We have a member of the HRB here tonight, in the
event that he wishes to make any comments.
Ms. Grote: IfI could interject, the HRB did not actually review this HIE application.
They had reviewed the previous HIE application. This one went through the historic
preservation architect as a compatibility review. So if the HRB member would like to
speak, it is as a member of the public and not an HRB representative. (There were no
comments made by the HRB representative.)
Chaimerson Cassel: Are there any questions of staff at this time?
Commissioner Schink: Does the applicant have an opportunity, in the future, to apply for
a variance for the covered parking, if they wish?
Ms. Grote: Yes, they would be able to apply for a variance for parking.
Commissioner Schink: But not an HIE? (Correct) They would have to come with a
variance application. (Correct)
A:lPCMins61pc6025.reg Page 14
06-25-97
Commissioner Beecham..: So to follow up on that, the garage issue is not before us in one
manner or the other tonight?
~: Well, it is in that it appears that under Section 1890.010(e), you cannot grant
an HIE to take away covered parking and replace it with uncovered parking. In other
words, you would have to add a condition, in order to uphold the approval that requires
covered parking to be added at some point.
Commissioner Beecham: "To be added at some point." Would that be at an indefinite
point in the future?
Ms. Grote: No, you need to make it definite, either to say that it is added now or at some
definite point in the future, such as 12 months, 24 months, some reasonable amount of
time in the future. Under an HIE, you cannot vary covered versus uncovered parking.
Commissioner Beecham: Can you tell me why there is a time that must be available on
that?
Ms. Grote: The time would be in order to give the applicant enough time to incorporate it
into her plans. It has not been incorporated in her plans thus far with this application.
Commissioner Beecham: Should we then consider the application before us tonight
implicitly to include a covered garage unless theapplication comes in later on and
requests and receives a variance?
Ms. Grote: Yes.
Commissioner Schmidt: You said "covered parking," not a garage.
Ms. Grote: That is correct.
Commissioner Schmidt: It can be a carport which can have four posts and a roof, and
nothing more than that. That would satisfy condition for a carport.
Ms, Grote: Well, according to compatibility standards, there would need to be a garage
door on the carport, because the two open sides cannot be visible from the public right-of-
way. So it would need to have a garage door on it to meet compatibility standards.
Commissioner Schmidt: For the historic structure?
A:lPCMins61pc6025.reg Page 15
06-25-97
~rote: Yes, for those with contributing status.
Chairperson Cassel: What we are really saying here is that they cannot take this building
down, correct? And they have to have a garage door, at least, to match it.
Ms. Grote: Well they can remove the garage. They just need to replace it with covered
parking with a garage door.
Commissioner Schink: Could you look at the site area calculations that have been
submitted so you could report to us that there is adequate allowable area for them to put
in a --
Ms. Grote: Yes, I did look at that earlier. There are 38 square feet of FAR remaining on
the site. If they add a carport, that does not change the FAR calculation, because that is
not a part of the FAR. If they add a garage, they would need a variance or an HIE
application for 115 square feet. It is 153 square feet for a one-car garage, and they have
38 feet, so that leaves 115 square feet.
Commissioner Schink: And for a carport, do they have allowable lot area coverage?
Ms. Grote: Site coverage, yes, they do.
Commissioner Byrd: As a followup to Bem’s question about timing on this one, if we
recommended and the City Council granted the home improvement exception and the
application had an amount of time in which to come into compliance on the garage
requirement, the applicant could subsequently come back to the city, request a variance
and process that variance prior to the time running on the HIE. In other words, you
require the garage, but then the applicant can come back and request a variance so that the
applicant did not have to .provide the garage within the specified time.
Ms. Cauble: It certainly could happen that way. I just want to make it clear that no one is
saying that a variance could or could not be granted, but certainly process-wise, there
would be that opportunity to consider that.
Commissioner Schmidt: -To take that a little further, the request for a variance could
range fi:om no covered parking to a more open, covered parking space with four posts and
a roof, something more lattice or trellis-looking than a carport with a door on the from
and one side with a side. It could range from any sort of variance.
A:lPCMins61pc6025.reg Page 16
06-25-97
Ms. Grote: Probably. It would still need to meet the compatibility standards, however.
They would need to make a case that if this is a more open structure, that it still somehow
meets compatibility standards. That could get very creative. And yes, they do have more
than enough lot coverage left. They can go up to 35%, which is 1,575 square feet, and
they are only covering 1,339 square feet. So they have a significant amount left.
Commissioner Schink: Is there anything in the compatibility standards which requires a
covered parking space?
Ms. Grote: Not in the compatibility standards, but it is in the zoning ordinance.
Chairperson Cassel: If there are no other questions of staff, then let us begin the
discussion.
Commissioner Beecham: On the one hand, I am impressed with what the applicant has
done over the past year to work out a design that satisfies the various competing interests
of the city and the neighborhood. Maybe one way to go about this discussion is that for
myself, I do not find any reason to uphold the appeal. So I would.like to hear from any of
my colleagues if they have reason to do so.
Commissioner Schmidt: First, I would comment that I visited the site today and talked
with the homeowner at 1022 Webster. I would agree with Bem’s comments that I see no
reason to uphold the appeal. I would agree with flae statements of the zoning
administrator, and I would hope there is a way to avoid covered parking on the site or
make it simpler than the compatibility requirements now require. I do think that the
homeowner has gone to a lot of work and trouble to try and work with two complex
ordinances that we have in the city, one being the historic requirements that are brand
new, and the other working through the HIE process. Everyone has stated that there has
been a lot of agreeable effort among the city, the homeowner, the designer, etc., to come
up with something that works for all of these regulations. I understand Ms. Connors’
worries about changing the viewoutside of her windows, and I sympathize with that,
however, the proposal is certainly within what is allowed by the city’s regulations. That
neighborhood has both one- and two-story homes, and we try to encourage homeowners
to upgrade and maintain their homes. I think this is an excellent example of someone
who has gone to a lot of effort to do that and to work within existing height of the
residence at 22 feet. It will not be any higher than it already is. It will be somewhat
longer, but I don’t think it will dramatically change the views in that area.
A:lPCMins61pc6025.reg Page 17
06-25-97
Commissioner Schink: Let me start out by saying that I have enormous sympathies for
the anxiety that Ms. Connors is going through. In our neighborhood, there are people
talking about the same thing right next door to where I live. We spend many hours
talking about it. It is a real struggle that goes through your household when this sort of
change takes place.
I can also appreciate the struggles that the Rossners have gone through for the last year. I
sometimes do similar things in my business, so I can appreciate the real emotional
struggle that you are all going through. I come back to trying to take a close look at what
the rules are here to establish us and guide us in this. Mr. Player pointed out clearly that
the Rossners are playing within the rules. These are rules we have set up. We have
talked about them in many study sessions and at a number of Planning Commission
meetings. We need this HIE process specifically for this reason. If we hope to preserve
these historic homes, we must have this flexibility. If we take away this flexibility, we
might just as well bring on the bulldozers, because there is no other choice but to knock
them down and start over. So I will be supportive of the staff recommendation tonight.
Commissioner Beecham: I do have more to say, and it is primarily for Ms. Connors. I
think the genesis of the problem is, what is the commitment by the city to you and the
implicit contract made, as you mentioned, and exactly what that means. You asked about
whether the city would enforce the rules and regulations, and I feel that is exactly what it
is doing. The rules and regulations, unfortunately, are not clear and concise. There are
some basic rules, but there are any number of possible changes or variances or exceptions
that can be made, and these things come up, over time, as we see the problems between
neighbors such as yourself on complex issues. But in terms of the applicant and the city
playing .by the rules, it indeed is. These are the rules which have been set up for good
reasons. There are options that are not obvious when one looks at them initially, and it
takes some detailed assessment in specific cases to find out what might or might not be
done.
You also wondered aloud in front of us whether or not, when and if you go and do
something to your parcel, you would be given the same consideration. I am absolutely
sure that you would. To the degree that you would want to avail yourself of variances or
exceptions, in working with staff, you can find out what is available or possible, and I am
sure you would get a very open hearing from the city and the commission and the council.
on what might be done. So I hope you do not go away from here feeling that you have
not been listened to and that the city does not enforce the Comprehensive Plan or the
zoning rules, etc., because in fact, what is happening here is a very detailed assessment of
A:lPCMins61pc6025.reg Page 18
06-25-97
what is prohibited and what might be allowed, working for the overall good of what is
desirable.
One point that Commissioner Schink mentioned is that there is a very high desire in the
city to maintain the current housing stock and to prevent it from being knocked down and
new units put up. When you look around the city and see houses and lots being sold for a
half million dollars and more, and the next day, y6u see a bulldozer out there, it shows
that there is a very good reason why we need to go to extraordinary’ lengths that are set up
in the laws and ordinances to protect the existing housing stock in the city.
Ms. Bialson: I would like to try and bring this process to a close for the applicant,
although it does not seem like we will be able to do so. It does not sound to me like we
have the ability or the power to accomplish that. Has this revelation of the need to have
covered parking recently arisen, or is this something that we had knowledge of prior to
the time of the minutes?
Ms. Grote: We have known that you need covered parking, but the revelation that you
cannot use an HIE to vary that has very recently arisen.
Ms. Bialson: So there is no way to bring closure to this issue tonight?
Ms. Grote: Actually, yes. It would be to add a condition that covered parking would be
added either now or at some point in the future. You can craft your motion to reflect that
time period.
Ms. Bialson: If we addthat requirement, do we compromise the applicant’s ability to go
in for a variance or some other --
Ms. Grote: No, you do not. They could still apply for a variance.
Ms. Bialson: Thank you. That is what I wanted to have clarified.
MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I would like to move the staff recommendation, with
Item 3 being revised as follows: Strike the words "provision of two uncovered parking
spaces where one covered and one uncovered space are otherwise" and replace that with
"one covered space shall be installed within 24 months of final inspection of the main
structure..." The rest of the staff recommendation would stay the same.
~: By Commissioner Beecham
A:lPCMins61pc6025.reg Page 19
06-25-97
MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel:
All those in favor, say aye. All opposed?
Commissioner Ojakian not participating.
Is there any further discussion on this motion?
That passes on a vote of 6-0 with
Ms. Cauble: This item is tentatively considered for council consideration on July 21.
Chairperson Cassel: It is tentatively considered for that date, and I believe they are going
to try and adjust that date, if possible.
Ms. Grote: I don’t know if the appellant will be requesting a continuance at that time, but
the council would need to consider this on July 21 to meet the 30-day time period from
the time you heard it. They could choose to continue it at that time.
Chairperson Cassel: And the appellant, if she wants to continue this item to City Council,
should check with whom in order to check on that, date?
Ms. Grote: She would need to make a request at the July 21 hearing. Then the council
would vote whether or not to continue the item to a date certain.
.Chairperson Cassel: Can she discuss that ahead of time with someone?
Ms. Grote: She could check with the city clerk to see if it is possible to get a different
council date. ’.
Commissioner Schink: If she chose to withdraw her appeal, would the issue simply drop
and not go forward to the council, and this would be done?
~: I believe it would be dropped if she withdraws her appeal.
Chairperson Cassel: And if she does not withdraw her appeal, could she talk to the city
clerk about scheduling the council date?
Ms. Grote: That is correct.
A:lPCMins61pc6025.reg Page 20
06-25-97
Attachment
Iuly g, 1997
Mayor Huber
Pale Alto City Council
Pnio Alto City Hall Fifth Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Appeal of decision on I-Iome Improvement Exception for 1022 Webster Street, Pale Alto
Dear Mayor Huber and other Cotmcil members:
We request that you grant us the I4~ that the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission support. Our
neighbor Mary Conners has said that she would like to withdraw her appeal but the Zoning Administrator told us that
there was no way for her to pull her appeal at this point in the process (forcing it to remain on your agenda.)
In addition, we ~lUeSt that you help m correct a series af administrative problems that we "have had with our home
remodeling pmjeet. We ask that you either grant us the HIE as offered originally by the Zoning Administrator, or
waive the fee requirements for an additional’variance application that would grant the same condidons.
We have spent the la.st, year working hard to reach a compromise with the I-ll~, the Plauning Dq~.ment, the
Preservation Architect, Compatibility Review Guide, lines, neighbor concerns, and our living requiremems. The HIE
that the Zoning Administrator granted ns allowed us to remove our current gsxag~ structure and repiac¢ it with two
mw, o~a:a~ parking spaces and a site plan that would allow detached rear covered parking in the future, if so desired.
This compromise was reached afar a great deal of time, effort, and expense.
However, Phyllis C, asscl pointed out in our Planning Commission hearing that an HIE could not be legally used to
n~nove the covered parking reqnirement (though this is possible with a variance.) The Planning Commission
therefore recommmuled that the HIE be granted, but amended to reqnire covered parking within two years after final
inspection of the house. This was their attmnpt to give us the time we would need m file ~’or a variance to remove the
covered parking. We am trying to preserve a Contn’buting W~ori¢ slntcm~ on a sttb-standard si~ lot (4500 Ul. ft.)
and there is little flexibility if we want to place our addition in the back afthe prol~rty.
While we appreciate their generosity, we are miffed, at being asked to expend additional funds to corre0t the Zoning
Administrator’s mistake. Since our first HIE filing in November of hast year, we have air~ady suffered through a gnat
’deal of unusual delays and additional expenses. These include:
. l~teing asked to start our process over again in mid-Janua~’, n~tum to the I-IRB (which had already
reviewed our plans twice in December), and have our HIE hearings continued for sLx weeks so tlhat the
Planning Department could determine how to transition to and implement the Interim Historic
Preservation Ordinance
Being caught in th~ middle of our neighbors’ displeasure with City policies or actions and having to
spend time and money preparing for over six hearings and two appeals. One neighbor altompted to use
our application as a forum to sue the City for compcusamxy damages and property value loss for what
they perceived as being unusually strict interpretation of the rules in their case. The neighbor Ming this
appeal was hying to use our C~kse t~ get her property w~oned back to R-2 (a change that had happened
twenty years ago.)
We have atready spent over a year Working with the city on these plans. In fact, the only tw~asoa we agreed to file the
second HIE you scc before you today was because Nan¢3, Lytle and Barbara Judy assured us that th~ would support
the com/~romi~ plan abovv, We offcrcd to present ~ option, expend the funds to file for an HIE, have the architect
prepare the d~wings, and suff~r the costs ~t’the de~ays
which a~tu,~ly included covered parking, We w~re tlmnkcd for our willingn~,~ to k~p working W ~ this
compromi~, and told that the Planning D~parUnvnt woutd do cve~.hing in its power to expedite our application and
h~p ’~m,~ko up lof’ the past inoonveni~n~s wc had
We timmfom request that you end ottr year-long straggle and grant us either the HIE that the Zoning Adminimator
first offered or a waiver of the lees ~’or a varianoc tO deal with th~ co, red parking issue.
Thank you for yo~ consideration.
Cafina & Marc Itosan~r
1022 Webstvr S~ Palo Alto, CA 94301 415-326-584~. fax 415-326-3885. ¢arina@h3:oridmodia.com