Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-17 City Council (25)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO: FROM: AGENDA DATE: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL I ~ CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment NOVI~MBER 17, 1997 CMR:464:97 SUBJECT:216 EVERETT AVENUE: APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S DECISION BASED ON THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO DENY A MINOR CHANGE TO AN APPROVED PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN RECOMMENDATION The Architectural Review Board (ARB) and staff recommend that the City Council deny the appeal of an application for a minor change to an approved plan for an existing Planned Community (PC) zone district, based on the attached ARB f’mdings (see Attachment B). PROJECT DESCRIPTION An application was made to install a window wall system located on a second story covered balcony of a single-family house located on the former Times Tribune site. The proposal would enclose the sides and front openings-of the balcony and include two double-hung windows in the left balcony opening, two double-hung windows in the fight balcony opening, and three double-hung windows in the front balcony opening. .SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES The ARB recommended to the Director of Planning and Community Environment that the application be denied because the findings in the Architectural Review Board Ordinance for approval could not be made. The ARB found ~that the proposed design of the balcony enclosure was not integrated with the front building elevation. The proposal did not maintain the integrity of the Planned Community development because it eliminated an architectural element that provided visual interest on the building elevation. Also, the proposal would not maintain the streetscape, in that the enclosure of the balcony with a window wall system CMR:464:97 Page 1 of 3 would eliminate the interaction of the residential unit with the street and eliminate an important building wall plane change on the structure (see Attachment D ). The appellant has raised the concem that the modification is so minor that it should not have required ARB review. The following rationale was used in determining whether or not the application was a minor change to the approved PC development plan and serves as a clarification of the ARB staff report dated September 4, 1997 (see Attachment E). Section 3(c) of the Planned Community Zone Ordinance for the subject property (Ordinance No. 4243) states that "All improvements in the zone shall substantially conform to the approved development plan." Subsection 3(c)(i) further states that "Items such. as landscaping, spas, skylights, windows and window coverings may be installed or modified without approval by the Architectural Review Board." Subsection 3(c)(ii) states that any other changes to. the exterior of the buildings or new construction shall require an amendment to the Planned Community Zone (see Attachment F). The appellant believes that the addition of a window wall system enclosing the balcony constitutes "windows and window coverings." Staff disagrees with this interpretation and believes the intent of subsection 3(c)(i) was to allow existing windows to be modified (i.e., made bigger or smaller) or features such as shutters to be added to the exterior of the buildings. Staff does not interpret the enclosure of an open balcony to qualify as a windows or window coverings. In interpreting the focus of the PC Ordinance, the Director of Planning and Community Environment determined that the proposed amendment to the development plan was minor in nature, as defined in Chapter 18.99 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and directed the application to be forwarded to the ARB. The alternative would have been a rezoning action requiring hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council as well as the ARB. BOARD ACTION On September 4, 1997 the ARB reviewed this application. The ARB voted unanimously to deny this application because the fmdings for ARB approval could not be made. The applicant appealed this decision on September 16, 1997 (see Attachment C). POLICY IMPLICATIONS The project must be determined to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Architectural Review Board Ordinance. The following policy is relevant to this project: Comprehensive Plan Urban Design Element, Objective, p.42: "Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and considerate of each other. " The proposal does not promote a visual environment that is of high aesthetic CMR:464:97 Page 2 of 3 quality because the proposal encloses a second floor balcony that was designed to be open and will be out of character with the architecture of the existing Structure and the uniformity of other houses in the PC zone. ATTACHMENTS A.Location Map B.ARB Findings C.Applicant’s letter dated September 15, 1997 D.ARB Minutes from September 4, 1997 E.ARB staff report dated September 4, 1997 F.Planned Community Ordinance (PC #4283) Drawings (Council Members only) PREPARED BY:Phillip Woods, Planner REVIEWED BY:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Eric Riel, Jr., Chief Planning Official DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:)~J~~-¢/~ KENNETHR. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: HARRISON Assistant City Manager Architectural Review Board James and Barbara G. Newton, Property Owners, 216 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Downtown North Neighborhood Association, Dan Lorimer, 465 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 CMR:464:97 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A Project: 216 Everett Avenue Date: 11-17-97Graphic Attachment to Staff Report File #: 97-ARB-93 ; 97-ZC-7 PF PF Scale: 1" = 200’ North ATTACHMENT B ARB Standards for Review/Findings 216 Everett Ayenue File Nos. 97-ARB-93, 97-ZC-7 The proposed design does not further the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance as it does not comply with the Standards for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC. The design is not consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s comprehensive plan (Standard #al), in that the proposed window wall system is not compatible with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as discussed in the Policy Section of this Report. The design is not compatible with the immediate environment of the site (Standard #a2), in that the proposed location and design of the window wall system is not integrated with the front facade. The proposal does not maintain a similar design as other houses in the PC zone and would create a negative visual impact. The enclosure of the second floor balcony is not consistent with the general character of the building and would disrupt the character of the surrounding building and land uses. The design is not appropriate to the function of the project (Standard #a3), in that the proposed design is not appropriate to the function of the project because the window wall system would eliminate the use of outdoor space off the master bedroom. Also, the enclosed balcony would eliminate visual openness, and break the mass of the front elevation. In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, whether the design isnot compatible with such character (Standard #4), in that the proposal to enclose the second floor porch is not consistent with the unified design character of the residential units in the Planned Community District. The second-floor balcony was designed tO be a distinctive feature of this particular residential unit and is similar to other residences located in this development. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between designated land uses (Standard #a5). This finding does not apply because the proposal does not affect the transition in scale and character of the existing building. The design is not compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site (Standard #a6, in that the proposed location and design of the window wall system does not blend in with the existing characteristics of the building. The proposed Findings: 216 Everett Avenue 97-ARB-93; 97-ZC-7.Page 1 window configuration and proportions would create visual clutter on the building facade and negatively affect the aesthetics of the building both on and off the site. The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community (Standard #a7). This finding does not apply because the proposal does not impact the planning and siting of the existing building. The amount and arrangement of open space are not appropriate to the design and the function of the structures (Standard #a8), in that the proposal eliminates private open space on the second floor of the existing house. The sufficient ancillary functions are not provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are not compatible with the project’s design concept (Standard #ag),in that the proposal eliminates an open porch that was intended to function as outdoor open space for the existing house. The access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclist and vehicle (Standard #al O). This finding does not apply because the proposal does not impact circulation on the site. That natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated (Standard #al 1).. This finding does not apply because the proposal does not impact natural features on the site. The materials, texture, colors and details of construction and plant material are not appropriate expression to the design and function and the same are n. ot compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions (Standard #a12), in that the proposed use of materials and details are not appropriate expression to the design of the existing second story balcony and are incompatible with other neighboring structures located in this PC zone, Whether the landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment (Standard a#13). This finding does not apply because the proposal does not impact the existing landscape design. The plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance (Standard a#14). This finding does not apply because the proposal does not impact the existing plant materials on the site. Findings: 216 Everett Avenue 97-ARB-93, 97-ZC-7.Page 2 The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements (Standards #a15). This finding does not apply because the proposal does not impact the energy efficiency of the existing building. Findings: 216 Everett Avenue 97-ARB-93, 97-ZC-7.Page 3 . James A. & Barbara G. Newton 216 Everett Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (415) 326-9159 ATTACHMENT C September 15, 1997 Department of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. : Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Appeal from the Director’s decision of September 9, 1995 216 Everett Avenue File No.: 97-ARB-93; 97-ZC-7 James and Barbara Newton Ref.: Letter response to Staff Report dated September 3, 1997 (attached) This is to appeal the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment to deny the subject application. Our appeal will be based on the same arguments contained in our response to the Staff Report dated September 3, 1997. However, the subjective issues addressed by the Architectural Review Board will not be the basis for appeal. We contend, again, that: A. The modification is so minor that it should not have required review and is not a "change" to the zoning. The standards of an initial Planned Community zoning change should not be applied simply because the property was initially developed under that zoning variance. B. Even if the Ordinance #4243 is applied, the proposed change is specifically allowed. The space in question is existing covered and enclosed floor space. The ordinance directly permits the change as in "Landscaping, spas, swimming pools, building colors and materials, skylights, exterior wa~l surface treatments, windows and wind .ow coverings may be installed and/or modified without approval by the Architectural Review Board." (Section We expect to expand on this discussion in the public hearing. Scheduling: We understand that we are entitled to a public hearing within 31 days. We will be out of the United States from September 28 to October 15, 1997. This is likely to make this timing difficult. We will agree, in advance, to a continuance to a time up to 32 days after our return. That would allow Council Meeting dates up to, and including November 17, 1997 but not including September 29, October 6, or October 13, 1997. j~ai~cerely’ . es A. & Barbara G. Newton ATTACHMENT D ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING September 4, 1997 216 Everett Avenue James and Barbara Newton 97-ARB-93 97-ZC-7 Application for Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment of a minor change to an existing Planned Community (PC) zone district to allow the location and construction of a window wall system on a second floor covered balcony for a total of approximately 100 square feet. Chairman Ross: This is categorized as a major item. Is there any staff input7 (None) .Are there any questions for staff?. Mr. Peterson: Was the area of the porch originally included in the FAR? Phillip Woods: Yes, it was. Mr. Peterson:’ So this would not be asking for any additional FAR. Phillip Woods: I take that back. It was not included. Mr. Peterson: So this would increase the FAR. Phillip Woods: Yes, it would. Chairman Ross: Could you amplify a little bit on the wording of the PCordinance? Have you done any research on this? This is considered to be a minor modification and would not need to return to the board. : .Phillip Woods: It is considered a minor amendment. Chairman. Ross: What I am curious about is Section 3(c), Subparagraph I. This, I assume, came out of the discussion we had here at the board when this PC was originally approved about what sort of items homeowners could accomplish on their homes without coming back to the board. Phillip Woods: I think it is also mentioned in the ordinance for the actual PC, Attachment #5. Chairman Ross: This is on Page 3 of that Attachment #5. Landscaping spas, swimming pools, building colors and materials, skylights, exterior wall surface treatments, windows and window coverings may be installed and/or modified without approval by the Architectural Review Board. As I read the applicant’s application, it is under that exemption that they are asking for this to be 216everett.min Page 1 allowed. The wording is, I am not sure I would call it vague, but I am just wondering if anybody has looked into the intent of that wording. Phillip Woods: The reason why it is considered minor versus. Major amendment is that enclosing a balcony is not considered wall coverings or window coverings. Chairman Ross: No, why this application, in staffs opinion, does not fall into that exemption. I am not trying to put you on the spot, I am just asking if records of meetings were reviewed or what? It does list installing windows as something that can be done by a homeowner without approval by the ARB. Obviously, this has come to us, so staff has determined that this application does not fall under this. I just wondered if you could point out the reasons for that. Phillip Woods: It is determined to be a minor amendment to the PC. I guess the only exceptions would be items that would not return to the board on the list in the PC ordinance. Otherwise, it would go through the board for review. I can ask Lisa for clarification of that, if you want. Chairman Ross: That might be helpful. It seems to me that this issue might turn a little bit on the wording in that clause. I don’t know if other board members would like clarification on that. Mr. Peterson: Well, I read that to be replacement so it is not an addition of new square footage. Mr. McFall: That is my reading of it. Chairman Ross: That is my recollection of the original discussion when the PC application was approved. I was just wondering if that was the actual basis for saying that this application does not fall into that exception. Lisa has already determined that it needs to be reviewed by the board. This is categorized as a major item because it is a modification to the PC ordinance. That means you have ten minutes available for a presentation, if required. Jim Newton, 216 Everett Street, Palo Al~o: Good morning. You have already touched on the key issue here. What I have prepared here is a response to the staff report which includes that issue which you have just been discussing. We propose to make a minor modification to our property at 216 Everett as described in the application before you. We believed, and still hold, that this application process and approval are not required. The modification is very minor and has negligible impact. What impact it has is positive. There is no neighbor opposition, in fact, one neighbor Who is present today hopes to make the same modification. As we noted in the application, the modification is either permitted by the ordinance in the clause you just cited, the 3C(I), or it is not prohibited by the definitions in the municipal code about what constitutes additional FAR space. This is existing space under the definition of FAR. Therefore, it is not an addition under 3C(iv). 216everett.rain Page 2 Further, we posit that the fact that this property was built under this ordinance does not mean that it is subject to these strict design rules and review of the PC in perpetuity. The sale of these properties did not disclose that they are subject to any other than the general laws and restrictions of the City of Palo Alto and the state. To impose this kind of requirement now is to claim an unrecorded and undisclosed deed restriction. There is no requirement for the city or for the owner to follow these restrictive approval processes for such trivial matters beyond those subject to the general ordinances. This process is wasting our time. To move to the specific objections, th~ policy implications, read the Comprehensive Plan. We hold that the proposal does promote the intent of "high aesthetic quality, variety and consideration of the environment." It is of insignificant impact, but such impact that it has is positive. The staff report objects that it was not in the original design. No design is perfect, and this modificationcorrects a significant fault in the original design. It also carries forward the primary design element of the office building on Lytton which anchors the development of this block. That building is an array of glass windows between false colonnades. Standard 1 A, as in the case of the staff report, we refer to the discussion under the Comprehensive Plan. Standard 2A, the design, in our opinion, is compatible with the immediate environment. These balcony configurations are the main variety features on these houses. The main difference between the houses are the front porch and balcony configurations. They are deliberately designed to be different. To add this additional variety only adds a bit more variety to the general approach. There are only two houses with this particular development, and we both want to make the same modification. Therefore if you value compatibility, the two of us will do it, and it will be back. Under Standard 3A, the proposal does meet this standard because it is intended to correct the design fault which makes this space not usable. The main purpose of this modification is to make that space usable. It will increase the value of the space by adding the protective wind barrier and also a sound and thermal barrier. Standard A6 is purely a subjective judgment. The proposed configurations and proportions were specifically chosen to match those already in use in the house. I was using the same windows that are used already. Under Standard A12, the materials issue, this proposal uses exactly the same materials already used in the fagade of the house. This was done specifically to avoid this type of objection.. Back to the zoning ordinance compliance, which is the issue that you were talking about before, the staff report misquotes the ordinance. Under 3(ci), which you referred to; it permits, rather than prohibits "landscaping, spas, swimming pools, building colors and materials, skylights, exterior wall surface treatments, windows and window, coverings may be installed and/or modified without approval of the Architectural Review Board." To the other side of the question, we further contend that this not new construction under 3C(I). This is existing floor 216everett.rain Page 3 area as defined in the code. The appropriate clause to apply is 3C(I). This application has consumed far more labor and attention than justified by a very minor, albeit positive impact. The application of this extreme design review has interfered with our rightful free use of our property without justification. The proper finding is that a review and permit are not re@ired for.such a change. Thank you. Barbara Newton, 216 Everett Street, Palo Alto: My husband has addressed the issues presented in the city staff report. I want to add a personal note. When the staff speaks of aesthetics, they seem to be solely concerned with the exterior aesthetic value. First, I need to remind you that this is a second story balcony concealed from passersby by a city tree. From an interior view, we have a very unaesthetic situation. The balcony is directly off the master bedroom. French doors separate the room from the exterior. The balcony is always littered with debris and grime. When we first moved in, we put two chairs out there, but we had to throw away the cushions because they were so filthy. We hung a bird feeder up there, but it blew down. Wind chimes proved to be too noisy. Plants are blown over by the wind, creating additional mess. As it is now,-to keep the balcony even reasonably neat, I have to sweep and splash it with water every few weeks. There is no water supply on the balcony, so I have to fill buckets from the master bathroom, carry them out to the balcony, and pour them out. This is time consuming and exhausting, so I do not do it anymore. I simply have closed the blinds from the master bedroom to the balcony, and we have been in the dark all summer. So the situation really is intolerable. I would appreciate your consideration for our situation. Chairman Ross: Thank you, Mrs. Newton. Are there any questions for the applicant? Mr. Alfonso: Are the window enclosures being proposed just like the ones in the house itself?. Mr. Newton: Yes, the proposal was to use exactly the same ones. The drawings actually are drawings of windows that are used elsewhere in the house, same make, same insulation. Mr. Alfonso: So the space between the glass and the comer columns will be filled with what? Mr..Newton: Some wooden filler element painted white to match the column. Mr. Alfonso: To match the trim color? Mr. Newton: Yes. It is just a raw white the color of the columns. Mr. Alfonso: Are all of these windows operable? Mr. Newton: Yes, that is correct. Mr. Alfonso: Is there any attempt to make the actual closure air tight? In other words, you 216everett.rain Page 4 currently have a way for water to get out. Are the~e any other things you are trying to do there? Mr. Newton: No, there is a drain there. It is air tight in the sense that if you close the windows, it would be essentially as air tight as the house, but the drain is there. Mr. Alfonso: We have heard about the problems related to the porch itself. Can you talk a little bit about what other alternatives you have considered? Or did you consider any others? Mr. Newton: A partial screening. It basically faces into the prevailing westerly winds at the second story level, so it just gets a lot of wind exposure. I did consider not fully enclosing it, but it did not seen to add very much to leaving one side open and enclose two others. I considered other window configurations, but at this stage, unless you had some ideas, we decided to stay with these because they maximize the consistency with the rest of the house. I do not know of any other way to block wind, short of putting something up that blocks it. Ms. Piha: Are you still intending to use this as porch. Mr. Newton: Yes. Ms. Piha: You are not going to take down the French doors and change the wall and increase the bedroom size. Mr. Newton: No. Mr. Peterson:. I am going to ask the same question I asked before to get an answer from you. Would the enclosure of this increase the FAR? Phillip Woods: Originally, I don’t think it was counted in FAR, so it would. Mr. Newton: As near as I can tell, there is no recorded FAR for these buildings. At least, no one has been able to give me one. Phillip Woods: Based on the plans that we have had submitted and approved, we did calculations from that. Mr. Newton: It seems to be a secret. Mr. Peterson: I think that if it increases the FAR, we have a zoning issue here. Phillip Woods: We do have the plans for what was approved, and forms the basis for the way we calculated .square footage for that particular model. So it does increase the FAR. Mr. Peterson: What I am reaching for is that if this then exceeds the approved FAR, then we 216everett.min Page 5 have a zoning issue, and the zoning administrator would review this case. Phillip Woods: That is correct. Mr. Newton: I think the crucial issue is that it matches the code definition of enclosed floor space. If you have made an error in your calculation, that is a mathematical error. We are not changing what this space is, relative to the legal definition of floor area ratio. Mr. Peterson: That is an issue that needsto be addressed and settled by the Zoning administrator. That i~ not something we would make a decision on. So at the moment, it would increase the FAR. Phillip Woods: It definitely would increase the far. Mr. McFall: In your September 3rd letter, you mentioned a significant design fault. Correct me ifI am wrong, but reading your letter, that means it is because you are exposed to wind, sound and thermal conditions? Mr. Newton: Well, specifically, the wind putting an open balcony facing into the prevailing westerly wind at the second story level is a design fault, in my mind. It was only done on two of the structures. You could say that some of those on Emerson might have that, but they are screened by having more structure around them. We do get the additional benefit when we put it in of screening the street noise, too, and some additional thermal solution, but wind is the primary issue at the second story level. Chairman Ross: On the windows themselves, Mr. Newton, you note that they are in the same style as used elsewhere in the building. Is’there just one type of window used on the house? Mr. Newton: Yes. There are two small windows, I believe, that are not double hung, but it is the same make and frame. In fact, those dimensions are of the same dimensions as windows that are used elsewhere in the house. Mr. Alfonso: In the sill area of that one 47-inch, there is quite a sill area for blast of wind. I am wondering whether you have looked at how this is going to be structured in place? Mr. Newton: Speaking of the front elevation? Mr. Alfonso: The western elevation, the one that is going to receive the primary wind. I am raising the question about the actual window’s viability. Chairman Ross: Are you talking about wind loading? Mr. Alfonso: Yes, exactly. 216eve~ett.min Page 6 Mr. Ne..wton: I suppose you raise a good point. I chose it because those are two existing windows and they fit in the space. They are divided in the middle instead of offset the way I did. Mr. Alfonso: There are a couple of things that could happen. Assuming that you were to enclose this, you face a suction problem on the leeward side and a loading problem on the windward side. That really needs to be looked at carefully prior to. going through with this. So the question I am raising is, have you looked at that? Mr. Newton: No, I just chose two existing windows that filled the space. Certainly, it could be broken up in a more balanced manner. I would be happy to do that. Chairman Ross: If there are no further questions, I will open the public hearing and ask if there are any members of the public here to address us on this agenda item. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing and come back to the board for comments. Mr. McFall: This is certainly a dilemma as far as I am concerned, because there are homeowner rights and also community needs involved. I think what we are asked to do today is to compare all of those needs and make a decision, based on the application. The zoning issues I would almost consider to be separate, this being an Architectural Review Board. I am going to focus my comments on the aesthetic issues. Whether or not this is additional FAR or not is. another question. My reading is that perhaps, it is not. I am going to focus on the visual aspects. One of the nice visual qualities of this project, to my eye, is the use of balconies and porches typically on most, if not all, of the units on both the first and second floors. What it does is to provide texture and depth to the street elevation, and it gives it some ~;ariety and a great deal of interest. That is one of the saving graces of this project. It also gives the opportunity to provide interaction with the community. Actively or even vicariously, you have the opportunity to sit on. your porch, talk to neighbors, see what is going on, and I think that is one of the nice things about most of Palo Alto. Many houses, particularly older houses, have porches. I would consider this second story balcony to be another classification. When you close off a balcony, which is what is being requested here,-you preclude that opportunity for interaction with street life. I do not consider that to be a positive. From the aesthetic side, as well, you decrease the depth, you decrease the interest of the elevation of the house, and as I said, that is one of the components that I believe to be attractive about this house, as well as others on the property. So all that being said, I would not be able to support the application, because I do not think enclosing porches is the appropriate solution. There has to be some recognition that when you have an outdoor living space like this, whether it is on the north, south, east or west side, it is there for a reason. That is to be outside. This is a protected condition because it has a roof, but when you are outside, I think you do need to anticipate that there is going to be dirt, there is going to be wind, and it is going to. be colder out there because, in fact, you are outside. I understand the applicants’ dilemma, and I sympathize, but I cannot support the request. Mr. Alfonso: First of all, I would like to. second what Jim has said regarding the zoning issue. I 216everett.rnin Page 7 do think there is a zoning problem here, but I am not going to comment on that, as it is not what am here to do. I am simply here to look at the question of the actual proposal as a modification to an existing structure but not from the zoning standpoint. I have to support what Jim has said regarding the porch, because one of the important fabrics of this streetscape is to have these reveals and setbacks on the structure itself. Enclosing that porch in the manner that has been proposed, or enclosing it at all, is going to detract from what is happening right now on the streetscape. From that standpoint, I feel that it is an inappropriate thing to do to the building itself. The fact is that when you have an outdoor private space such as you have here, all of the above that you mentioned is going to happen, whether it is on the second floor or whether it is in a back yard. I cannot support what is being proposed here. Ms. Piha: This is the third person to say to you that I cannot support what you are asking to do. I have sat on this board for several years, and one of the major projects that came before us is this housing project. This project did not sail smoothly through this board. There were a lot of architectural elements that were discussed about the project. The balconies and porches were one of the important conclusions about the project. I think it is importa~at for us to maintain those for the integrity of the project to be maintained. Enclosing one of these I am not in agreement at all that it is a positive improvement. I think it detracts from the massing, the variety that was created and the interaction with the street, and those are important aspects of the project that need to be maintained. I am sympathetic to your concerns, but I also have to believe that you understood what you were purchasing and you understood that this was an exterior balcony. Exterior spaces require maintenance. I feel strongly in support of the staff recommendation and cannot support what you are asking to do. Mr. Peterson: The other board members have focused on one of the two issues here, those being the appearance and the contribution that the porch gives to openness, reduction of mass, etc. I also feel that way. The other issue is your proposal for the enclosure. I think there could be an enclosure designed that might mitigate some of those, but what is being proposed does not do that. It looks makeshift and temporary, so I think that to make a proposal to do this, you would need a redesign of that entire element that feels integrated, not like a porch closed in. That is what this is. That does not seem integrated with the original design, so I cannot support this, either. Chairman Ross: This application, for me, is a very good illumination of the difficukies that this city faces when talking about single-family design review. So whatever the final disposition of this is, I would like this to be noted somewhere in future discussions of whether single-family design review is required either for new construction or remodeling. This is an application that we would not be seeing for the .other 18,000 units in town, or whatever the quantity is. People are free to make modifications as long as they do not exceed the zoning,etc., without design review. So that creates a little dilemma for me, and this actually underscores why I am not in favor of this body, at least, giving single-family design review. It is a relatively minor issue, 216everett.rain Page 8 however, once it comes to our attention, we have to find a way to deal with it. During the discussion of this project, as Cheryl pointed out, I think it was continued two or three times for further refinement and fairly exacting requirements made of the applicant. I don’t believe that it eventually passed on a unanimous vote, either. I believe it was still a controversial project, and it was controversial over aesthetic and architectural issues, so unfortunately for you, you are inheriting a long history of design review for this project. Your home is unlike most in town in that it has been the subject of significant design review before it was built. You also inherit an ordinance that is subject to interpretation, obviously, in that there are not many single-family homes in town that are precisely described-or maybe imprecisely describedby an ordinance. So here we all are with this thing. I want to address for a moment the comment about exterior aesthetics versus interior aesthetics. This board only concerns itself with exterior aesthetics. We, by definition, are not concerned as a board (although we might be as individuals and might feel sympathetic) with the interior aesthetics of your house, but only the way it looks from the outside. Mrs. Newton: I am thinking of my rights as a homeowner. Chairman Ross: I will ask you if you need clarification at the end. The authority of this board only covers the exterior, and although some information may be provided to us, we really do not have jurisdiction over how the space is used on the interior or how it looks on the inside. But we are asked to look at the outside of the building. I agree with myboard member colleagues that this proposal detracts from the original aesthetic design, the look of the house and the way the porch adds interest to the building. I also happen to sympathize with your problem of its not being a very usable space for what you would like to use it for. So you have your dilemma; we have ours. I am going to have to agree with my board members that under the jurisdiction we are provided and the mission that we are charged with, I cannot support the application either. Some zoning questions have been raised. The way I read the ordinance, the porch should have been counted in the original FAR, but I think there is a difference between residential and commercial about how gross floor area is calculated. It may be that on this project, for some reason, the original calculation was done in the commercial sense that a covered porch is not originally counted in the gross floor area. In residential zoning, it is supposed to be an original part of the gross floor area, so that is perhaps a question that remains open. As Small as this is, unfortunately for you, this application raises some pretty major policy questions. We have struggled here at this board with this tension of how this residential project is going to look and how people are going to use it. What we have said to ourselves is that there will be a certain self-selection process, i.e., if a residential project is built near the railroad tracks, yes, there will be noise, but people who move into it will take that into account in deciding whether to live there or not. Some things are immediately obvious, and you probably did not realize when you moved in that your bird feeder would blow off the porch. For me, it is an 216everett.min Page 9 interesting problem. For you, I know it is a frustrating one, but again, under the jurisdiction and charge that we have, I cannot support the application. We sit here in a sense as judges constrained by the ordinances as we understand them. Your recourse here, available to you on denial, is to appeal to the city council. As much as we do not like to see these things go to the city council, as we like to think we can handle them, I think this deserves the city council’s attention because of the story it tells about the dangers of single-family design review in town. MOTION: Chairman Ross: I therefore will make a motion for denial, which is the staff recommendation, and suggest that you, as quickly as possible, get an application in for review by the city council of our denial, and see what they say about it. SECOND: By Boardmember McFall. Mr. Peterson: For clarification, is part of our motion to appeal it to the city council? Chairman Ross: No. That is the applicants’ option. I don’t think we can compel them to do that. If we were to continue this for some reason, they would not be able to appeal it to the city council. They can only appeal upon denial, or they can appeal on approval, too. Denial is a mechanism to get it in front of the council. I am sure you have considered this, but there may be other ways to screen the wind. That problem is typically an afternoon problem around here. Maybe there is some type of screen that you can put in without any kind of review, things that are permitted and which we would not have to look at. But if you want to do this thing, you need to take it to the city council. I am sorry that that is the case, but I do not see any way around it. Is there any further discussion, or do you want to make any final comments, Mr. Newton? Mr. Newton: Just very briefly, from what you are saying, it sounds like we can, in fact, go directly from this decision on appeal to the city council. There is not an intermediate appeal loop that we have to wind our’way through. .Chairman Ross: No, I believe you can appeal directly to the city council. Mr. Newton: Frankly, this is exactly what we were expecting and were hoping for. I would like to make one last comment on thisissue of single-family design review. I find it abhorrent that you can run a single-family residence homeowner through this kind of an exercise, and at the same time, just wink at 2.0 FAR with tens of thousands of square feet of excess space being added to this town. Thank you. Chairman Ross: We have a motion and second. All those in favor? .That passes 5-0. 216everett.min Page 10 ATTACHMENT E Architectural Review Board Staff Report Item No. II.3 Agenda To: From: Subject: Date:September 4, 1997 Architectural Review Board Phillip Woods, Planner "216 Everett Avenue James and Barbara Newton Department : Planning File No.:97-ARB-93 97-ZC-7 REQUEST Application for Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for a minor change to an existing Planned Community (PC) zone district to allow the location and construction of a window wall system to enclose a second floor covered balcony for a total of approximately 100 square feet. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant has submitted .anapplication to install a window wall system located on a second story covered balcony. The proposal encloses the sides and front openings of the balcony and includes the following; two double-hung windows in the left balcony opening; two double-hung windows in the right balcony opening; and three double-hung windows in the front balcony opening. The applicant has submitted a site plan and elevations drawings that indicate the location of the balcony enclosure in the proposed location. ..~ Please refer to applicant’s letter and plans for further details of the proposal. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of this application because the findings for Architectural Review Board Ordinance can not be made. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The project must be determined to be consistent with the Palo A!to Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Architectural Review Board Ordinance. The following policies are relevant to this project: A:\216ever.sr Page 1 Comprehensive Plan 1. Urban Design Element, Objective, p.42: "Promote visual environment which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and considerate of each other. The proposal does not promote a visual environment that is of high aesthetic quality because the proposal encloses a second floor balcony that was designed to be open arid will be out of character with the architecture of the existing structure and the uniformity of other houses in the PC zone. .DISCUSSION Background The proposed drawings submitted for Architectural Review Board review do not provide the quality, detail and information that is required for an ARB submittal. Staffwrote a letter, dated June 10, 1997 requesting the applicant to provide additional information on the drawings (see Attachment # 3). The applicant was unable to provide the requested information because of the cost of the drawings and ~because he believed that the original drawings submitted would be sufficient to understand the proposal (see Attachment #4). .Project History, The subject site was approved as a Planned Community (PC) District by the City Council on November 7, 1994. An application for a minor change to an existing Planned Community zone district was submitted on April 30, 1997. On May 5, 1997, the Director of Planning and Community Environment determined the application to be minor under the provision of Chapter 18.99 of the Palo Alto Municipality Code. Minor changes to existing Planned Community zone districts are reviewed by the Architectural Review Board for recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Issues and Ana!ysis. The staffanalysis for this project is related to the ARB Standards for Review/Findings and Zoning Ordinance compliance. ARB Standards for Review/Findings The design and location of the window wall system on a second floor porch does not further the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance as it does not comply with the Standards for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC. The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s comprehensive plan (Standard #al). The proposal does not meet this finding, in that, the proposed window wall system is not compatible with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as discussed in the Policy Section of this Report. ’ The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site (Stimdard #a2). The proposal does not meet this finding, in that, the proposed location and design of the window wall system is not integratedwith the front facade. The proposal does not maintain a similar design as other houses in the PC zone and would create a negative visual impact..The enclosure of the second floor balcony is not A:\216ever.st Page 2 consistent with the general character of the building and would disrupt the character of the surrounding building and land uses. The design is appropriate to the function of the project (Standard #a3). The proposal does not meet this finding, in that, the proposed design is not appropriate to the function of the project because the window wall system would eliminate the use of outdoor space off the master bedroom. Also, the enclosed balcony would eliminate visual openness, and the creation of shadows that break the mass of the front elevation. The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site (Standard #a6). The proposal does not meet this finding, in that, the proposed location and design of the window wall system does not blend in with the existing characteristics of the building. The proposed window configuration and proportions would create visual clutter on the building facade and negatively affect the aesthetics of the building both on and offthe site. The materials, texture, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function and whether the same are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions (Standard #a12). The proposal does not meet this finding, in that, the proposed use of materials and details are not appropriate expressions to the design of the existing second story balcony and are compatible with other neighboring structures located in this PC zone. Standards #a4, #a5, #a7, #a8, #a9, #al0, #al 1, #a13, #a14 and #a15 are not applicable to this project. Zoning Ordinance Compliance The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with the PC Planned Community District regulations. The proposal does not meet the requirement of the subject PC district, in that it adds an element to the structure that was not specially permitted by the Development Plan or the site development regulations included in PC ordinance 4243 (See Attachment #5). Unless amendment to the PC Zone is obtained,.Section ¯ &-(e-)-~(ii)-prohibts any-.-new construction or--exterior.changes in exterior wall color, landscaping, spas, sk~,lights,-windows and window’c~verings. Enclosing a balcony does not qualify, as a change to window coverings. Window coverings were intended to mean exterior shutters or shades, not full enclosures of previously open areas. Zone Designation: PC-4243 Planned Community District Use Category_:Residential PUBLIC NOTICE A:\216ever.sr Page 3 Public notice of the project was provided bypublication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation and courtesy public notice cards were sent to property owners and utility customers within 300 feet of the site. TIMING ACTION LIMITS: Date project received: Date application deemed complete Action time limit: (105 days after project’s CEQA determination) Optional extension upon applicant’s request: (90 days after action date) 4/30/97 6/5/97 9/18/97 12/17/97 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This project has been determined to be categorically exempt per CEQA requirements. ATTACHMENTS Attachment # 1:Applicants’ description, dated April 9, 1997 Attachment4/2:Letter from applicant, dated June 6, 1997. Attachment #3:Letter Request for Additional Information dated June 10, 1997. Attachment #4: Letter from applicant, dated July 14, 1997. Attachment #5: PC Ordinance 4243 Plans (ARB members only) COURTESY COPIES Applicant/Owner Prepared By: James A. & Barbara Newton 216 Everett Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phillip Woods, Planner Manager Review:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator AA216ever.sr Page 4 ¯ TTACHNENT 1 James A. & Barbara G. Newton 216 Everett Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (415) 326-9159 April 9, 1997 .City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & CommuN’ty Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Gentlemen: This application is submitted at the recommendation of staff in the Planning Department. In our opinion, this proposed modification is so minor that neither a review by the Architectural Review Board nor a permit should be required. This covering letter is to state our reasons for the modification. The proposal is to install glazing in a second floor covered balcony. The balcony is exposed to the prevailing westerly winds which blow dirt and debris onto the balcony. The space will not even support plants as the wind blows them to the floor. The protection provided by glass over the open spaces will make the space usable. This modification will have minimal effect on the exterior appearance and will improve the general appearance from the street. The amount of change is certainly less than the variety deliberately designed into these properties for attractiveness. There is only one other property with this balcony configuration. The owner of that house has indicated an interest in installing the same sort of glazing.. Other neighbors we have discussed this with have raised no objections. We believe that this installation is permitted by Ordinance No. 4243, Section 3.(c)(i) which states: "Landscaping, spas, swimming pools, building colors and materials, skylights, exterior wall surface t.reatment, windows and window coverings may be installed and/or modified without approval by the Architectural Review Board." Further, it is not prohibited by Section 3.(c)(iv) of the same ordinance which prohibits new floor area. This is existing floor area under the definitions in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.04.030(65)(A)(vi) which defines ~’Gross floor area" to include: "Open or roofed porches, arcades, plazas, balconies, courts, walkways, breezeway, or porticos if located above the ground floor and used for required access;" We, therefore, request your approval of this modification on the basis that it: 1. Is a minor, but positive, change to the appearance and values of the area. 2. It is either permitted and!or not prohibited by the terms of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and/or Ordinance No. 4243. Approval of this change will allow us to proceed to improve the frontal appearance of our property in an area which is now n~t very useful. Until the utilities are "undergrounded", this facade cannot be very attractive. This change would allow us to at least make some improvements and better utilize the space. Thank you for your consideration. James A. & Barbara G. Newton ATTACHMENT 2 James A. & Barbara G. Newton 216 Everett Avenue f~ Palo Alto, CA 94301 (415) 326-9159 June 5, 1997 Mr. Phillip Woods City of Palo Alto : Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mr. Woods: Enclosed are the additional sketches, and some photographs, you requested in support of our proposed installation at 216 Everett Avenue. The drawings provide additional details regarding the installation of 6 glass windows to screen the open portion of an otherwise enclosed balcony. The balcony is completely surrounded by a 36" high wall with a 48" opening to the upper wall. The general approach is to use the same windows which are already installed in the balance of the house. This will allow a maximum consistency of appearance throughout the house. We have also chosen window dimensions which are the same as used elsewhere for the same consistency of widths and heights. This also allows me to use photographs of existing portions of the house as examples. The front elevation (Drawing #1 and Photo 1) will contain 3 new windows. Two of these, at the ends, will be 47"W x 46"H. This same window is in place several places in the house and is shown in Photo 2. The center window will be 23" in width which is the same as the window to the right of the balcony in Photo 1. The three windows will be joined in the manner shown in Photo 3. Here we use the painted aluminum structural members from the window framing options. An interior detail of this structure is shown in Photo 4. With this approach we can minimize the need to make any structural changes to the balcony. We will only need to provide a wooden fall piece for the tapered gap between the windows and the columns at each end. This portion will be finished to match the columns. The Right Elevation (Drawing #2) requires only one window. It happens that a standard 41"W x 46"H window (which is used elsewhere in the house) fits here almost perfectly. Only the standard installation and the fill piece for the column will be needed. The Left Elevation requires two windows (Drawing #3). The one closest to the street will be the same 47"W x 46"H one that is used in the front elevation sides. The other one will be the same 23" wide window used in the center of the front elevation. Thus, this side view is identical to the right two windows and column connection used in the front. The connection between the two windows will also be identical to the front view as shown in Photos 3 and 4. We have considered other windows.of higher quality and more open arrangements. So far, our conclusion is that this maximum re-use of materials, dimensions and methods of installation provides the most agreeable result. Sincerely, ,/! Jffmes A. Newton ATTACHMENT Cityot alo Alto Depart.~ tt of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division June 10, 1997 James A. & Barbara G. Newton 216 Everett Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 216 Everett Avenue, Case Nos. 97-ARB-93, 97-ZC-7 Request for Additional Information Dear Mr. and Mrs. Newton: Thank you for submitting revised drawings, photographs and written description that show the proposed s~cond floor porch enclosure. As discussed in our phone conversation on June 5, 1997, there is still additional information that is necessary to clarify the-graphic representation of the proposed window system. I have enclosed the two graphic illustrations that might be helpful (see attached.) To continue processing of this application, the drawings need to incorporate the following items; . 2. 3. 4. 5. Indicate on the elevation drawing, window sashes around each window. Indicate the physical dimensions and materials of sash, mullion, and window casing. Show the fifll front and side elevations of the second floor porch enclosure to scale. Indicate the material on the elevation for the filler piece between the column and new window unit. Eliminate the cross hatching on the elevations; typically this is the architectural symbol used to denote brick material. All drawings submitted should be on the same paper size and stapled into sets. Once you have completed the information requested above, please submit eight sets of drawings to the Department of Planning and Community Environment, 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Attn. Phillip Woods. I appreciate your cooperation and look forward to assisting you. PHILLIP WOODS, Acting ARB StaffLiaison (415) 329-2230 Enclosures; pages 85 and 86 from Graphic, Guide to Frame Constructioni Details for Builders and Designers,. Rob Thallon. CC: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator 2-50 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto~CA 94303 415.329.2441 415.329.2240 Fax WALL~WIklDOW~~ N~AD JAMB > : ¢ ,, r! GILL ~ TRAI::)II-IO gl AL WINDOW Modern windows derive from the traditional wboden window shown above. Older windows have a wooden sash that holds the glass, which is usually divided into small panes by muntin bars. This sash is hinged within a wooden frame that is fixed to an opening in the Wall. At the bottom of the frame is a wood sill, sloped to shed water, and the sides and top of the frame are called jambs. These components and their t~rminology have been handed down to the modern window, but modern windows are better insulated and better sealed, andusually need less maintenance than the traditional prototypes. Today’s window is made in a factory and is usually assembled there and shippe.d ready to install in a rough opening. Several popular types, classified by their method of operation, include casement, double- hung, sliding, hopper, awning and fixed. Each of these types is made in wood, metal, vinyl or a combination of two materials. Sizes and details vary withthe manufacturer. Double-hung, sliding and fixed window~ are generally made in large~" sizes than the hinged types. Optional trim packages are available with most. //// ~ GILL (,~ BE’LOW) ~ ~ ~gToP ~~ JAMB JAMb EXTERIOR WALL Flkll~14 All windows require a coordinated installation in wood- frame walls, as follows: Header--Size the header so .that loads from above do not bear on the window itself and restrict its operation. Window wrap IWrap the framing at the rough opening with a moisture barrier to protect ii from th~ occasional leaks that are most likely to occur around the edges of windows and doors. Shim and support--Shim the window at the sill and afiix the shims to the lraming so that the window is level and rests firmly on the framing. Insulation--Place batt or spray foam insulation around the edges of the installed window to reduce both heat loss and air infiltration. Air barrier--An air barrier, if used, must be sealed to the window unit. The moisturelair barrier may be sealed to the window nailing flange at the wall’s outside surtace, or the vapor/air barrier may be sealed to the jamb’s inside edge at the wall’s inside surface. (~ WIIJDOW Ikle-3TALLATIONI WALL..£ Wood windows--Wood windows (see 87-89 and 91) are pleasing for their warm, natural look. Along with the excellent thermal properties of wood, the aesthetic appeal of the wood window is its strongest asset. The major disadvantages of wood windows are the initial high cost and the ongoing need for maintenance. Wood is susceptible to deterioration from the weathei’, so periodically refinishing the exterior surfaces is necessary. Every effort should be made to protect all- wood windows from rain by locating them under overhangs. Wood windows that are exposed to the rain in existing structures will have their lives extended significantly by the protection of a storm sash. Aluminum and vinyl-clad wood wlndows were developed to minimize maintenance. The cladding on these windows decreases their r{eed for maintenance, yet retains the aesthetic and thermal advantages of wood on the interior. The availability of custom shapes is limited compared to all-wood windows, however. Metal windows--Metal windows (see 8bA and 90A) are made of extruded aluminum thai is screwed or welded together at mitered corners. A wide range of quality and profiles is available. Metal windows are known for their low maintenance and low cost. Higher- quality units are available with thermal breaks built into the extrusion. These thermal breaks are recommended in cold climates to reduce heat loss and condensation.. Metal windows are not available with exterior casings, so their potential to act as strong visual elements on the exterior of a building is limited. Decorative cas!ngs are often added, however (see 87A). A wide variety of finishes is available on metal and metal-clad windows, with colors ranging Irom polished aluminum and anodized bronze to a full spectrum of baked- enamel colors. Vinyl windows--Vinyl wincJows (see 89A and 90B) are made of extruded PVC. The extrusions are either screwed or heat-welded at the mitered corners to make both frames and jambs. Some units are manufactured with abbreviated casings; others are made to trim to the siding without casings. Vinyl windows have not been used extensively in this country, but they 10ok promising. Both their c6st and their expected maintenance are low, while their insulative properties are relatively high. They are available in all operating types. Color is integral and is available in white, greys and shades of brown. ..ATTACHMENT 4 James A.,& Barbara G. Newton 216 Everett Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (415) 326-9159 July 14, 1997 Mr. Phillip Woods City of Palo Alto . Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE:a.) 216 Everett Avenue, Case Nos. 97-ARB-93, 97-ZC-7 b.) Your letter of 6/10/97; Request for additional information. Dear Mr. Woods: I have been attempting to obtain the additional drawings you requested in your letter of June 10. I had expected that I could obtain them as part of a proposal from a glazier who would perform the work. Unfortunately this does not seem to be the case. The total project has been estimated to cost about $1,600.00. The glazier has estimated that he will charge an additional $500.00 just to prepare the drawings that would satisfy your request. Even at that price, he really does not want to them for such a small job. I must conclude that it is not reasonable to pay a $600.00 application fee, $500.00 in drawings, plus the many hours I have already invested in the application process for such a trivial matter. I believe the material already submitted should be sufficient for the ARB to understand the issues at hand. Please proceed based on the current submission and advise me when we can expect to be on the agenda. am~es A. Nincerely’ " / /’? ew~on ¢C: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator ATTACHMENT F ORDINANCE NO. 4243 ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08".040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 245 LYTTON AVENUE AND 305-337 EMERSON STREET (FORMER PENINSULA TIMES TRIBUNE SITE) FROM RM-30,CD-C(P) AND PC (ORD. 3111) TO PC WHEREAS, the Planni~ng Commission, after duly noticed public hearing held September 14, 1994, and the Architectural Review Board, upon consideration at its meeting of August 18, 1994, have recommended that Section 18.08.040 [the Zoning Map] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after ~ue consideration of the recommendations, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo.Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain property known as 245 Lytto~ Avenue and 305-337 Emersbn Street (the former Peninsula Times-Tribune site) the "subject property") from "RM-30 Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential," "CD-C(P)Downtown Commercial (Service) Pedestrian Combining" and "PC Planned Community.(Ordinance No. 3111) to "PC Planned Community." The subject~ property is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds with respect.to the subject property that: (a) The site is so situated, and the existing uses proposed for the subject property are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide for successful redevelopment. While the RM-30 District encourages the development of higher density housing which mmy be responsive to Citywide objectives .for the delivery of affordable housing, it also tends to produce housingthat is inconsistent with the scale, character and circulation pattern~ of older residential neighborhoods such asDowntown North. While RM-30 zoning would permit greater density than this project proposes, it would also permit a monolithic development, out of scale and character with the Downtown North neighborhood if the building design and street treatment were not handled.very sensitively, as can be accommodated under a PC district. The proposed project will also not result in 1 941109 lac 0031020 objectionable environmental impacts, such as peak hour traffic generation. (b) The project will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts, as follows: (i)The proposed project, which provides medium sized 3 and 4 bedroom homes with modest but private open space that wil! accommodate families, will address a major housing need in the community. Residential trends over the last decade demonstrate that the variety of housing types has been very limited. For-sale homes have been confined primarily to very expensive, large single- family homes on conforming R-I lots; moderately-sized ~ownhomes with limited open space and common green area; and more moderately priced stacked flat condominiums dominated by smaller units. These trends have created a gap in the housing stock between relatively affordable attached housing designed to accommodate y6ung households without children a~ngle-family housing that wil! accommodate families, such as this project does. The current single- and multiple-family housing regulations do not allow for this style and type of housing. (ii) The proposed street improvements and landscaping along Ramona Street will’ enhance the pedestrian experience and make the area more attractive. (c) The proposed zone changeis in conformance with the Multiple-Family Residential designation of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Land Use Elemeht. The applicant will narrow the residential street cross section along a segment of Ramona Street and will. install a new landscaped and irrigated planter strip between the curb and sidewalk, preserving the existing street trees around the entire project perimeter. SECTION 3. Those certain plans entitled "Palo Alto Classic Communities by Bassenian-Lagon: Architects," dated August 5, 1994, and approved by the Architectural Review Board on August 18, 1994, a copy of which plans is on file in the Planning Division’office, and to which copy reference is hereby made concerning the full particulars thereof, are hereby approved as the Development Plan for the subject property, pursuant to Section 18.68 120. Said Development Plan is approved for the following uses, and subject to the following conditions: (a) Permitted Uses. The use shall be limited to residential and accessory uses incidental thereto. (b)Conditional Uses. No conditional uses shall be permitted. 941109 ].e 0031020 (c)Site Development Requlations. All improvements and development shall be substantially in accordance with the approved Development Plan. The following are site development regulations which establish rules for modifications or additions to any building, accessory structure or landscaping on the subject property. Definitions of terms used shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. ~ (i)Landscaping, spas, swimming pools, building color~ and materials, skylights, exterior wall surface treatments, windows and window coverings may be installed and/or modified without approval by the Architectural Review Board. (ii) Any other exterior changes tothe buildings ¯ or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or by these site development regulations shall require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone. (iii) No new construction over 12 inches in height is permitted in the front yards. (iv) No new floor area or coverage may be constructed on any lot, except porche~,.patio covers and trellises of less than 120 square feet, which shall not exceed twelve feet in height and shall be set back at least three feet from any property line. (v) No spas, swimming pools or structures except fences may be located on or across a property line. (d) Parkinq and Loading Requirements. The parking and loading requirements governing the subject property shall be in accordance with the Development Plan, as revised to include two (2) bedrooms for each of the four (4) second units, except as follows or as otherwise set forth in subsection (e): (i)Si~age and landscaping~ shall meet the site distance requirements of section 18.83.080 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code applicable to project frontages where driveways are present, to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division. The final landscape plan shall be prepared in accordance with this requirement. (e)Special Reauirements. (i)In conformance with the City’s Below Market Rate ("BMR") requirements (Program 13 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan), the owner of the subject property shall, at its sole cost and expense, apply for a PC Planned Community zone 941109 I~e 0031020 designation at 330 Emerson Street and, if approved, shall, at its sole cost and expense, construct a ~new four-unit residential structure on the vacant property at 330 Emerson Street, to replace the four units of housing being removed for this project. The building shall include four one-bedroom units of 625 to 650 square feet each. Approval of the four unit project shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building permit for the subject property. Construction of the four unit project shall be completed prior to final inspection, :or occupancy, whichever is first, of 12 of the 22 units to be constructed on the subject property. If construction of the four unit project has not been completed prior to final inspection, or occupancy, whichever is first, of 12 of the 22 units to be constructed on the subject property, all work shall stop on the subject property and no further permits or inspections shall be issued until either construction of the four unit project has been completed or the owner has paid the 5 percent fee established below. The owner of the subject property shall se!l the property and improvements at 330 Emerson Street to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation for the price of $150,000, which will operate the project as affordable renta! housing. If the 330 Emerson Street BMR project is’not approved,~ or constructed and sold to the Palo Alto Housing corporation for any reason, the owner shall fulfil! the BMR requirement by payment of a fee to the City equal to 5 percent of the gross sales price of each unit on the subject property. The fee would be payable at the time of close of escrow on each unit and will be based on the sales price of each unit as of that time. The provisions of this condition (e)(i) have been negotiated between the City and the project applicant, and are set forth in that letter from the Director of Planning and Community Environment dated July Ii, 1994, acknowledged and agreed to by the applicant on August i, 1994; and these provisions shall also be incorporated into the Subdivision Improvement Agreement required as a condition of approval of the tentative subdivision map for the subject property. In the event of conflict between the July Ii, 1994 letter and this Ordinance, the terms of this Ordinance shall prevail. (ii)Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following shall be provided to the Architectural Review Board for review and approval: (i) Detailed elevations of all fences and walls, calling out all proposed materials; and 941109 lac 003 I020 (2) Color and material samples of the proposed fence and wall materials; (iii) Prior to issuance.of a building permit, the owner of the subject property shall obtain approval of a tentative subdivision map and record a final map for the subject property. (iv) Prior to issuance of a building permit, final landscape plans and irrigation plans which meet the requirements of the City’~ Landscape water Efficiency Standards ¯ shall be submitted for review and approval to the architectural Review Board, City Arborist, Utilities Energy Services Division and Planning Division. The plans shall include the proposed treatment of street trees adjacent to the subject property as well as landscaping on the subject property. Each tree to be removed shall be replaced with at least two new trees, which shall .be located so as to shade paving and to reduce the need for air conditioning. (v)Prior to submittal of final landscape plans, a tree protection plan, prepared by a certified arborist, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division and implemented prior to demolition and throughout project construc- tion. The plan shall include implementation of the recommendations contained in the report by arborist, Barrie Coate, dated July 8, 1994.. The plan shall include identification of all trees to be protected and shall include measures for their protectio~ during construction, including a temporary construction fence to be erected around each tree that is to be saved. The fence shall consist of portable cyclone fencing or wire mesh, securely attached to metal posts driven into the ground, or alternative fencing approved in writing by the Planning Division. The purpose of the fencing is to keep all construction activity and storage outside the dripline of the trees. It shall be erected before any construction machinery enters the site, and shall not be removed until the final site landscape grading is completed. _ (vi) Prior to issuance of a building permit, a detailed lighting plan sensitive to existing adjacent land uses shall be submitted for Architectural Review Board and Police Department review and approval. Exterior lighting shall be designed for safety, and shall avoid introducing unnecessary light and glare. (vii) Prior to commencement of construction the contractor shall obtain approval from the City’s Electrical Inspector for placement of all substruhture installations, and shall mark the exact locations of splice boxes and ~treet lights for the City. 941109 l,*c 0031020 (viii) Prior to commencement of construction utility improvement plans and load sheets shall be submitted for review and approval by the Water-Gas-Wastewater Engineering Division and °the City’s Cross Connection Control Inspector. (ix) Utility connection charges shall be paid prior to scheduling any work to be performed by the City of Palo Alto. (x) Residential smoke detectors shall be provided in accordance with Uniform Building Code section 1210. (xi) Prior to occupancy building address signage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and the Po’lice Department. (xii) All new electrical service shall be underground. All electrical substructures required from the service point to the switchgear shall be installed in accordance with standards published by the Utilities Department. (xiii) Only permitted per lot. one electrical service shall be (xiv) " A switch p~d and box for the pad mount ÷switch for the project shall be installed at a location to be determined by the Utilities Department. (f) Development Schedule. Construction of the project approved by this ordinance shall be completed on or before February i, 1996. sEcTION 4. The Council find that this project will not have a significant environmental effect. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thlrty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: October 17, 1994 PASSED:November 7, 1994 AYES : NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ANDERSEN, FAZZINO, KNISS, MCCOWN, ROSENBAUM, SCHNEIDER, WHEELER HUBER, SIMITIAN 941109 l~c 0031020