HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-16 City Council (18)TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: January 16, 1996 CMR:106:96
SUBJECT:Appeal of Zoning Administrator Denial of Home Improvement
Exception No. 95-HIE-28 at 2160 High Street, Palo Alto CA
(CategoD, IV Historic Structure)
REQUEST
This report addresses an appeal of a Zoning Administrator decision denying a Home
Improvement Exception (HIE) for construction of a second-stor3, addition with a side yard
setback of five feet where a minimum of six feet is normally required and a side yard
daylight plane encroachment of twenty-two feet in width where a maximum of fifteen feet
is normally allowed. The Zoning Administrator denied the HIE because it does not preserve
the architectural style or historic character of the Category IV historic building, as found by
the Historic Resources Board at its August 16, 1995 meeting, and thus does not meet HIE
required finding number two. "’The ganting of the application is desirable for the
preser~’ation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character, which would not
otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of this chapter." Further. the HIE
does not comply with the Single-gamib Desi~ Guidelines approved by the City Council.
The property owners appealed the Zoning Administrator’s decision. The appeal is based on
the owner’s position that: I) ]’he location of the existing house and the desire to preserve the
ground level floor plan are the extraordinary circumstances that do not generally apply to
property in the same district and that the unique circumstances of this site were elucidated
upon in the application letter and the Zoning Administrator’s public hearing; 2) The project
design evolved over time and the architect had not been informed that review by the Historic
Resources Board would be required and that the architect is willing to reincorporate as many
of the existing architectural features as possible; and 3) The existing house is an isolated
example of this period of architecture on the street, is in a distressed condition and that the
neighbors support the proposed remodel and addition.
CMR: 106:96 Page ! of 4
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the appeal and
uphold the Zoning Administrator’s denial of the HIE request. Refer to "Draft Findings for
Denial of Appeal" - Attachment 1.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
There are two existing City policies relevant to this application. The first is Policy 2 in
Chapter 6, Urban DesQma, of the Comprehensive Plan. It states that the City should:
"Encourage private preservation of buildings which have historic or architectural merit or
both." The proposal does not preserve the historic or architectural merit of the existing
house. It would remove the front porch and cupola and would si~ificantly alter the front
facade (see attached plans).
The second policy is Progam 10 in Chapter 6,, Urban Design, of the Comprehensive Plan,
which states that the City should: "Encourage the rehabilitation of historic buildings b?
providing for the preservation of the building facade when it is not economically feasible to
retain the whole building." As stated above, the proposal does not preserve the historic
facade of the existing building. The existing porch and cupola would be removed and the
desi~ of the addition would not be compatible with, or reference, the original structure (see
attached plans).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following chart summarizes the allowed and requested setback and daylight plane
intrusion requirements. The attached Planning Commission staff report provides more detail
regarding the Zoning Administrator’s reasons for denying the application. It addresses
(1) each of the three required HIE findings individually, (2) the Single Family Desi~ma
Guideline criteria, (3) the Historic Resources Board review and recommendation, and (4) the
property owner’s reasons for appealing the denial (see Attachment 2 -- Planning Commission
staff report, dated December 13, 1995).
Allowed by Code Requested by Applicant
Interior Side Setback 6 feet 5 feet
Daylight Plane Intrusion 15 feet 22 feet
Summary of Planning Commission Hearing:
The Planning Commission heard the appeal of this item on December 13, 1995. Meeting
minutes are attached to this report for City Council information (see Attachment 3). The
CMR: 106:96 Page 2 of 4
Planning Commission heard testimony from the project desig-ner and property owners. The
desirer outlined the philosophy motivating the desig-n, and the property." owners stated their
desire to maintain the current proposal because of its functionality and aesthetic qualities.
Commissioners stated that the second HIE finding, that the remodel and addition would
preserve the architectural style of the house, was especially difficult to make.
Commissioners questioned the property owners about their willingness to redesign the
project to save more of the front facade. The property owners stated they would not be
willing to redesign the project, but that they could incorporate such original elements as the
tiles, clay pipes and wrought iron. After considerable discussion about possible alternative
designs among Commission members, and testimony on that issue from the designer.
property’ owners, staff, and the Vice-Chair of the Historic Resources Board. the Commission
voted to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s denial of the HIE.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City regarding any,’ of the possible actions on the appeal.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This project is a Class 1 categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality
Ace (CEQA Section 15301).
ATTACHMENTS
1.Draft Findings for denial of appeal
2.Planning Commission staff report, dated December 13. 1995. with the following
attachments:
a.Historic Resources Inventor~~ Detail
b.Notice of Incomplete Application. dated June 26. 1995
c.Revised letter of application, dated July’ 26. 1995
d.Zoning Administrator Denial (95-HIE-28)
e.Letter of Appeal, dated October 6. 1995
f.Single Family Design Guidelines - Pages 28 and 46
g.Excerpt from Zoning Administrator Hearing Minutes. dated September 7.
1995
h.Petition in Support of Project - dated September t3. 1995
I.Location Map
j.Parcel Map
k.Zone Map
1.Project Schedule
3.Excerpt from the December 13. 1995 Planning Commission minutes
4.Plans (City Council Members only;)
CMR: 106:96 Page 3 of 4
CC:Historic Resources Board
Patricia Haight, c/o Sandoval-Surez Design Group, 885 N. San Antonio Road,
Los Altos, CA 94022
Steven and Patty Macsisak, 2160 High Street, Palo Alto. CA 94301
PREPARED BY: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
BERNARD M. STROJNY("~
Assistant City Manager
CMR: 106:96 Page 4 of 4
Attachment 1
Draft Findings for Denial of Appeal
2160 High Street
There are no exceptional or extraordinaD~ circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the
site is a flat~ 5,960 square foot parcel (53 feet wide by 112.5 feet deep), which is
consistent with the size~ shape, width and orientation of surrounding parcels. The historic
location of the existing house, which results in intrusions into a side setback and daylight
plane, does not constitute an exceptional circumstance in this case because these factors
are irrelevant to the proposed design solution. The existing conditions could only be
considered exceptional or extraordinar) if the project, as a whole, was designed to
respect and be consistent with those existing conditions.
The granting of the application is not desirable for the preser~’ation 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
improvements do not preserve the existing historic elements of this CategoD’ IV historic
building, especially the front facade, porch and cupola. This aspect of the remodel causes
it to be inconsistent with the Single Family Residential Guidelines (pages 28 and 46). The
proposed second-story does not continue the detailing of the first-storF. and does not
preserve or enhance the existing architectural stvle of the existing structure.
The granting of the application will be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity in that an existing historic resource will be lost if the
proposed improvements are constructed. The architectural style of the existing structure
adds to the character o~’the neighborhood and its loss will result in the reduction of the
character of the original neighborhood.
Attachment 2
PLANNING COMMiISSJION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:Lisa Grote DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA DATE: December 13, 1995
SUBJECT:Appeal of Zoning Administrator Denial of Home Improvement Exception
No. 95-HIE-28 at 2160 High Street, Palo Alto CA (Category IV historic
structure).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council:
Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator denial of a Home
Improvement Exception (HIE) for the location and construction of a second-story
addition with a side yard setback of five feet where a minimum of six feet is
normally required, and a side yard daylight plane encroachment of 22 feet in width
where a maximum of 15 feet is normally allowed (see Attachment 1 for draft
findings for denial of the appeal).
BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION
The site is a flat, rectangular, 53 foot wide, 112.5 foot deep, 5,960 square foot parcel.
It is located mid-block in a residential neighborhood and is surrounded by one and two-
story single-family houses on parcels of similar size and configuration. The house is a
Categol-y IV historic structure and is considered a fine example of the modest uses of the
Spanish Colonial Revival style architecture (see Attachment 2 - Historic Resources
Inventory Detail).
Table 1 summarizes the pertinent information about the site.
TABLE1
Applicant:
Appellant:
Patricia Haight, Architect
Patricia Haight/Steven and
Patty Macsisak
Owner:Steven and Patty Macsisak
Assessor’s Parcel Number:124-19-102
Comprehensive Plan Designation:Single-Family Residential
Zoning District:R-1
Existing Land Use:
Surrounding Land Uses:
Parcel Size:
One Single-Family Residence
North:
East:
South:
West:
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
5,960 square feet (53 feet by 112.5 feet)
Project Description
The applicant applied for an HIE for minor encroachments into the side yard setback and
daylight plane for this Category IV historic residence on June 15, 1995. Revisions were
submitted on July 26, 1996, after an initial Notice of Incomplete Application was mailed
on June 26, 1996. The Notice of Incomplete Application and the revised Letter of
Application are attached for the Planning Commission’s information (see Attachments 3
and 4, respectively). The encroachments were needed to accommodate a second-story
addition on an existing one-story house. The second-story would have continued the
existing five foot interior side setback up to the second floor. The length of the daylight
plane intrusion would have been 22 feet, rather than the maximum 15 feet allowed, to
accommodate one of the new bedrooms on the second floor and the stairs.
PCSR\95ItlE2S AP
12-13-95
Page 2
The following chart summarizes the allowed and requested setback and daylight plane
requirements.
TABLE 2
Interior Side Setback
Allowed by Code
6 feet
Requested bv .Applicant
5 feet
Daylight Plane Intrusion 15 feet 22 feet
Project History.
Both the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the Zoning Administrator have reviewed
this project. The HRB recommended denial of the project and the HIE application on
August 16, 1995. The Board moved to:
"Withhold support of the design as it does not enhance the existing historic features
of the structure, in particular the front facade, porch and cupola, and to not support
the HIE application and to encourage the applicant to redesign the project to
preserve those existing exterior features."
The Zoning Administrator denied the HIE application on September 21, 1995 based on the
inability of the project to meet the three findings necessary for approving an HIE (see
Attachment 5 - Zoning Administrator decision dated September 21, 1995). In making this
decision, the Zoning Administrator also considered the Single Family Residential Design
Guidelines adopted by the City Council, as required by Section 18.90.055(3) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code.
The architect and owners appealed the Zoning Administrator denial based on the three
reasons stated in the letter of appeal (see Attachment 6, Letter of Appeal dated October 6,
1995). The reasons are outlined and discussed in the Discussion section of this staff
report.
PCSR\95HIE28.AP
12-13-95
Page 3
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
There are two existing City policies that are relevant to this application. The first is
Policy 2 in Chapter 6, Urban Design, of the current Comprehensive Plan. It states that
the City should: "Encourage private preservation of buildings which have historic or
architectural merit or both. " The proposal does not preserve the historic or architectural
merit of the existing house. It would remove the front porch and cupola and would
significantly alter the front facade (see attached plans).
The second policy is Program t0 in Chapter 6, Urban Design, of the Comprehensive Plan,
which states that the City should: "Encourage the rehabilitation of historic buildings by
providing for the preservation of the building facade when it is not economically feasible
to retain the whole building. " As stated above, the proposal does not preserve the historic
facade of the existing building. The existing porch and cupola would be removed and the
design of the addition would not be compatible with, or reference, the original structure
(see attached plans).
DISCUSSION
Issues and Analysis
The property owners appealed the HIE denial based on the following three issues: 1) The
location of the existing house and the desire to preserve the ground level floor plan are the
extraordinary circumstances that do not generally apply to property in the same district and
that the unique circumstances of this site were elucidated upon in the application letter and
at the Zoning Admirfistrator’s public hearing; 2) The project design evolved over time and
the architect had not been informed that review by the Historic Resources Board would be
required and that the architect is willing to reincorporate as many of the existing
architectural features as possible; and, 3) The existing house is an isolated example of this
period of architecture on the .street, is in a distressed condition and that the neighbors
support the proposed remodel and addition (see Attachment 6 - Letter of Appeal dated
October 6, !995).
Each of these issues is discussed below within the context of the three findings that must
be made to approve an HIE. The inability to affirmatively make any one of the findings
necessitates denial of the application.
12-13-95
Page 4
HIE Finding Number 1: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the properD, involved that do not apply generally to property in
the same district.
The Zoning Administrator found that there were no exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the property because the site is a flat, 53-foot-wide, 5,960
square foot parcel, which is consistent with the size, shape and width of surrounding
parcels.
The appellant disagrees with this finding and states that the location of the house and the
desire to preserve the functionality of the first floor while providing a staircase to access
the second story are the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances in this case. To
correctly "mass" the second story, the existing nonconforming wall needs to be extended
vertically.
The placement of an existing house on a site has been found to be an exceptional or
extraordinary circumstance in other HIE applications, particularly for historic structures,
which were almost always built prior to current zoning requirements. There may not be
an architecturally compatible way to add-on to an historic structure without furthering a
violation of one or more current zoning requirements. In this proposal, however, the HRB
recommended and the Zoning Administrator found that this finding could not be made
because the historic placement and nonconformities of the existing building are not
relevant to the proposed design of the project and are not justifications for the proposed
design solution. In other applications, location and intrusions into setbacks and daylight
planes have been accepted as exceptional conditions because the additions were designed
to respect and be consistent with the existing conditions. The historic nature and unique
placement of the subject house, which result in a nonconforming side setback and daylight
plane, are being claimed as unique circumstances in order to make the first finding and
then that uniqueness is obliterated by the design of the remodel.
HIE Finding Numb,er Two: The granting of the application is desirable for the
preser~’ation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character, which would not
otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of this chapter.
The Zoning Administrator found that the proposed remodel and addition did not preserve
the architectural style of the existing house because the front porch and cupola would be
removed and the front facade would be significantly altered. This proposal is contrary to
the Single Family Residential Design Guidelines which call for respect of front porches
PCSR 951tlE28 AP
12-13-95
Page 5
and other entry features when remodeling existing houses (See Attachment 7, pages 28 and
46 of the Single Family Residential Design Guidelines). The HRB contributed to this
finding at its August 16, 1995 meeting when the Board moved to withhold support for the
project and the HIE because the project would not enhance the historic features of the
exl~sting structure.
The appellant disagrees with this funding and states that the project had been designed prior
to the applicant being informed that review by the HRB would be required and that she
was not aware that a Category IV structure was considered an important enough resource
to preserve. The appellant has stated that the property owner is willing to save as much
of the existing architecture and ornamentation as compatibly possible and that the HRB
comments should be considered recommendations only and should not be binding.
The Historic Preservation Chapter of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.49), states that
compliance with HRB recommendations is voluntary. Section 18.90.070 of the Municipal
Code, states that compliance with Zoning Administrator decisions is required, unless
appealed, and subsequently modified by the City Council. The Zoning Administrator has
the authority to require applications which propose modifications to an historic structure,
and need a discretionary decision, to be reviewed by the HRB prior to the Zoning
Administrator making a final decision (18.90.020(6) of the PAMC). In these cases, the
HRB becomes a recommending body to the Zoning Administrator. The HRB’s review of
and comment on the subject project helped substantiate the finding that the proposed
project does not preserve the existing architectural style of the house and that the
destruction of that style would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. The fact
that this is a Category IV structure should not be the deciding factor in whether or not the
architectural style is worth preserving. The City’s policy is that all historic structures are
worth preserving and that there are specific elements of this structure worth preserving,
as intended in the Single Family Design Guidelines, pages 28 and 46.
Although it is not germane to the findings, the applicant asserts that she was not notified
in advance of designing the project that HRB review would be required. Planning staff
state that the applicant was notified, prior to making a formal application, that HRB review
would be required based on the Zoning Administrator’s desire to receive Board comments
prior to making a final decision on the HIE. The need for this review was re-emphasized
in the initial Notice of Incomplete Application dated June 26, 1995, nine days after the
HIE application was filed. Further, the Single Family Design Guidelines are routinely
made available to all applicants for Home Improvement Exceptions.
PCSR\95HIE2S AP
12-13-95
Page 6
~ Finding Number Three: The granting of the application will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The Zoning Administrator found that the application would be detrimental to the
surrounding vicinity in that an existing historic resource would essentially be lost if the
improvements were implemented as proposed. The architectural style of the house adds
character to the surrounding neighborhood and its loss would result in the reduction of the
overall character of the neighborhood as documented in the Single Family Design
Guidelines.
The appellant disagrees with this finding and states that the existing structure is an isolated
example of the period of architecture that it represents and that it is in a distressed
condition. She further states that residents in the surrounding neighborhood Support the
proposed project and do not see it as a detriment to their street scape.
The fact that this may be an isolated example of a particular type of architecture and is in
poor condition are not reasonable justifications for destroying the resource. Saving and
restoring the original architectural features of the building would be preferable to
destroying them. Since the existing structure needs to be rehabilitated to some degree
anyway, it is an opportune time to do the work in an architecturally and historically
sensitive manner. The fact that this may be one of the few remaining examples of this type
of architecture is all the more reason to preserve as much of the front facade and
distinguishing architectural features as possible.
Public Participation
At the HRB meeting and the Zoning Administrator hearing no one spoke in favor of or
against the proposal, although a petition signed by eight neighbors in support of the project
was presented to the Zoning Administrator (see Attachments 8 and 9 - Excerpt from
September 7, 1995 Zoning Administrator Hearing and Petition in Support of Project,
respectively).
Modifications Subsequent to Zoning Administrator’s Denial
Subsequent to the Zoning Administrator’s denial of the HIE and the filing of the appeal,
the appellant (architect) requested to go back to the HRB for further consultation on how
preservation of the front facade, cupola and porch might be accomplished. At the writing
of this Planning Commission report, revised plans had not be submitted, but the item had
PCSR\95HIE28 AP
12-13-95
Page 7
been placed on the December 6, 1995 HRB agenda for discussion. There may be
alternative plans to discuss at the December 13, 1995 Planning Commission meeting if the
applicant and the HRB can reach a solution prior to that time. These revised plans may
result in a need to contiaue this item for further consideration and appropriate notification.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission can recommend one of the following alternative actions to the
City Council:
Affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator by denying the appeal and the
application.
Approve the appeal and approve the project either as originally presented or with
modifications or conditions..
Continue the item to allow time for further consideration of the revised design and
appropriate legal notification.
FISCAL IMPA.CT
There is no fiscal impact to the City regarding any of the possible actions on the appeal.
ENVIRON~-ENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project is Class 1 categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA Section 15301).
STEPS FOLLOWrN.G APPROYAL
If the Planning Commission recommends that the appeal should be denied or upheld, the
item will proceed to the City Council on January 16, 1996 for final action.
If the Planning Commission recommends consideration of a revised design, the item will
be continued to allow for appropriate legal notification. The item would return to the
Pianning Commission for a final recommendation and would then be forwarded on to the
City Council for final action.
PCSR’,’~5111F-2S AP
12-13-95
Page 8
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
1.Draft Findings for derfial of appeal
2.Historic Resources Inventory Detail
3.Notice of Incomplete Application, dated June 26, 1995
4.Revised Letter of Application, dated July 26, 1995
5.Zoning Administrator Denial (95-HIE-28)
6.Letter of Appeal, dated October 6, 1995
7.Single Family Design Guidelines - Pages 28 and 46
8.Except from Zoning Administrator Hearing, dated September 7, 1995
9.Petition in Support of Project - dated September 13, 1995
10.Location Map for site
11.Parcel Map for site
12.Zone Map for site
13.Project Schedule
14.Plans [Commission members only]
COURTESY COPIES:
Patricia Haight, c/o Sandoval-Surez Design Group, 885 N. San Antonio Road,
Los Altos, CA 94022
Steven and Patty Macsisak, 2160 High Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Historic Resources Board members
Report Prepared by: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Project Planner: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Division/Department Head Approval: Nancy Maddox Lytle, Chief Planning Official
PCSR~95HIE28 AP
12-13-95
Page 9
Draft Findings for Denial of Appeal
2160 High Street
There are no 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 a flat, 5,960 square foot parcel (53 feet wide by 112.5 feet deep), which is
consistent with the size, shape, width and orientation of surrounding parcels. The historic
location of the existing house, which results in intrusions into a side setback and daylight
plane, does not constitute an exceptional circumstance because these factors are irrelevant
to the proposed design solution. The existing conditions could only be considered
exceptional or extraordinary if the project, as a whole, was designed to respect and be
consistent with those existing conditions.
o The granting of the application is not 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
improvements do not preserve the existing historic elements of this Category IV historic
building, especially the front facade, porch and cupola. This aspect of the remodel causes
it to be inconsistent with the Single Family Residential Guidelines (pages 28 and 46). The
proposed second-story does not continue the detailing of the first-story and does not
preserve or enhance the existing architectural style of the existing structure.
The granting of the application will be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity in that an existing historic resource will be lost if the
proposed improvements are constructed. The architectural style of the existing structure
adds to the character of the neighborhood and its toss will result in the reduction of the
character of the original neighborhood.
C ty Pal Alt
Historic Resources Inventory Detail
_ .~-Jan- 9DDate: " ""
Historic Building Inventory ID:243
location
status
ownership
use
description
Historic name:
Common or current name:
Number & street: 2t60 H~gh Street
City: Palo Alto
Alternate Address:
Past Address:
ZiP:County: Santa Clara
Category:4 [] Nat~ona! Re~:s:r’:
Historical District:[] State Reg~str;’
Owner: V~rgm~a J Valentine pUD!IC Dryate
Address: same
City:ZiP:
Present: Res~oent~at
Original: Residential
Past:
Th~s stra;gn~orv,’ar~ small S~amsh Colonial Rewva! house em~r:as:zes s~m~,~c’,ty of form exce:: fzr
exuberant b,rc mouse turret top#ed by a fine weather vane
Photo Date: 1978 Property Size frontage:
depth:
acreage:
Condition: excellent
Alteration: Una!tere~
Surroundings:
[] Open
[] Scattered BuiI~ings
[] Densely Budt
Other
],=,es’,cential
]Ccmmerc;at
[-~In~ustna!
Threats:
] None Known
] Vancahsm
] Prwate Devetoumen
Ot~er
pa2-c 513
description
(cont.)
Architect:
Builder: Margaret Ludlow (owner and Duilder)
Date: 1928
~ factual estimated
Notes:
Exterior Material: stucco
Other Material:
Original Site: origma!
Theme: arcmtecture
Features:
[] Barn [] Formal Garden [] Outhouse [] Water:ower
[] Carriage House [] Windmill [] Shed [] None
QtherFeatures:
significance A fine example of the modest uses of the popular Spanish Colon~at Revival style, pa~icu;arlzed by tP, e
fantasy of the bird-house turret at the corner. Maroaret~ Ludlow. the orioinal, owner, first r~.,,=~,~-’-’~ the hc,:se.
then sold lttoAtlen D Fisher (1933-1945). He was succeedea in !946 by John H. Johnson. and. from
1950 to the present, Wrgm~a J. Valentine, widow of P.C. Valentine. She was a teacher at Castdie]a
School
sources P A C~tv D~r.cton~. ~¯’~ ~< , A Building Dept file. mtew~ew 1985 R Clifton Cc:~ock (first
T~mes 6,’27,:28.2:2150
preparation Organization:
By: Histonc Resources Board: P.A. Hist. Assn.
.Date: t978, 1985
DB Record Date: 7/13/94
Address: 250 Hamilton Avenue
City: Pa!o Alto State: CA ZIP: 94301
Phone:
514
DATE RECEIVED DA /0 BE ~$.:LED
DAYS AFTER ~ESE::- OF
#PPLICATION:
DATE Y-AILED
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY (PRESS FIRMLY)
~ APPLICANT REQUEST
F-’--’l ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
~ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
F----7 USE PERMIT
~ PROPERTY LOCATION
ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY ~ I ~:)
ZONE DISTRICT ~ --I
~ PARCEL MAP
F-’--"] SUBDIVISION
~ SITE AND DESIGN
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER
VARIANCE
ZONE CHANGE
~ REQUESTED ACTION
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED ACTION
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THiS LINE-FOR STAFF USE OHLY
YOUR APPL~i~U,, HAS BEE~ DLILRM~.L~, TO BE COMPLETE PURSUANT TO GOVERt;ME~;T CODE SECTiOti ~59:1
YES ,,~(see below)
YOUR_,~PD’, ~.c~,,.~ ,T,~"T~’ Tq.~ I~COt’IPLETE ~,~’*’"~ WILL BE COMPLETE AZ’&~ FILED WHE;i -’
""~ " T~ LED ~ .....P’~ BY P’~I~FOR..~. IO,F[WiTH Au~:, ~LU THE DEPARTHE:;T
r-l EiA r’l LIGHTING DETA:LS
F’I AERIAL r--1 SOILS REPORT
~ ELEVAT IONS r--’l SUBD IV I DER ’S STATEHENT
r--l CROSS-SECTIONS r-l PRELIHINARY T~TLE RERO?,T
.~ITE PLAN (plo~’i F"l
~bLANDSCAPE PLAt, (ACbo~,~Y ~-~o¢~--. , ,.r~:. r-’-I
r---l LAND USE PLAN r,z.q.,tsS~.e%F"I
rl FLOOR PLANS
r--i PARKING AND LOADING PLAN
i--’l DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
f"l DEVELOP,,’,IENT PROGRAM STATEMENT
FENCE DETAILS
APPLICATIO:~
LIST OF
PRELIM!tiARY CCPv OF RESTRi:T[’;.’E
I-"1 HAP SHOWiHG PRSPOSED &
j~"L ETT E R
APPLICATIO,’I
r--I SCHEM~TiC ELEVATIO;~S SH~,~.,,~
WIT~ EXISTI~G
June 23, 1995
Sandoval & Suarez Design Group, Inc.
Attn: Patricia Haight
885 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
Dear Ms. Haight:
Division Subject:Incomplete Application for a Home Improvement Exception (95-
HIE-28) at 2160 Hiah Street
The HIE application you filed for construction of a second-stou addition at the
above-mentioned property has been determined incomplete. The reasons for
this incomplete status are outlined below. Once these items have been
addressed in a revised submittal, processing of the application will continue
according to the enclosed application calendar schedule.
ADDliCation Process
The structure is identified on Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory as a
category 4 ( contnbutln.. ~ historic building (inventory detail sheet
enclosed). After review of the project the Zoning Administrator has
determined, pursuant to Section 18.90.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, that review by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) is required.
Davli~_ht Plane Information
The application proposes a daylight plane encroachment, and to further
clarify, daylight plane issues the following items are requested
~x9 Hamilton A\enue
P,O. Box 10Za0
Palo Alto, CA ~u2~B
415.329.2441
4!5.3~. ~40 Fax
bo
do
Sun/shadow study of the impact of the proposed addition on
surrounding properties;
Specific explanation of reasons to support a 22’2" horizontal
daylight plane encroachment, when a 15’0’ horizontal daylight
plane encroachment limitation is normally allowed for structures
which comply with setback requirements;
Identify the area of daylight plane encroachment on the elevation
drawings;
Include the front daylight plane line on elevation drawings;
Elevation drawings of the proposed garage structure showing
compliance with the accessory building daylight plane and height
limitations;
Also, staff strongly encourage retention of the existing pine tree near the
side property line for its value in mitigating potential visual impacts of
the project. The site plan should be modified to indicate retention of this
tree, or an arborist report shall be submitted providing documentation
which supports its removal.
Site Plan Information
SeveraI inaccuracies or omissions have been identified on the site plan.
The following items are requested:
b°
Correction of the scale and dimension of the front lot line to be
53’0" (the lot is rectangular according to City records), and
correction of the lot area figure to 5,962 square feet;
Include data on the total proposed floor area of the project, and
revise the allowable floor area figures in accordance with item "a"
above;
Indicate the surface material of the proposed new driveway
(concrete, asphalt, or other impermeable surface is required).
Thank you for your cooperation. Please contact me at (415) 3.9-_,.~0 if you
should have and questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Michael W. Bills
Associate Planner
Attachments
Application Form
Variance Findings and Application Calendar Schedule
Historic Resources Board (HRB) Application Booklet
Historic Resources Inventory Detail Sheet
Planning Division Fee Schedule
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Joe Colonna, Senior Planner
June 13, 1995
Rev.: 7/11/95
Zoning Administrator
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Fifth Floor
Palo Alto CitT Hal!
250 Hamilton Avenue
Pato Alto, Ca 94301
Re:Home Improvement Exception for Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Macsisak
2160 High St. Palo Alto, Ca
Dear Zoning Administor,
On behalf of my clients, Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Macsisak. I would like to request consideration
of a Home Improvement Exception.
We would like to add a second story consisting of a Master Bedroom suite, a Study, Bedroom
and a Bath. The exqstmg Master Bedroom would become a Guest Room and a Bedroom would
become a Library. These changes will require exceptions to an e~sting non-conforrmng side
yard setback and encroachment into the daylight plane.
The existing West exterior wall is approimately 5’-0" from the property line, which does not
conform with the current 6’-0" side yard setback requirements. This Home Improvement
Exception requests e,’ctending this wall upwards for the second story addition (using a
continuous 8’- 1" plate height) for a horizontal length of 22’-2". Per t/he proposed desian, the
wall extension/roof would encroach into the daylight plane a maximum vertical hei~ght of 5-
8". Due to the proposed location of the stairs, we have "massed" the second story in line with
the non-conforming ~vall. (Alter several desi~_an s[udie5, it was decided that this was the most
desirable location to maintain the functionalt~;tt3_; cot the e,xistina first floor.) The e,,astin~ non-
conformin~ ~val] poses an exl.raordinary circu~}qstance for our design scheme. .
The e,xisting house is a small Spanish Colonial Revival structure built in 1928, and is in need
of cosmetic upgrades to the exterior stucco. We are proposing a modest two-stor~ Mediteranean
style home that would fulfill mv clients’ needs for space with mimimal modifications to the
e,xisting first floor. (The same proposed floor plan was examined as a one-story addition, but
maximum lot coverage was exceeded.
The granting of the application is desirable for the upgrade!enhancement of the existina
structure, while maintaining a "classic" swle home. The upgrade will allow the home
integrate with other two-stor~~ additions in the immediate area. The arantin~ of the
application will not be detrir:nental or injurious to propertT or impro~’ement~ in the vicintiv
and will not be detrimental to public health, safety,, general welfare or convenience.
We hope that you ~111 review this application favorably. Thank vou for your consideration.
c/o Sando~ & Suarez
Group
Pi~,nnLng Dix~ion
Application No. 95-HIE-28:2160 High Street
Home Improvement Exception 95-HIE-28 is denied for the location and construction of
a second-story addition with a side yard setback of five feet where a minimum of six feet
is normally required and a side yard daylight plane encroachment of twenty-two feet in
width where a maximum of fifteen feet is normally allowed, as per attached plans, at
2160 High Street, R-1 Zone District. Palo Alto, California. Project denial is based on
the following findings.
FINDINGS:
There are no 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 a flat. 53 foot wide, 5,960 square
foot parcel, which is consistent with the size. shape and width of
surrounding parcels:
The granting of ti~e application is not desirable for the preservation of an
existing architectural style or neighborhood character, wMch would not
otherwise be accornplished through the strict application of this chapter in
that the proposed improvements do not preserve the existing historic
elements of this Category IV historic building, especially, the front facade,
porch and cupola. The proposed second-story does not continue the
detailing of the existing first-story and does not preserve or enhance the
existing architectural style of the existing structure.
The Historic Resources Board reviewed the application on August 16, 1995 and
recommended thaz support of the proposed design be withheld because it does not
enhance the existing historic features of the structure, in particular the front
facade, porch and cupola. The Board could not support the Home Improvement
application and encouraged the applicant to redesign the project to preserve the
front facade, porch and cupola; and
%HIE_8.1:September 2!, 1995
Page 1
The granting of the application will be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity in that an existing historic resource will
be lost if the proposed improvements are constructed. The architectural
style of the existing structure adds to the character of the neighborhood
and its loss will result in the reduction of the character of the original
neighborhood.
LISA GROTE
Zoning Administrator
September 21, 1995
NOTE
There is a ten-day period v,.’ithin which this decision may be appealed. Any person, firm,
or corporation aggrieved b\’ the decision max’ file a written appeal with the Planning
Department and Ciw Clerk on or by October 2, 1995. The appeal will be considered at
public hearings held by the Planning Commission and City’ Council. The action of the
City’ Council shall be final in this matter.
Patricia Haight, c/o Sandoval-Suarez Design Group, 885 N. San Antonio Road,
Los Altos, CA 94022
Steven and Patty Macsisak. 2160 High Street, Pato Alto. CA 94301
95HIE28.1g September 21, 1995
Page 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Office of the City Clerk
APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF ZONING.ADMINISTBAT.OR
To be filed in duplicate within ten days from date of decision of Zoning ,~dministrator
Application No.
Street
Receipt No.
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel No.
Street Address, ~
Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant)
Property Owner’s Address
Street
Zone District
City Zip
The decision of the Zoning Administrator dated
whereby the application of 5~’.~
(variance/use permit)
was
(original appticanb
(approved!denied}
, is hereby appealed for the
reasons stated in the attached letter (in duplicate).
Date Ijl~,-[ ~ Signature of Appellan,
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL:
Date Approved Denied
Remarks and/or Conditions:
CITY COUNCIL DECISION
Date
Remarks and/or Conditions:
Approved Denied
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED:
1.Plans (.2’h ,:.. i,~i)
2.Labels
3.Appeal Application Forms
4.Letter
5.Fee
By:
By:~-..~ ’ ’.~
By:
By:.,
By:
12/’89
~5 N. San Antonio Rose
Los Ai~os,
415.941
Truly Yours,.
Pmricia HEight
June 13, 1995
Rev.: 7/11/95
Zoning Administrator
Department of Planning and Communi~, Environment
Fifth Floor
Palo Alto City Hall
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, Ca 94301
Re:Home Improvement Exception for Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Macsisak
2160 High St. Patio Alto, Ca
Dear Zoning Administor,
On behalf of my clients, Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Macsisak, I would like to request consideration
of a Home Improvement Exception.
We ~vould like to add a second story consisting of a Master Bedroom suite, a Stud),, Bedroom
and a Bath. The existing Master Bedroom would becomea Guest Room and a Bedroom would
become a Library.. These changes ~11 require exceptions to an existing non-conforming side
yard setback and encroachment into the daylight plane.
The existing West exterior wall is approimately 5-0" from the propert%i line, which does not
conform with the current 6’-0" side yard setback requirements. This Home Improvement
Exception requests extending this wall upwards for the second stor~~ addition (using a
continuous 8’-1" plate height) for a horizontal length of 22’-2". Per t~e proposed design; the
wall extension/roof would encroach into the daylight plane a maximum vertical height of 5-
8". Due to the proposed location of the stairs, we have "massed" the second stor~ in line
the non-conforming wall. (After several desian studies., it was decided that this was the most
desirable location to maintain the functionali~ of the existing first floor.) The existin_<, p.on-
conforming wall poses an extraordinar)_" circu ,~stance for our des~n scheme. -
The existing house is a small Spanish Colonia viral structure built in 1928, and is in
of cosmetic upgrades to the ex~terior stucco. We are proposing a modest two-story Mediteranean
style home that would fulfill my clients’ needs for space with mimimal modifications to the
existing f’u-st floor. (The same proposed floor plan was examined as a one-s[o.~ addition, but
maximum lot coverage was exceeded.
The granting of the application is desirable for the upgrade!enhancement of the existing
structure, while maintaining a "classic" s~’le home. The upgrade will allow the home to
integrate with other two-stor~’ additions in the immediate area. The granting of the
application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicintiv
and will not be detrimental to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience.
We hope that you will review this application favorably. Thank you for your consideration.
c/o Sando~,-al & Suarez
BeFtember I~-,
c/o Bandoval and Buarez Design Group
685 N. Ban Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
415.941
Lisa ~r~te; Zoning Administer
Department o~ Planning and Cammunity Environment
FiRh Floor
Polo Alto Ci~ H~II
250 H~milfon Avenue
P~lo Alt~, CA 94301
I
Dear Li~o
Enclosed are the a~dr .....aT tne houses I r~., = .....e~ "role
presented ~ the Public He~ring on BeFrember 7, ~e~-,.~;.O.
models" Tar the remodeL, oddition f" 1~n " ’
1.423
2.2110 W~veriy
==~: Tennyson
~.215 Coleridge
no C~Te:2~
¢;W:rk
1.1134 Emerson
second start,, addison:
remove -~.’.n =~
(attached). reFore
2nd #loot expansion,
enlarge ~nd remodel
kitchen-famiiy
401 Flat 6’3;92 (approved ~,’,’ condi~cn.=)
new house/goroge con~u~ion. ! con provide you with detoit drawing5 th:t ide~ the exi~ing maTer~i5 ond th~ iocoT~ons d
where they will be rein~olied. We wouild happily obii~ to reusing existing hiForic ornome~otion os : condition doppro~,~.’~
The clie~s hove circuloted pions/discused ~is proposed proje~ w~h neighbor5 on their 5TreF. i include o 5:.9n-~ sheet
which expresses their strong suppo~/occe~once ~the design os pa~ dtheir communih.
With this odditionol inform~ion, along with the moterioi presented ot the Public Heorino i hope you ~iii ,- -~i-
proposed ond gront my client’s request for on Hit__. If you hove ony que~ions or would like on.v odditJono! int’cr~o,fion pleose
phone me. Thonk you for your ongoing considerotion of this pr~ect.
£eptember 7, 199.5
Public Heordng Notes
with my clients iniiialiy in early Januarb, ~this year io discuss their project.
client’s concerns!wishes:
2nd Fory addiiion w/as little disturbance to the (e) lsT ~OOr.
deck~ and priv~e spaces
repetilion ~(e) interior architecturo! t~eatures in new work
integr~, d ma,.nab, matching those that were diFurbed
RECEIVED
a!so went to ocher neighborhoods in Polo Atto wi~ The ciienTS To look OT house ~les tnoT the client
liked and wh~t features would be Opplicabte/appropriaTe to their scale homem,,~,~ n-~.u,,~,’;~’n~.~
~amples had strong 2, For?, vertca t~ronT we’!
sheet and toid that
~everd design schemes were d~:+’,,-’:=d ’~, .~- ’oC~T;O~"flue
ex,en~em) bemc ~-~ =-
the documents
~n June ~, t g~ o !e~er Tom Michoet Bills deemins The o~Fh+~,~c,,
one ffem To be addressed: stru~ure is lde~me: on -u ~, ,,u= ...........
ond the Zoning ~ministr~or determined that revJe~ ~, H~
reoumed to be reviewed by the H~. 5i~n+~c~nm bui+d+no~ (ca~egorie~ i rand 2) o+so ore required ~o be re~+ewe~ by the H~5.
PownTown Areo- soy be reviewed by the H~5 upon re:uest ~the o~miicont.
des~on (~’hen I hind a~en the le~er
o~August .......
A~ter the HRB review I went back and reexamined the proje~. First reviewed what is a contributing building and how does/will
c~tegoo’ ,~t any addition to 2160 High £treet?
The house is categorized as o "con~ib~ing building" which is o good local exomp!e dan orch#e~ro! sh, le and
relates to the charo~or do neighborhood groupng in scale, m~erials, propo~on or ~her f~¢or5. A con~ib~ng building
may have h~d e~ensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inapprmia~e addi~cns, e~ensive removal
The bockgrounHimy observations o~the (e) house and neighborhood
the (e) house has been altered; a sunroom aT the rear ~’Tne" ho,~..,=~ ~as aaaed’ ’ ’ (~e are pr~:ir,~ .......T~ remove
(n) clod ~,indo~s have replaced aeveroi ~the (e) original wood windo~
the hou=e is now in a transitional neighborhood, surrounded by ranch homes
Coregory,’.
_~. pr@e~ as proposed: subje~ to gran~in~ ~ H!-- request.
Based on ~e above inve~goiion:
On behaE ~ m,v clients hope you will approved the HiE request {or this proje~ Os preset.ted.
C2.The pattern of front porches or entry features in the neighborhood should be
respected. If all the houses on the block face have a front porch to define the entry,
then a new house should also provide a porch. The roof of the porch can be solid or
made of a trellis to allow greenery to frame the entry.
Facades New entrance
Plans House without porch disrupts pattern
Facades
Plans House without entry feature does not
foIlow neighborhood pattern
Respect the pattern of porches and other
entry features characteristic of the block
28
A double garage door at the £ront o£ the house can detract from the quality of the
streetscape in a neighborhood where that is not the prevailing pattern. If you are-
proposing a double garage at the front of the house, indicate how you propose to reduce
its impact on the streetscape:
~Using two smaller doors rather than one large one
0 Jogging the facade between the doors
~Minimizing the width of the driveway ~"
0 Landscaping
~Other:
Note:
In some neighborhoods a rear alley provides access to the rear detached garages.
Driveways, Curb Cuts, and Street trees: (see pages 16,-23)
Poorly designed driveways can erode the street tree canopy, eliminate on-street parking
spaces, and in general detract from the quality of the streetscape. Indicate how you
propose to reduce your driveway’s impact on the streetscape and maintain street
parking:
Keeping driveway 5’ from all trees espedally street trees
Minimizing the width of the paving
Using attractive driveway paving material
Maintaining 20’ between curb cuts "
Other:
Note:
On your site plan show your property lines, the right-of-way, existing and proposed
driveway, sidewalk, curb cut, and indicate the distance to your neighbor’s driveways.
Be particularly careful to accurately show all of the "street trees" that are within the
public right-of-way. Also, show the mature trees on your property.
Remember trimming, root-cutting or removal of street trees may be done only after
obtaining a permit from the Public Works Operations Division.
Attractive driveway materials are encouraged.Please review your proposed driveway
material with the Planning Department.
Front Porches / Entry Features: (see page 28)
In general, front porches and entry features are desirable elements. In a neighborhood
with front porches it is preferable to build a new house with a front porch. When
expanding an existing house in a neighborhood with front porches, it is preferable to
add or maintain a front porch. Front porches should not be enclosed.
In a neighborhood, such as an Eichler tract, where there are no front porches, a front
porch may be disruptive to the existing pattern. O~er entry features, such as a trellis,
may be more compatible.
page 4 of Worksheet
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING
September 7, 1995
2160 Hiqh Street 95-HIE-28
Lisa Grote, Zoninq Administrator: This is a home improvement exception
for the location and construction of a second-story addition with a side
yard setback of five feet where a minimum of six feet is normally required
and a side yard daylight plane encroachment of twenty-two feet in width
where a maximum of fifteen feet is normally allowed~ as per attached
plans.
Patricia Haight: My name is Patricia Haight, and I am the designer of the
project. I live in San Francisco and work at two firms in Palo Alto and
Los Altos. My cl#ents are Steven and Patty Macsisak. I know this may be
a little redundant, but I feel very strongly that I need to go back to
square one to quickly give an overview of the evolution of the project and
why we are here today. First, the project was initiated in January of
this year. That is when I first met the clients and talked about their
concerns and wishes. They were intent upon having a second story, and
since the first floor is very livable and they have had some modifications
made to it, they wanted to make it as compact as possible. They were very
interested in having some decks and private spaces as part of their new
home. They were also sensitive to the interior. There are moldings and
little nooks which were part of the original design. They were concerned
about repeating some of those features in the new space upstairs, and
anything that disturbed that would be replaced downstairs.
Also the clients went out to various areas in Palo Alto to look at houses
that they had liked and discussed how we could take some of the features
and make it appropriate for their street and the size of their proposed
home, even though some of these homes were of a different scale for their
neighborhood. That was the basis for the style.
The clients wanted to reflect and be sensitive to the other classic homes
in Palo Alto. It is very obvious that all of those homes had a very
strong two-story wall. After meeting with my client and before the ball
really got rolling, I went to the City of Palo Alto offices and looked in
the file to see if there was anything to be concerned with before I
undertook any work. The file looked fine, except there was some notation
about the historic inventory. I asked the counter technician about the
historic designation, but I was told that a Historic Resources Board
review was not required. I mentioned this to my client. They were not
aware of this. At thatpoint, they did not have any preference to
duplicate what they had.
I met with the client, and we discussed several design schemes. Part of
the constraint was that by wanting to keep the main floor intact and
locating the staircase in a specific place, which is limited by the
existing fireplace, we were limited to where the second floor could be
located. Once we had deliberated and worked through and reached a point
where we had some floor plans and site plans and exterior elevations~ I
talked with Joe Colonna on March 23 to discuss the project. I knew at
this point that we were heading in the direction of an HIE because we were
09/07/95
-!-
extending a wall that is currently in the side setback. We were also
going to have a daylight plane encroachment. Joe reviewed the project and
said it was a reasonable request for an HIE. After that meeting, I
completed the documents and submitted them on June 15th. On June 23rd I
got a letter from Michael Bills saying that the application was not
complete. One of the outstanding issues was that the structure is
identified in Palo Alto’s historic inventory as a Category IV, which is a
contributing historic building and an HRB review is required. For my
clients’ sake, I would just like to read what a contributing historic
building is defined as, or what the review process is by the Historic
Resources Board as noted in the HRB guidelines, "Any proposal to alter
the exterior of a historic structure in the downtown area is required to
be reviewed by the Historic Resources Board. Significant buildings,
Category I and II, also are required to be reviewed by the HRB. Other
historic structures, such as single-family homes in a Category III or IV
(which is where their home falls) and are outside the historic district in.
a downtown area, which applies to their home, may be reviewed by the HRB
upon the request of the applicant."
I had read this previously, and that is how I had approached the project.
As I said before, the client expressed no preference for saving or
incorporating existing historical features into the front elevation, so I
explored other design options than the existing Spanish revival style. I
went to the HRB meeting with the plans as proposed. I and the client had
worked on the plans for approximately five months, so there was plenty of
time invested in this, even though I got a quick turnaround on what I
submitted for the HIE and when I was told that it had to go before the
HRB.
At this point, the client was very happy with the floor plan and exterior
elevation solution. I also read in the guidelines and understood that any
input from the HRB was a recommendation and that that gave us the option
to incorporate it into the project if we cared to do so. I attended the
HRB meeting on August 16th, and the project was reviewed by five members
of the Board. They felt unanimously that the proposed fagade did not
enhance the existing historic features. The HRB suggested reworking the
project to achieve the above request, and they also felt that it could be
done with very little manipulation of the existing floor plans. I said we
had worked quite a long time on it and that there were constraints and we
had maxed out on floor area.
After that meeting, I was a little discouraged. My clients still had the
intent that they wanted to proceed as proposed, but again, I wanted to be
sensitive to the HRB’s review and their comments. So I went back and
reexamined the project, and also reviewed the definition of the
contributing building and how well the category fit any addition to 2160
High Street.
The house is categorized as a contributing building, which is defined as a
good example of an architectural style and relates to the character of the
neighborhood in grouping and scale, material, proportion and other
factors, a contributing building that has had extensive or permanent
changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions,
extensive removal of architectural details or resurfaced fagades. Then-I
went back and stepped back from the existing house and existing
neighborhood. These were some of the conclusions I came up with.
09/07/95
-2-
Even though the ho~e has been altered, there is a sun room on the back of
the house that was added by my clients. With the proposed plans, it would
be removed. Original windows have been replaced with the existing wooden
windows andsome of the existing window and door openings have been
concreted over. That is the state of the house right now. It is now in a
transitional neighborhood, surrounded by one-story ranch homes with also
quite a few two-story additions that are now a part of the neighborhood.
Just to evaluate the profile, the existing house is a low-profile bungalow
that does not lend itself well to a two-story application.
I went through a little exercise here where this is the existing house, a
low profile, a wall in front, a covered entryway, a very flat facade in
back. This is the air space that the client can occupy with a
second-story addition without having to go through an HIE. Here are all
of the other zoning and building guidelines. This is the space it can
occupy, regardless of whether it is in linewith the front facade or is
pushed back, it is still a volume added to a fairly low bungalow style
home.
This exercise I did after the HRB meeting. I more or less did not disturb
the proposed floor plan and pulled the fagade out so that it now keeps
going. This front porch element came off. It is still encroaching into
the daylight plane. This nonconforming wall is still extended. This
setback is still an issue, so we still have the two outstanding issues
that caused us to apply originally for the HIE. My evaluation is that
these features, extended to a second story, do not work well. You end up
with a very flat fagade in this area. This area, based on the existing
floor plan, would have to be rebuilt anyway. You could take what is
there, but you would have to have a rebuilt front entryway, so you would
not really be preserving any of the elements. You could probably use some
of these headers and maybe reincorporate some of these features, but this
would all be a rebuild.
Finally, this is the house as proposed by the client. There is a lot of
relief on the front elevation. There is a deck that extends out here.
The windows are recessed back. Also, it is what the client is very
comfortable with. Also, the plans have been shown to all of the neighbors
on the street, and they were very well received.
My estimation, based on this little exercise here, is that anything we do,
be it keep this low, push the second story back, bring it up as a
two-story element, or the plans we are proposing, anything we do is going
to lessen the strength of this house as a contributor Category IV. So at
this point, we are proposing that instead of having something that is
dictated by someone else, like the HRB, which would still be less of a
contributor than it is now, we still strongly would like to stay with our
proposed plan.
My understanding is that if it we pulled this out of the HIE review
process, then the HRB would have no review of the plans either, and then
we would more or less have free rein. We certainly have to replace the
building, and I do not feel, at this point, that we could end up with
something that is as balanced and as complementary to the streetscape as
what we have now. This is very much what the client would like to have.
The clients, in their own minds, are living in this space, since we have
spent so much time coming to this solution. That about completes my
09/07/95
-3-
presentation. On behalf of my clients, I hope that you will approve the
HIE.
Ms. Grote: It is true that if you do not request the HIE, the HRB’s
comments are not required. It is when you request an HIE to preserve the
architectural style of the house that the HRB comments on the project.
That is really what the Board is having trouble with. The current plan
does not preserve the exterior style of the house. So with that, it ~kes
it very hard for me to say yes, this does preserve the style. I am
seeking and depending upon the advice of the city’s historic experts.
At this point, you also should be thinking about landscaping. Do you want
to talk about that?
Ms. Haiqht: I can only verbally talk about how there is a landscape
architect involved with the project who was selected to go over the site,
advising the client on what types of plant material would complement the
site.
Ms. Grote: Is there anyone present who would like to speak to this
application? (None)
Mrs. Macsisak: We are especially interested in the proposed floor plan
and in being able to implement that.
Ms. Haiqht: Another thing I would like to mention is .that there is this
side area here, along the fence line. Someone walking by, granted it is a
little short there, but someone walking by would have the vantage point of
looking back to the yard.
Mrs. Macsisak: The other point is that we have tried to preserve the
Spanish style architecture. I feel strongly that this is a very large
improvement over what exists now.
Ms. Haiqht: I can tell you what the issues are. It is the two-story
vertical wall. This entry is very similar to a lot of those homes. It is
not a porch like we have here with this strong two-story tower in front.
It is not necessarily the tower but that the entryway is similar. That is
nothing extraneous. I know that this is just conversation at this point,
but I am working for my clients to ensure that. The materials used will
have integrity and give the same kind o-f fine look as presented in the
plans, a smooth stucco finish, wood windows. I have researched other
houses to try and achieve the same effect. (showed pictures)
Ms. Grote: Do you know the addresses of these homes?
Ms. Haiqht: No~ I just spent a lot of time driving around the
neighborhood. After having talked to the clients, I knew what their
intent was, and it was very easy to design to that intent, since there
were a lot of examples in the area, very fine examples.
Mr. Macsisak: We have shown these plans to people in the neighborhood,
and many have signed a petition saying they support our project.
Ms. Haiqht: They are not their neighbors, but they are not that far away
from this site.
09/07/95
-4-
Ms. Grote: My biggest concern is that I have to make a finding that this
project preserves the architectural style of the house. I cannot make
that determination based on what I have heard and what is reflected in the
HRB comments. So at this point, the best I can do is to tell you that I
can either continue the hearing to give you time to redesign, or I can
close the hearing. I will certainly consider your arguments. So I would
offer you either the opportunity to continue this hearing to incorporate
some of the HRB’s comments or to close it and you run the risk of a
denial. That is where it stands now. I want to offer you a choice.
Ms. Haiqht: This is the project the clients have wanted from the very
beginning. My clients do not want the fagade they have right now. They
do not want to have any rendition of the fagade that they have now. Like
I said, if we take it out of the HIE, they are entitled to a second-story
addition of some fagade or other if they meet all of Palo Alto’s
guidelines. Obviously something as simple as what the HRB was saying we
could probably try with this house. They were saying that we could
probably just reincorporate this front entryway into the existing design.
I don’t think it is a particularly attractive house. Then also, as I said
before, if we go away and redesign, we will not redesign in this style at
all. It will be some rendition of this, and because of taking it out of
the HIE, it is going to be a real struggle. It might be a compromise in
design. It might be a compromise for the client. I think that is quite a
strong argument in favor of this design here.
Ms. Grote: My concern is that if you don’t like the fagade, if you do not
want to preserve it, then there is no way I could approve the HIE,
regardless of whether the HRB likes it or not. The only way I can approve
an HIE is if I can legitimately say the architecture of the house is being
preserved. If you really don’t like the looks and the Style of the house
as it is, and you do not want to preserve it, I cannot approve an HIE.
That will have to be your decision.
Mrs. Macsisak: So if we don’t go for the HIE, if we redesign without a
need for an HIE, we do not have to go to the HRB?
Ms. Grote: That is correct. Before you can get a demolition permit,
however, you need the building permit in hand for the replacement
structure.
Ms. Haiqht: I guess I stepped over the line saying that the client
doesn’t wish to live with the existing fagade. I know that the proposed
facade is quite a bit different, but in my mind, when going for the HIE
and we maintained the existing front wall, and maintained part of the
existing areas of the house, this second-story addition does not extend
all the way to the back, so there are elements of the existing house that
are being preserved. It is a matter of taking the existing structure and
salvaging as much as possible, then grow from that point. With the
cooperation of the client, there may be something you would be happy with.
Ms. Grote: Historic structures within all categories are considered
important in Palo Alto. They all add value to the city. I can continue
this hearing if you want to think about it.
Ms. Haiqht: What are the options?
09/07/95
-5-
Ms. Grote: If I close it today, I can issue a determination within ten
working days. If I issue a determination of denial, you can either
redesign so that no HIE is required, or you can appeal the decision. You
could also withdraw your application. If you withdraw the application,
you can always redesign so that an HIE is not needed. If I issue a
denial, you can appeal the decision within 10 days in writing; you can
appeal to the planning commission and the city council. It is heard at
the planning commission within three months fmom the date of the appeal,
and within a month of the planning commission hearing, it is heard at the
city council.
Ms. Haiqht: My clients and I would like you to close the public hearing
and issue your decision.
Ms. Grote: All right then. .I am closing the public hearing and will
issue a written decision within ten working days. Thank you for coming
today.
09/07/95
-6-
September 13, 1995
Palo Alto Zoning Administrator
The undersigned are the neighbors of Stephen and Patty, Macsisak at 2160 High Street,
Palo Alto.
We have reviewed the Macsisak plans for a second story addition. We fully, support the
Macsisak request for this home improvement modification.
NAME ADDRESS COMMENT
-. -, ..~ ................~..~.......,~.......~. ....
,:4 - ~-.-:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:+:.~.:.:.:.:.’.A:.:-:-:-:.:.:.:-:.i
High ~ I0
’\
c ,’5
North
HIGH
-z,oo ALMA STREET ~’zoo ""
2160 High Street
zooo PARK
PF
BIRCH
Z
Attachment 3
PLANNING COMMISSION
Excerpt Minutes of
Decembe.r 13.1995
2160 HIGH STREET: Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to deny
the location and construction of a second-story addition with a side yard setback
of five feet, where a minimum of six feet is normally required, and a side yard
daylight plane encroachment of 22 feet in width, where a maximum of 15 feet is
normally allowed. Environmental Assessment: Categorically exempt. File Nos.
95-HIE-28, 95-HRB-35.
Chairman Beecham: Does staff have any additional information for us tonight?
Ms. Grote: Just briefly, this was an original home improvement exception for a five-foot side
yard setback instead of the six feet normally required, and a 22-foot daylight plane intrusion
where 15 feet is the maximum daylight intrusion usually required. It is a Category 4 historic
structure. I denied the application because I found there were no exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances, that the addition and remodel does not preserve an architectural style or the
original character of this structure, and that there would be a detriment to the surrounding
properties in that a historic resource would be lost.
I did use the single-family design guidelines in making this decision, as well as the
recommendation of the Historic Resources Board. The Vice-Chair of the Historic Resources
Board. Mildred Mario, is here to fill you in on the details of their concerns. Staff is
recommending denial of the appeal. That concludes my staff report.
Chairman Beecham: Mildred. do you have any comments for us tonight?
Ms. Mario: They will be ve~7 brief, because the staff has prepared a report that says exactly
what the Historic Resources Board believes. They have done a much better job than I could
possibly do at this point. So all I can say is that we concur with the staff report one hundred
percent.
Chairman Beecham: Are there any question for staff at this point?
Commissioner Schink: My question is for Ms. Mario. Could you try, to identify for me what,
historically, are the most important features of this house, as you see them?
Ms. Mario: What we found is that what they had presented to us would completely obliterate
an,vthing of historic import that we saw. They were going to make a renovation that would be a
box-like structure, and it would not retain the birdhouse cupola. That is one of the very
significant pieces of this property, and also, they would have changed the complete outlook of
the structure. It would not have looked like that at all. It came before us a second time as a
discussion item, and they completely agreed with us that they thought perhaps it would destroy
that, and they were very willing to reconsider. We gave them some suggestions, and they said
they would definitely try to incorporate them. But they did not want to start the whole process
all over again, which they would have to do, if they did not allow it to go through the Planning
Commission. They would like to continue with it so that they could make the changes without
starting from Day One, which would set them back quite a bit. So they are very amenable to our
suggestions, and they will incorporate them. They just didn’t think of it in the historic sense to
save the look of the building. Therefore, what they were proposing was to keep the little
birdhouse and stick it onto the side of the building, but the building would be gone. After we
discussed it with them, they understood that that was not what the historic meaning of the
building was. They are going to re-look at the whole project and will incorporate our
suggestions into it.
Commissioner Schink: Could you try and identi~’ for me any other features which are
particularly important? Let me be quite frank and say that with the exception of the birdhouse
cupola, when I looked at this house, it seemed to be a rather common example of the Spanish
colonial revival architecture that we see all over. So I did not see the merits of why we had to
save this particular house.
Ms. Mario: The merits were that this structure did have this specific piece on it, and also it was a
certain style. What they have presented to you, as you look at it, is a square box of a building
that they were going to put in its place and stick this little bird house onto it. It would not retain
the historic took of the building. They came back to us after we had made suggestions to them,
and there were a few different ways they could handle it that would still keep the original look of
the front part, the main part of it. They can expand it in the way that they need to expand it to
make it habitable for them and still look similar to what it is, but it will be a second story. It
would not completely obliterate it and just go up square.
Commissioner Schink: This is a Category 4 structure. If they had decided to build a brand new
house, would there have been any restrictions? Could they have gone in, gotten a demolition
permit and knocked it down?
Ms. Grote: Since it is a CategoD~ 4, which is a contributing building, they could have
demolished the existing building and built a new structure in its place. The reason it went before
the Historic Resources Board was because there was a discretionary action associated with the
remodel and addition. Under my authority as zoning administrator, I could require them to go
before the HRB.
Commissioner Schink: Yes, I understood that. I have one last question for Ms. Mario. This was
one of the earliest houses in that particular neighborhood, as I understand it. Do we see a
connection between this house and any of the other houses in the neighborhood? I did not see
any sort of linkage that there was some important sort of anchoring that this house provides for
that neighborhood, but you are the expert in these matters.
2
Ms. Mario: It is not a matter of the neighborhood in this instance. It is a matter of an individual
house that is still existing and which is rather unique. It is not a very big, pretentious, grand
mansion, but it is a structure that has history to it. It shows what was going on in that time
period. Just because the houses around it have not retained their historic significance does not
mean that now, we are going to let this house go by, too. We have lost too many of them. These
tiny little houses are little gems. If we continue to allow people to just change them so
dramatically that there is nothing left of the original flavor of the house, we are going to lose the
historic importance of these tiny little houses, and they are very important. There were many,
many tiny little houses that are no longer around because of the property values. It is a matter of
money, as it usually gets down to. The land is worth much more than these tiny little houses are
worth. We are not saying no, you cannot alter them. We are not saying to these people, you
cannot change this house so that you can live in this house and be comfortable in it. What we are
trying to say is, just keep the little significant part of it that shows what it was originally like,
then step back a little and continue the structure, so that what was there originally will still be
there. You could still say, this was one of the little cottages, and yes, it has been renovated
because of economic necessity, and you must allow things like that to happen.
Ms. L~le: I want to insert one of the reasons why the Historic Resources Board was asked for
their opinion on this matter, since a CategoD~ 4 is not necessarily one that will involve the
Historic Resources Board, but the finding for a home improvement exception is that the granting
of the application before you tonight 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. So there is a specific finding about preservation of existing
architectural style and neighborhood character that is required for this discretionary approval.
Commissioner Schink: And that is why I asked the question. What I was tI3,ing to get at was
whether there was some linkage between the neighborhood character and this particular house for
that part of the argument. ~
I have one last question for staff. If the applicant had chosen to design their house in a funny,
lopsided maimer where they pulled the second stoI3.’ over one foot so that it did not align with the
ground floor, and thus, they would not need a home improvement exception, would they have to
go to the Historic Resources Board in that case, or could they have simply come in, gotten a
building permit and built a funny looking house?
Ms. Grote: That is correct. We would have recommended that they go to the HR~, however, it
would not have been required.
Commissioner Carrasco: Did the building permit people send this to the HRB? Suppose it did
not require an HIE, as Jon was saying, and they could build a building that was slightly off
center--
Ms. Grote: The building division would not have sent it to the HRB.
Commissioner Carrasco: So they could have gotten a building permit.
Ms. Grote: Yes, they could have received a building permit without Historic Resources Board
input, had it not required some other discretionary action.
Ms. Lytle: All building permits are channeled through the planning division, as well as the
building division. It is through that interaction with planning that the recommendation that Lisa
mentioned earlier comes forth to applicants.
Commissioner Carrasco: Even though the building department would send it to the planning
department, you would not have sent it to the HRB if they had required --
Ms. L.vtle: We only recommend that they go to the HRB. We do not require it.
Commissioner Carrasco: I have a question for the HRB representative. I would like to get
educated on thisl I am hearing your words, but I cannot put meaning to them. I would like to
hear the meaning. I think you have said that the cupola piece of stucco is historically important.
If you would explain to me what "historically important" means, I would-appreciate it. Secondly,
you said that this house is a small house, and therefore, it is historically important. I do not
understand that, either.
Ms. Mario: Lately, we have been losing quite a few of these small houses that were built in the
late 1800s and early 1900s. It is true that a Category 4 does not have to come before us unless
the owners are asking for some kind of exception. We are trying to change that at this point.
Because of that, a lot of them have been lost. It is not only the little bird house. It is the
entryway that we are trying to protect, and just the fa.cade of the front.
Commissioner Carrasco: If they had stepped eve ,rything back some and had gone up to the same
two stories, but kept that roof element that sits over the front porch, is that something that would
be acceptable?
Ms. Mario: That was one of the suggestions that we did make to them. What we are trying to
preserve is the fact that if the addition is stepped back, you will see what it had been at one point.
These little houses were very prevalent. Because of the financial reasons that I have stated
earlier, they are disappearing. There are not that many left. You have to say at some point, when
do we stop this?
Commissioner Carrasco: So keeping that front porch would recall the presence of the older
house.
Ms. Mario: Exactly. It is the feeling of it, not the structure anymore, but the feeling, so you can
say. that is what the original house was. This is an addition, and you will see that. There will be
no doubt about it, but the plan that they have before you has completely obliterated that. It has
become a four-square house. That is not what it was and not what it should be, in our opinion.
Commissioner Ojakian: In the report, there was some suggestion that the applicant might ask for
a continuance of this meeting. Has that been raised with you, or is the applicant interested in
doing that tonight? In most cases where we have applicants who suggested a continuance, we
have let them raise that issue even prior to the public hearing so we can decide where we want to
go with the issue.
Chairman Beecham: I am not aware of it yet. We will get to the public hearing shortly, and can
get to that point. Any other questions for staff?. (None) In that case, I will open the public
heating. The applicant is the only speaker tonight.
Patricia Haight. Sandoval & Suarez Design Group: Good evening. I am the designer for the
project. Very" quickly, I would like to make a couple of corrections to the staff report. This is
still kind of a point of contention with myself and my clients. It is implied on Page 6, the last
paragraph, that when I initially went in to talk with staff to see what may be in the file that I
should be aware of, I was informed that I needed to go before the HRB. I always have very good
dealings with staff people. I respect their positions and their professionalism, but at that point, I
was not told that I was required to go before the HRB. To them, it was just, Oh, it is a Category
4, it is a contributor, and if you would like to talk with someone from the HRB or discuss your
project with them, that is at your discretion, but it is not mandatory. On the second page, I am
listed as the applicant, and I am actually the designer working underneath a licensed architect.
To back track, when the client and I met early this past year to discuss the project, the major
concerns were liveabilib~ of the existing first floor, maintaining that while also adding a second
story for additional space, and also, sensitivity to the architecture in the adjacent neighborhoods.
Through the evolution of our plans, we feel we have met these criteria, and the proposed design
is very much in favor with the clients. They are very happy with it. Also, what surfaced and is
laid out in the staff report and is very comprehensive, which I know you have read, what really is
at issue here in the heart of this HRB member is to maintain the historic nature of 2160 High
Street.
I will now pick up where the staff report leaves off. I was at the HRB meeting, and I have a very
different take on what happened there. The first time I went before the HRB, it was after the
fact. I had already designed the project, and I was going to them, and by no means, did it meet
with their approval. I was kind of taken aback myself, because I was not prepared for their
reaction, because I was under the assumption that what they said was just a recommendation.
When I went back this time, I wanted to kind of back step and approach them with the mind set
that. What if I had come to you first before we designed. How would we have handled this,
hoping to meet on some mutual ground instead of a redesign, but maybe a little coming in on
both sides and meeting somewhere in between.
Obviously, the first thing you do when you look at a historic structure, and this is what they told
me. is to identi~ the distinguishing characteristics. What has already been discussed tonight is
the front entry porch, the rectangular openings, and this dovecote. I have a transparency of it.
(shown) This is a picture of the existing house. The HRB once again stressed very
wholeheartedly that they wanted to have the existing fa,cade maintained, but they were very open
minded toward a second story. As a matter of fact, two of the architects that are a part of the
board were doodling some sketches while we talked just to show how easy it would be to put a
second story on this house and push it back, with the existing facade still remaining.
But what surfaced at the meeting, and more so as I looked at these sketches during the day when
I left the meeting and was just at the office working, was how much emphasis was placed on the
preservation of the dovecote, to the extent that it was dictating the design of a second story.
Because of the dimensionality of that dovecote, any second story would have to be pushed back.
The design that I came up with for my clients was a very strong vertical. Those two were not
mutual as far as a design solution. What I keep hearing is that the proposed design is a box. I
actually rode around Palo Alto quite extensively to look at houses that my client had pointed out
to me. and I picked out several other similar homes that I would like to emulate. In that respect,
you are calling a Birge Clark a box just because it does have a very strong, one plane front
facade. I would like to pass these out. All but one of those homes has some sort of historical
category, listing.
I did make the offer to the HRB to reincorporate any of the tangible features -- the roof tiles, the
wrought iron above the door opening, the drainpipe, and we would reincorporate the dovecote on
the garage, reincorporating some of these features in the new building. But they do not feel that
is really credible, that you are not really saving the existing structure.
Also. as an aside, my clients have had the house inspected, and awhile back had taken care of
quite a bit of termite damage in the rear of the house, and were going to do likewise in the front
of the house when they undertook this remodell The repair work in the back of the house
involved removing a lot of the stucco and replacing some of the wood studs. If that kind of work
had to be done in the front of the house, then to a certain extent, you would actually be rebuilding
that front fa,cade anyhow.
I was very appreciative of the input from the HRB and what might be .misconstrued as conceding
to redesign. I always said. I understand what you are saying, but this is not my decision. It is my
clients’ decision, it is my clients’ house, it is my clients’ life style, and that is how I left it, that I
would go back to my clients and discuss it with them. I had not conceded to any sort of redesign
at the time. Just to sum up that meeting, we did not come to any sort of mutual ground. That is
more or less the summation of what I want to say this evening. My client is still strongly in
favor of pursuing the proposed design, and I ask the planning commissioners tonight to appeal
the Zoning Administrator’s decision to deny the project. I request that you approve the project as
originally presented. We feel we have come to a successful design solution which the client is
ve~ happy with. We feel that the house design works as a package. Everyone keeps focusing
on that front elevation, be it this existing one here or the new one, but a house is more than a
front elevation. We took the time and effort to make the new house work as a package, and I feel
that all four elevations work nicely, and it will be a pleasing thing looking at all four elevations.
Also. the new designs were circulated around the neighborhood, and they were very warmly
received. The neighbors in that section of High Street would all like to see the new design on
their street.
Commissioner Schmidt: Is it your cliems’ iment to save the dovecote or destroy--
Ms. Haight: They have no qualms about reincorporating it someplace, but I do not think it
should be the dominant feature on a remodel.
Commissioner Schmidt: Have you, in your mind, successfully located it somewhere on the
building?
Ms. Haight: There have been a couple of solutions. One is, there is no garage right now, and
there will be a one-car garage constructed. There is a driveway running along the side of the
house. You will be able to see the garage from the street, so if you put the dovecote on one
coruer of the garage, it would be visible from the street. We have also dealt with a landscape
architect, who was proposing to incorporate it into some sort of fountain-like structure in the
back yard, but no rash abandonment of just knocking it down and destroying it, by any means.
Commissioner Schmidt: To confirm what you said, after talking with the HRB, you did some
quick sketches as to how you might be able to retain the existing facade and still put on a second
story, but your client was not particularly pleased with the plan or elevation solution?
Ms. Hai~ht: I made the comment that while I was in the HRB meeting, some of the architects on
the board were making sketches that showed how you could accommodate a second stoI3’.
Commissioner Schmidt: But you did not pursue that any further on your own?
Ms. Hai~ht: That is not the direction in which my client wishes to go.
Commissioner Carrasco: I have a question for Patricia. As I am hearing it from the HRB
representative tonight and from you. the difference seems to be that the HRB would like that
master bathroom that you have put on top of the ent~: pulled back to the major line of the facade.
Have you explored that idea, and is it acceptable?
Ms. Hai~ht: Well. once that second story elemem is pushed ore, if that is reworked, that from
tower works as one unit. That is a covered entryway, and then the bathroom is on top of that,
am not quite sure what you are saying as far as that from emr3~, pushing that bathroom back?
Commissioner Carrasco: That is the difference, it seems to me, between what the HRB is asking
for and what you want, that 3-foot by 11 -foot bathroom that sits over the entry.
Ms. Haight: But that works in conjunction with the entryway as one unit. If we push that
bathroom back, then you are dissolving the facade that my client would like to have in their
design. I am not quite sure what you are saying. Are you implying that we could keep that front
ent~~ and push that bathroom back and have some sort of solution that would be favorable with
the HRB?
Commissioner Carrasco: That is what I heard the HR~ member say, and I am asking you if that
is acceptable.
Ms. Haight: At this point, no, my client is not in favor of doing that. You would have to push
the whole front back to accommodate that dovecote. Even the master bedroom comes to that
comer where that dovecote is.
Commissioner Carrasco: You could curve a wall around that dovecote and let that dovecote--
Ms. Haight: I think that we are then getting into a situation where it is more of an oddity than
something you would want to maintain for its integrity as it is or is not now. I think it would be
more of an oddity to have that thing sticking out of a comer of a two-story structure.
C.ommissioner Carrasco: Suppose you were to design this house with no HIE. What, in your
opinion, would be the drawbacks?
Ms. Haight: That was brought up. It could be extensively redesigned. In order to maintain that
front facade that my client is in accordance with, any sort of manipulation of the floor plan to get
it out of an HIE would set it off balance. It would not have the symmetD, that it now has. That is
the ironic thing. It would not have the symmetry that it now has, but if we were able to cut off
five feet of that right side of the second stoD,, it could slip out of the HIE request, and it would
not have to have any sort of graces from the HRB. They could still make requests, but we could
get our building permit, as I understand it, without their approval.
Commissioner Schink: You mentioned that you had strong neighborhood support. I am
wondering if we could refer back to the plat map that showed the neighboring properties. Could
you identif?’ it for us?
Ms. Haight: In your staff report, there is a signed petition--
Commissioner Schink: I "know there is a petition in the packet, but for the record, I would like
you to identif;y for us which of the neighbors you have spoken with.
Ms. Haight: This section of High Street is a fairly short section, so it is kind of a little
neighborhood in itself. It has cross streets on both ends. This house, #2160, is one house in from
the comer. I don’t believe my clients talked with the neighbor on the comer. I understand they
have been ill. and they did not approach them. With the exception of the one house adjacent on
the comer, everyone else has seen the plans and have expressed their approval and acceptance.
Chairman Beecham: Thank you for your comments.
Patty Macsisak. 2160 High Street, Palo Alto: I am the owner of this house, and I do want to let
you know that we had worked with our designer for over six months before we found out that we
had to go before the HRB. During that time, as you can well imagine, we had to make many
compromises in order to achieve our goal of preserving the lower floor. We did extensive
studies of both ProvenCal and Italian architecture at that time. We looked at the Birge Clark
houses that were in the city. Our intention has always been to design a home in the best tradition
of Pa!o Alto architecture. We are very distressed to find ourselves in this situation where we are
having to appeal to the city to get what we think is a very fine design approved. It has been very
stressful. We had expected to be in our house by now when we started the whole process. I just
want you to know" that have not designed this house from a point of view of trying to make
money. We are trying to create a home that we believe contributes to Palo Alto architecture and
to the inventory of homes in Palo Alto. That is the main thing I want to impress upon you.
Thank you.
Ms. Grote: It is not solely based on the Historic Resources Board recommendation that this HIE
was denied. It does not comply with the single-family design guidelines, therefore, it is very
difficult, if not impossible, to make that second finding that this preserves the architectural style
and character of the original structure, be it historic or otherwise. So it is not solely the historic
nature that went into the original decision. It is also the single-family design guidelines, in
general.
Chairman Beecham: Seeing no other speakers, I will close the public portion of the hearing and
bring it back to the commission. Let me ask staff to confirm my understanding of the
relationship between the HRB and the Zoning Administrator in this process. Because the
applicant has requested a Home Improvement Exception, it therefore does go to the Zoning
Administrator. Also because the home is a Class 4 historic structure, the Zoning Administrator
has the discretion to say that the applicant should go before the HRB. The HRB makes
recommendations to the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator is not required to
accept or implement the suggestions, but at her choice, she may do so. Is that the process that we
have here?
Ms. Grote: That is correct.
Chairman Beecham: Are there any questions of staff?.
Commissioner Schink: I would like a little more discussion about the intent of the HIE and this
idea of preserving existing architectural style or neighborhood character. I would like to give my
impression of what I always thought some of these meant, and you can correct me ifI am wrong.
My understanding of the HIE is that it is a process that was developed so that we could
encourage homeowners and help them through the funny quirks of the zoning ordinance to be
able to remodel their homes and prevent opportunities where homes would be knocked down.
This seems like that kind of an example. When I read the language about preserving
architectural style or neighborhood character, I tended to emphasize the "or," so in this situation,
I would think that you have an opportunity to ignore the architectural style part of it and look to
the neighborhood character. Am I wrong in thinking that way?
Ms. L~tte: I think you have a choice.
9
Commissioner Schink: Could you share the thinking that went into the HIE process, and
whether I am correct in my assumption that we wanted some sort of vehicle to help homeowners
so that we did not end up with demolitions, as the HRB mentioned?
Ms. Lvtle: It was to encourage people not to demolish and to preserve, in particular, those
portions of the project that did face on the public realm and were at a level that were publicly
appreciated, and to deal with the fact that our zoning ordinance, which was developed for the
entire city, did not necessarily apply to all parts of the city, and that we were going to need
flexibility, primarily in older neighborhoods, in order to make remodels work appropriately, in
doing that, however, there was a lot of discussion about recommendations from the Historic
Resources Board and their role in the process, as well as the guidelines being specifically listed
in the ordinance as a tool to use in making the findings.
Commissioner Schmidt: I think that one of the applications in the older neighborhoods is that
setbacks were different in those older neighborhoods, and that HIEs would enable people to add
second stories straight above existing walls without having to do one-foot or two-foot setbacks in
order to meet today’s ordinance.
Ms. Lvtle: Correct. I believe the staff report even says that there are findings within the Home
Improvement Exception findings that staff feels could be applied to this property in the way that
we traditionally applied the HIE findings to historic properties. The problem we have is with
that second finding about preserving architectural or neighborhood character. We do not see that
this project paid much attention to either the architecture or the neighborhood patterns. We did
not see any demonstration of that in the public hearings or any evidence presented tonight.
Neither one was presented as evidence for supporting that finding -- no examination of context
for this project in its context for the character issue nor the architecture of the home, specifically.
Commissioner Schink: This is a decidedly eclectic neighborhood. So if you were to t~, and pick
from the basket of architectural styles, you could probably come to any conclusion you wanted
to. Wouldn’t we be able to rely on the support of the neighbors in saying that it was
architecturally compatible with the neighborhood?
Ms. Lvtle: No, the finding is not support from the neighborhood. It is to demonstrate that you
have preserved an existing character with the remodel proposed.
Commissioner Schink: Would we be able to take into account the opinions of the neighbors, if
they felt it was acceptable?
Ms. Lvtte: If the neighbors supported that finding with evidence, it would be most valuable. If
they are able to substantiate that, in fact, the patterns of the neighborhood are being maintained
or preserved through the exception that is being requested, yes, that can be very helpful. Most
often we use the neighborhood input to justify the third finding that it will not have a detrimental
effecton surrounding properties. But in this case. we received no material to support, other than
people just saying they were supportive of the project. There was no evidence to substantiate
Finding #2 under either criterion -- architecture or neighborhood character.
10
Commissioner Schink: I am not trying to argue this point, but let me bring up a point that one of
the neighbors made, and you can tell me if this fails the test. The first neighbor says, "I am
pleased with the design, and it will be a beautiful addition to our neighborhood." Does that not
help us to make that finding, if we wanted it to?
Ms. Grote: I would think they would need to elaborate on how it would be a beautiful addition
to the neighborhood. Are there other elements in the neighborhood that this represents or
reflects? What else is going on in the neighborhood that would enable that statement to be made.
I do not see that there is any substantiation to the statement.
Commissioner Eakins: Lisa, you mentioned that the project did not meet HIE single-family
home requirements, even as presented, regardless of the historic issues. Could you spell that out
for me, please?
Ms. Grote: There are single-family design guidelines, and I believe I attached those to your staff
report. In there, it calls for saving porches, entvways, significant design features such as
cupolas. I believe it is on Pages 26 and 48 of the design guidelines where it calls specifically for
saving those types of features. So even if this was not a historic house and those features were to
. be removed, it makes it virtually impossible to make the statement that those defining features
have been preserved.
Commissioner Carrasco: It seems to me that the easy answer is to go with the staff
recommendation and say that the findings cannot be made and that we have the right to send it to
the HRB, which is recommended back to us. The hard one is that there is an emotion there of a
client who wants a certain kind of house, whocan demolish this house and achieve that outcome.
What we need to do is to find some mid-ground to preserve something that is historic, and give
this applicant something that will achieve that purpose of preservation. I do not know how to do
it. but those are my thoughts, that there should be some mid-ground that can be found. I don’t
know if this is the right forum for it, but perhaps, if the applicant is willing to go back and work
with staff and the HRB to come up with that mid-ground, it would be beneficial to even’one, to
the community, to the applicant, to the Historic Resources Board and to us.
Chairman Beecham: To me, the reason why we are where we are tonight is that the applicant
does have a difficult problem. They bought a house that is offset, closer to one side of the lot
than the current zoning would allow in terms of going up for daylight, etc. The applicant has
come in and said, Well, you have a home improvement exception process and we would like to
use that so we can get a variance, an easier variance, so we can go straight up. There is a
standard variance process under which one has to prove loss of a substantial property right. The
applicant, at least at this point tonight, is not claiming that, but the applicant does ask to come in
and get a variance based on the fact that they are preserving either the historic nature of the house
or preserving the character of the neighborhood. I think that is what we are struggling with. On
the one hand, in my opinion, it certainly does not preserve the historic nature of the house, and I
could not very well say that it enhances or preserves the character of the neighborhood. It may
be a nice house in itself, but that is not the basis for why we would give a variance on this, in my
opinion.
11
But we always look at alternatives, as well. What happens if this is not approved? Certainly, the
applicant could go ahead and just offset the second floor, probably have an ugly structure,
although maybe, architects can perform wonders, but it probably would not be a very desirable
result. Another option is that the applicant can go back and see if they can accommodate some
of the recommendations of the HRB to help preserve the existing historic appearance of the
house, probably with some concessions on how the interior might work, but doing it in such a
way that the mechanism that we have available to give a variance would work in this situation.
Whenever anyone comes in and wants to improve an older house in Palo Alto that is a bit run
down, has termite damage, etc., we do want to find a good way to make it work. We have some
mechanisms, but to me, the way this is coming out in the final format does not quite satisfb~ the
methods we have for doing it. I would like to find out more from the applicant as to how willing
you might be to take into additional account some of the recommendations of the HRB. Would
you care to speak on that?
Ms. Haight: I can comment on that. When I went back to the HRB the second time, it was
hopefully to come to some mutual ground. That is not what happened. They were adamant on
saving the front facade, and that will dictate what the second sto~’ looks like. That just is not the
look that my clients are after. So it was not like we could reincorporate some of the existing
features. It was kind of a dismissal of the existing design, and the house will remain in the style
that it is in with the second sto~~ pushed back.
One thing that has been brought up by some members of the commission as far as the options.
The existing front wall of the house is stil! going to be there. It is going to look different, but we
are really maintaining the whole first floor, all the architectural features within the house and all
of the perimeter walls. They will have a new look, but we are really maintaining a tot of that
structure. I just wanted to say that even though the package is going to be different, there is a lot
of the existing framework that will be maintained.
Mrs. Macsisak: As soon as we "knew what the HRB’s position was about the elements of the
house, we took that input and went back with both the landscape architect and the designer to
ensure that eveD~ single element, the tiles, the dovecote, the drain pipe, would all be repeated or
incorporated into our design. The main design of the porch was our directive that we did not
want to lose the look and feel of the porch. We wanted to ensure that that covered porch way
was stit! available in the new design. So I feel that in a lot of ways. we have already been very
sensitive to their input and have already been vet3’ diligent about listening to their input. It is just
that we cannot see our way clear to putting that dovecote into the design that we are currently
looking at. It is primarily a matter of ensuring that the interior space can continue to be
articulated in the way that it is today, and having then to !ook at what the effect of that is on the
exterior elevation.
Commissioner Schink: You said you had difficulty with incorporating the dovecote in your
design, but I thought I heard earlier some indication that you might be willing to incorporate it, at
least in the garage structure.
12
Mrs. Macsisak: Yes, but that was after we had gotten through the first HRB hearing and heard
their input about how strongly they felt about it. In the initial design, it was not a consideration.
After the HRB meeting, it was.
Commissioner Schmidt: For clarification, I believe you were just talking about retaining the
front porch.
Mrs. Macsisak: The way the existing house works is that you walk up some steps, and you are in
a covered area that is open on three sides. Then you go into the front door. Our directions to
Patty were that we wanted to keep the look and feel of that experience of walking up and into a
covered porch in the new" design. So the design reflects that.
Commissioner Schmidt: It is a little unclear in the drawing. Is the entry door to the house at the
front of that porch?
Mrs. Macsisak: You are actually in a covered porch way.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, but the porch way is not open. It is only open in the front,
according to the elevation, with just a door-shaped opening.
Mrs. Macsisak: We had experimented with having openings, and had decided against it on the
sides.
Ms. Hai~hl: That was part of maintaining the integrity of the new design. If you did a cutout
there, you would end up with ve~; slim little pieces of wall on the side, and that was not the look
we were after. We want it to have the feeling of permanence and integrity and quality. We were
ve~~ tight on square footage here, so anything extended is incorporated into the square footage,
so that tower came out as far as we could allow it for square footage.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, but the porch would not have the more traditional open porch
feeling. It would not have a lot of daylight.
Ms. Haight: No, it would be a covered entryway.
Chairman Beecham: Can we now have discussion?
Commissioner Ojakian: I have the same sorts of feelings that Commissioner Carrasco has on
this. i am really torn for several reasons. I think part of it is from my own experience. I live in .
an older home built in the late t 890s. and we remodeled it, but we did with an addition that we
attached onto the back so we could keep the character of the front of the house just the way it
was. Yet, on the other side, I remember the pain we went through getting to the point where we
could add on to the house, although it was a very different set of circumstances than these. I am
of the mind that I think Bern was leaning toward, that is, we would sure love it if this project
13
would go back and come back again to us, or not even need to return to us. It is too bad there
isn’t some sort of common ground we can find that retains the character of the front of this house,
which I think has a lot of merit to it, yet have the applicants get what they need in terms of
functionali~, and space to the house. This is a difficult issue for me to vote on tonight.
Commissioner Eakins: If the HIE mechanism is to be able to preserve the look and feel of the
actual, historic elements, neither a new house nor the drawing we have in the submittal will do it.
It just does not look like the kind of dwelling that the HIE was designed to preserve. So I have a
problem with using the HIE to grant the extra height and the lack of a setback for the house. I
understand the applicant still has the property right to do a different house, and no one here wants
to deny that at all, that I can tell. You should have the home you want to live in, but our struggle
is that we cannot use the HIE to allow this particular design. The HIE was invented to preserve
just the kind of funky features that are there and that contribute to a sense of place and actually
represent history here. It would be really nice if you could rethink this so that you could have the
best of both worlds, in fact, that everyone could. You could have the verandah with the
interesting shapes..Maybe it is something you just do not like, but perhaps you could do that and
still be able to use the HIE to get the kind of interior circulation that you want.
I too, have added onto a house. It was not beautiful, and it was not historic, but it had to be
sensitive to the marriage of the second floor to the first floor, and I had to use an exception in
simpler days here in Palo Alto. I hope you can figure out a way to accomplish what you want,
but I cannot see that this design is any different from a new house.
Commissioner Cassel: I have some problems in getting all mixed up with the HRB requirements
in this case. I think there are some philosophical differences over which I am torn. How many
houses are we going to save for historical purposes in Palo Alto? It is not that we should not be
saving things for historical purposes, but on the other hand. there is some limit. We are starting
to talk about saving a whole set of Eichler homes in a huge district of Eichler homes, many of
which are so restricted now that they are not getting the rehab, the growing within them that we
use when we live in houses and change, as times change. So I am a little concerned about this at
that level.
On the other hand. I don’t think this complies with the single-family guidelines. Those were
available, and those are given to you when you do the design. It does not have the front porch
area that is being encouraged and is characteristic of that area. I agree that it is an eclectic area,
but that is a characteristic of that area, and I do not find that it meets those basic requirements.
Commissioner Schink: I think we should overturn the Zoning Administrator’s decision and
approve their application. I feel that way because this is the type of house that was, in my mind,
exactly what we were thinking about when the concept of an HIE was developed. People are
going to remodel old homes, and we want to do everything we can to make it easy for them to
remodel an old home, instead of tearing it down. It is unfortunate that they do not appreciate the
historic character of this house, but they don’t. It is their home. We have not chosen to make it a
Category 1 or 2, so they have the option to do away with these elements.
14
I have always believed that there should be enough flexibility in the HIE process to
accommodate these kinds of really minor exceptions into the daylight plane and setbacks. I feel
like we have gotten caught up here, because it is a discretionary project, a discretionary decision,
that we have been allowed to try to force them to take on historic elements that they just do not
want to take on. This is a reasonably well designed house, so they have chosen not to put a front
porch on their house. I am a big advocate of front porches, but I can tell you, this is not a great
location for a front porch. So maybe it is better that they leave it off.
I feel we should step back and take a look at the bigger picture again. If we do not approve this
HIE, several things wilt happen. One, they may decide to move the whole second story over one
foot, and then we will have one of those famous listing battleships. People would drive around
and say, oh look, that was designed to fit in with the ordinance. Or two, they may say, what
really makes the most sense is to just "knock the house down and start over again, in which case,
we really would have a significant intrusion into the character of the neighborhood. The
alternatives are less acceptable than just approving this. I believe that the reason there is a
Planning Commission is that there are times when we have these silly ordinances which are
difficult to find reasons for, so they put commissioners up here to say, that makes the most sense,
so let’s give the people what they want. I just do not see any reason why we should get so
tortured over this ordinance, and go ahead and let these people have what is very reasonable. In
conclusion, all of their neighbors want it, in addition to them, and I think the neighborhood
should speak for what it wants.
Commissioner Carrasco: I am having a hard time not finding the Zoning Administrator’s
decision to be correct. As I said before, if we could find some way to allow the applicant to do
some of these things and keep some of the historic house aspects, we would all benefit. Given
that issue. I think the Zoning Administrator does have the right to refer this application to the
HRB and to include the HRB’s opinions in the findings. The Zoning Administrator has done
that. So in asking for an HIE, you are asking for a special right, and it is not by zoning, a right to
be granted an HIE. in spite of what Jon is saying. In the letter of this law, I do not see a way to
give an HIE without making the findings that cannot be made. in my opinion. So I will vote in
favor of the Zoning Administrator’s decision.
Commissioner Schink: I feel that we could make the findings if we wanted to be somewhat
creative and flexible. That is what I think our job is here.
Commissioner Schmidt: I am struggling with this. like everyone else. A lot of what Jon says is
veD’ reasonable, however, it does not really meet the letter of the law. I wish that the owners had
been a little more responsive to the design and tried to incorporate some of the features into the
fa,cade or into the overall design of the house. I think it can be done, but they have not chosen to
do so. So again, I am struggling with it. because it is a reasonable house design. It is in an
eclectic neighborhood. This is a difficult question.
Chairman Beecham: A few of us have talked about the letter of the law, and have had trouble
with finding how this meets the letter of the law. But I do not feel we are being bureaucratic in
saying, "Therefore, we have to do this." We are all saying we .feel that we wish it had come in
15
differently, and we wish the applicant would reconsider some of the recommendations. That is
what we are driving at. The applicant, I think, believes that their design does maintain the
historic value of the house. Myself, and others up here in their comments, frankly do not see it
that way. As I look at the drawings of your new design, while it may be attractive in some sense,
I do not see the character of the existing house showing up in it. The purpose of the home
improvement exception is to give an incentive to homeowners to give them special allowances
not otherwise available in order to encourage them to maintain the historic nature and historic
character of their structure. I think that is what we do not see here, so we are missing not only
the letter of the law. but also the intent, which is that the city, the government, makes an offering
of a variance as an easier hurdle to over if the applicant is willing to preserve some of the historic
characteristics of the house. We do not see that. So I also wish that the applicant would take the
application back and work in some new fashion with their architect and with the HRB to help
preser~,e more of those things. One thing we have talked about is that what the HRB says are
recommendations only. They are not requirements. They will be looked at by the Zoning
Administrator, by the Planning Commission and by the City Council. So far, the Zoning
Administrator, and perhaps the Commission here, are saying that we would like to see more in
the application reflecting the HRB’s comments than we see today.
Commissioner Schink: I have a question. What is the requirement for a driveway width?
Ms. Grote: Ten feet of clearance and eight feet of paved area.
Commissioner Schink: With this particular application, if they simply picked this house up and
moved it over two-and-a-haK feet, it probably would not require any exceptions.
Ms. Grote: For access to a garage or a carport in the rear?
Commissioner Schink: Well. it looks like they have a 12-foot driveway now.
Ms. Grote: Currently. there is an existing five-foot side yard setback, so if they were to move the
house, they would only need to move it one foot to meet the six-foot interior side yard setback
requirement.
Commissioner Schink: Plus whatever it needs to get out of the daylight plane.
Ms. Grote: Yes. there is an encroachment into the daylight plane. They would need to
accommodate that.
Commissioner Schink: Before I make a motion, I want to comment on something that
Chairman Beecham said. I took at the HIE ordinance a little differently. You spoke about the
intent of the law. I really see the intent of the ordinance to really make the rules less onerous for
the property owner. That is an important intent, and this is a perfect example of that. When we
look at these things, we go so far in restricting what these private property ow-ners can do with
their land. I find it really troubling when a private property owner wants to do something
reasonable, and all of their neighbors agree with them, that we cannot find a way to do it.
16
MOTION: Commissioner Schink: Thus I make the motion that we overturn the Zoning
Administrator’s denial and approve this HIE exception, with the following findings. It is
necessary to preserve the functionality of the first floor and access to the second floor. Those are
the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances in this case. The granting of the application is
desirable for the character of the neighborhood. Finally, it would not be detrimental or injurious
to the neighbors, as evidenced by the petition signed by the neighbors.
I would like to explain the first finding. Their existing dwelling is a part of their property and a
part of their property right. It now does not meet the standard setback, so it is exceptional and
unusual. If they want to use those, to then build above that would be an exceptional
circumstance, in my mind.
For the second finding, as I argued before, I read this ordinance to mean either/or the
preservation of existing architectural styles or neighborhood character. This is a very eclectic
neighborhood. You can easily determine that this is a preservation of that eclectic style in the
neighborhood, as evidenced by the support of all of the neighbors.
Finally, the petition supports the last finding that it is not detrimental or injurious to the
neighborhood.
Chairman Beecham: We have a motion by Commissioner Schink. Is there a second?
(There was no second)
That motion fails for tack of a second. Do we have another motion?
MOTION: Commissioner Qiakian: I have the dilemma that I mentioned before. I wish this
were not in front of us tonight, because I think there is some common ground here. I have a real
problem with Finding #2, Jon. Since I was on the Planning Commission that looked at the HIE, I
have real difficulty in agreeing with what you said. I will make a motion, but I do it reluctantly,
because I would hope this process would change a little bit and we might have some common
ground to retain some of the front fa,cade and porch area of this house. I therefore move to
support the recommendation in the staff report, which is to deny the appeal and uphold the
Zoning Administrator’s denial of the Home Improvement Exception.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this motion? We have a motion by
Commissioner Ojakian, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt. that we uphold the decision of the
Zoning Administrator.
Commissioner Eakins: I feel it is a last resort to do this. I would like to ask the applicant and the
owners if you would consider thinking over how to redesign the house so that you could use the
HIE for its intended purpose.
17
Ms. Lytle: I would like to add something that might help them to address that question. We also
have allowed for minor v.ariations in floor area, through the HIE process, in order to
accormnaodate things like existing porch features. I noticed in their presentation that they talked
about that porch issue and its relationship to their tight FAR.
Mrs. Macsisak: I don’t think we would be willing to change the elevation of the house. If our
willingness to incorporate the features, as we have repeatedly described, into the garage, into a
landscape feature, I believe the design, although no one acknowledged it, does incorporate the
tiles, the clay pipes, the wrought iron, etc. I feel that that is as much accommodation that we can
make, given that we are ! 2 months into the design and a set of compromises associated with this
architecture. Our alternative is to either demolish the house or to sell it and have someone else
make these accommodations.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this motion? We
have a motion by Commissioner Ojakian, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, that we uphold
the decision of the Zoning Administrator and deny the appeal. All those in favor, please say
Aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 6-1, with Commissioner Schink voting nay.
Ms. Grote: This will go to the Ci~’ Council on January 16th.
Chairman Beecham: Good luck.
18