Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-16 City Council (34)City of Palo Alto 6 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: September 16, 1996 CMR:396:96 SUBJECT:Appeal of Zoning Administrator Denial of Home Improvement Exception 96-HIE-15 at 1424 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California REQUEST This report addresses an appeal of a Zoning Administrator decision, which denied a Home Improvement Exception (HIE) for an approximately one-foot vertical encroachment in the accessory building daylight plane to add a carport to an existing garage and a total floor area of 3,082 square feet where 3,000 square feet is the maximum allowed. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator denial, in accordance with the proposed Findings (see Attachment 1). The Planning Commission recommends that the appeal of the HIE denial for the approximately one-foot vertical encroachment be approved and that the appeal of the HIE denial of the 82 square feet be denied, in accordance with the proposed Findings (see Attachment 2). This action would result in the carport being constructed so that the roof pitch matches the existing garage roof pitch, but the extra square footage in the garage could not be added. The subject site is a fiat, rectangularly shaped parcel of 7,500 square feet (60 feet wide by 125 feet deep). It is developed with a single-family house and detached garage, that are listed as Category 4 historic structures on the City of Palo Alto Historic Inventory. The site is located in the middle of the block and is surrounded by single-family houses on parcels of similar size. There are no access or waterway easements on the site that reduce its usable square footage. CMR:396:96 Page 1 of 7 The applicant received initial approval of a building permit, which conformed to all zoning requirements on September 22, 1995. In order to conform to floor area maximums, the applicant proposed to :remove the existing garage of 400 square feet (20 feet by approximately 20 feet) and replace it with a one-car garage of 230 square feet (11 feet by 21 feet). The proposal also included moving the location of the new garage to 6 feet from the rear property line, rather than the 9 foot dimension for the existing garage, and a new carport in front of the new garage, which would not be counted into the overall floor area calculation. Under the September 1995 building permit, the new carport did not intrude into the accessory building daylight plane. The smaller new garage dimensions resulted in an overall square footage on the site of 2,987 square feet, where 3,000 was the maximum allowed. No HIE was required (see Attachment 3a). After approval of the initial building permit, the applicant submitted minor revisions to the approved plans, which included saving the existing garage, but reducing it in size so that it would be approximately 220 square (11 feet by approximately 20 feet). The revised proposal retained the garage in its original location 9 feet from the rear property line and resulted in 2,982 total square feet of floor area. These revised plans also conformed to all zoning requirements and were approved on March 18, 1996, without the need for an HIE (see Attachment 3b). On April 17, 1996, the applicant submitted further revisions, which did result in the need for an HIE. These revisions included a changed roof slope on the new carport, so that it would match the existing roof on the garage and intrude into the accessory building daylight plane. In addition, the applicant proposed less reduction in the size of the existing garage so that it would be approximately 320 square feet (16 feet by approximately 20 feet), which resulted in the overall floor area on the site being 82 square feet over the allowed maximum of 3,000 square feet (see Attachment 3c). As part of the HIE review process, Optional Hearing Request cards were sent to all property owners and utility customers within 150 feet of the site. A neighboring property owner requested a public hearing, which was held by the Zonifig Administrator on June 6, 1996. Additional background regarding the HIE request and the subsequent appeal is outlined in the attached Planning Commission staff report (see Attachment 4). POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are two existing policies that are relevant to this application. The first is Policy 1 in the Housing Element of the existing Comprehensive Plan. It states that the City should: "Maintain the general low-density character of existing single-family houses." The policy is further expressed as a set of R-1 design standards for single-family houses. The proposed CMR:396:96 Page 2 of 7 daylight plane encroachment for the new carport roof and the additional square footage for the existing historic garage comply with the Comprehensive Plan policy, in that they do not substantially alter the low-density character of the existing single-family area. The project does not, however, comply with the R-1 Residential Guidelines, which state that locating garages in the rear of the house should be avoided if the garage would be disruptive to neighbors (Guideline A10, page 22). The project also does not meet Guideline B3, which states that appropriate landscaping in the rear and side yards is to be provided to maintain privacy between yards and shape spaces (Guideline B3, page 26). The project did not sufficiently address the impact on the neighbor or allow room for landscaping to help reduce the visual impact on the neighbor. The second policy that is relevant to this application, in an indirect manner, is Policy 2 in the Urban Design Element of the existing Comprehensive Plan. It states that the City should: "Encourage private preservation of buildings which have historic or architectural merit or both." Program 6 of this Policy further states: "Develop incentives for the retention and rehabilitation of houses with architectural or historic merit in all zones". The proposed daylight plane intrusion for the new carport and the additional square footage for the garage are not inconsistent with these policies; but the policies and programs were intended for the original historic structures and not new construction, such as the carport in the subject application. The approval of the requested HIE could be considered a minor incentive toward preservation of the existing garage. DISCUSSION There are three findings that need to be made to approve an HIE (Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.90.055). The Zoning Administrator made the second of the three findings, but was unable to make the first and third findings. In regard to the first finding, the Zoning Administrator found that there is nothing exceptional or unusual about the site. It is a fiat, rectangular- shaped lot of 7,500 square feet (60 feet by 125 feet). It is surrounded by parcels of similar size, configuration and topography. The site is fully able to accommodate all development requirements without an HIE or variance. In regard to the second finding, the Zoning Administrator acknowledged the architectural compatibility of the daylight plane encroachment for the carport and the minor garage expansion. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) also reviewed and recommended approval of the modifications, as discussed further in the Public Participation section of this staff report. In regard to the third finding, the Zoning Administrator found that the intrusion of the carport roof into the daylight plane would have detrimental impacts on the property to the east of the subject site in that the additional ridge height would diminish the quality of private outdoor living space in the neighbor’s yard immediately adjacent to the new carport. The appellant states in his letter of appeal that there is no reasonable claim of detriment to the neighborhood, public health, safety or general welfare as a result of the extra 82 square CMR:396:96 Page 3 of 7 feet of space. His letter does not address the daylight plane encroachment, but his testimony at the Planning Commission public hearing addresses the issue in detail (see Public Participation section of this report and the verbatim Planning Commission minutes attached to this report). A summary of the Planning Commission’s recommendation is also included in the Public Participation s’ection of this report. A detailed discussion of the original findings made by the Zoning Administrator and the appellant’s letter of appeal are included in the attached Planning Commission Report (see attachment 4). Public Participation On May 1, 1996, the HRB reviewed the entire project, first and second story additions, as well as the HIE request for additional square footage for the garage and daylight plane intrusion for the new carport, and recommended approval of the additions to the main house as well as the HIE request. They stated that the garage modification and the carport roof would be consistent with the architectural style of the existing historic house and detached garage (see Attachment 4 in the attached Planning Commission Report, dated August 28, 1996). On June 6, 1996, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing regarding the HIE request (see Attachment 5 in the attached Planning Commission Report, dated August 28, 1996). Approximately six neighbors attended the hearing to oppose the HIE request. The opposition focused on the detrimental impact the immediate neighbors believed the additional square footage and daylight plane intrusion would have on their properties and on their opposition to granting any sort of exceptions on a piece of property that was essentially the same as every other property in the surrounding neighborhood. The neighbors were concerned about the visual effects of the new carport roof on the site immediat61y to the east of the carport. They understood that a carport could be added to the site that did not intrude into the daylight plane and that a denial of the HIE did not mean that a carport could not be built. Several neighbors stated that if the project had been completely thought out prior to application for a building permit, the main house could have been made 82 square feet smaller, thereby allowing the needed square footage in the garage without exceeding the floor area limit. Letters from three neighbors opposing the HIE request were submitted into the record and are attached to the August 28, 1996 Planning Commission report (see Attachment 6 of the attached Planning Commission Report, dated August 28, 1996). On August 28, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the appeal of the HIE denial (see the minutes of the August 28, 1996 Planning Commission hearing, which are included in the Council packet of September 12, 1996). The appellant presented a considerable amount of information regarding the daylight plane intrusion and the difference in the height of the carport wall with the approval of the daylight plane CMR:396:96 Page 4 of 7 encroachment and without the daylight plane encroachment. The sketches appeared to verify that the height of the carport wall would be 8 feet in height with approval of the HIE and nine feet without approval of the HIE. The daylight plane encroachment would occur along the ridgeline of the new carport and would not result in a higher wall directly on the property line to the east of the site. He also presented information regarding the additional 82 square feet of floor area being included in the garage. He clarified that the existing garage would become smaller than it is currently (318 square feet instead of 382 square feet), but that the garage dimensions would be larger than shown on the approved building permit plans (16 feet by approximately 20 feet instead of 11 feet by approximately 20 feet). Three neighbors spoke against the HIE application and in favor of the Zoning Administrator’s denial. They stated that the additional 82 square feet added to the general overbuilding of the site and negatively impacted their private yard areas. They further stated that the daylight plane encroachment would have negative visual impacts on the property immediately to the east of the subject site. After discussion of the details of the proposal, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the exception for the daylight plane intrusion and denial of the exception of the extra 82 square feet of floor area. The Commission agreed with the appellant’s arguments, regarding the proximity of the daylight plane intrusion to the neighboring property, finding that a higher ridegeline was preferable to a higher wall at the property line for the neighbor. They also believed that the historic nature of the garage qualified as extraordinary circumstances for the property and warranted the HIE in order to correct the roof pitch for architectural compatibility. The Planning Commission findings are attached to this staff report, (see Attachment 2). ALTERNATIVES The City Council can take one of the following actions: 1.Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator denial of 96-HIEo 15. 2.Deny the appeal of the 82 square feet of floor area and approve the appeal of the daylight plane encroachment, as recommended by the Planning Commission. 3.Approve the appeal as requested by the appellant, which will allow the original proposal to be constructed. CMR:396:96 Page 5 of 7 Approve the appeal, and modify the original proposal by imposing any conditions or restrictions deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. In order to act on alternatives 3 or 4, the City Council will need to recommend supportive findings. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the City regarding any of the actions on the appeal. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A minor modification to an existing structure is a Category 1 exemption under the California Environmemal Quality Act (CEQA). STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL The action of the City Council is final unless challenged in a court of law. ATTACHMENTS Proposed Findings for Denial of 96-HIE- 15 Proposed Findings supporting the Planning Commission recommendation Original building permit approved September 22, 1995 Revised building permit approved March 8, 1996 HIE request denied June 20, 1996 and now under appeal Planning Commission staff report, dated August 28, 1996, with all attachments CC:Roger Kohler, Architect, 721 .Colorado Avenue, Suite 102, Palo Alto CA 94303 John and Barbara Hanna, 1424 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301 John Paul Hanna, Hanna & Van Atta, Attorneys at Law, 525 University Avenue, Suite 705, Palo Alto CA 94301 Sue Garadis, 1420 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301 Rick and Regina Roney, 1428 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301 Heidi Lazar, 1432 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301 Ann Bingham, 1437 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301 Richard Armstrong, 1460 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301 F. Campbell, 555 Bryant Street, #260, Palo Alto CA 94301 Mark & Mary Ann Harris, 1417 Dana Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301 CMR:396:96 Page 6 of 7 PREPARED BY: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environmem B~NARD-M. STROJNY Assistant City Manager CMR:396:96 Page 7 of 7 A° ACHM NT 1 PROPOSED FINDINGS For Denial of 96-HIE-15 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 an average-sized, rectangular-shaped lot with a demons~ated ability to be developed in full compliance with the zoning regulations (a remodel project has already been approved and is currently under cons~ucfion). In particular, the proposed garage alterations which prompted this excdption request are unnecessary to fulfill the site’s off- street parking requirements; The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character, which.would not otherwise.be accomplished through the strict application of this chapter in that it allows for a continuous, uninterrupted roof line between the proposed carport and the existing, original garage structure built at the same time as the historic (category 4) 1930 residence. The proposed garage alterations were reviewed and approved by the City’s Historic Resources Board; and, The granting of the application will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposed carport diminishes the quality of private outdoor living space and access to sunlight on the adjacent property (1428 Hamilton Avenue). The project is visually disruptive in that it creates a 36’8"-1ong garage/carport wall, located just 9 inches from the side property line, which is juxtaposed with the neighbor’s existing rear deck and landscaped garden. In matching the carport roof pitch with the existing noncomplying garage, the project causes a further reduction in the amount of sunlight which accesses the neighbor’s rear yard area. P:~SR\1424HAM.FND 8-28-96 Page 10 Attachment 2 PROPOSED FINDINGS SUPPORTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The one-foot accessory building daylight plane intrusion is approved and the 82 additional square feet of floor area is denied, associated with Home Improvement Exception 96-HIE-15, based on the following findings: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the site is a Category 4 on the City of Palo Alto Historic Inventory and the placement of the historic house and garage limit the location and architectural style of any new construction on the site; and o The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character, which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of this chapter in that it allows for a continuous, uninterrupted roof line between the proposed carport and the existing, original garage structure built at the same time as the historic 1930 residence. The proposed garage alterations were reviewed and approved by the City’s Historic Resources Board; and The granting of the accessory building daylight plane encroachment will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that the intrusion is only located along the ridgeline of the new carport and is actually eight feet away from the side property line. The height of the carport wall will be one foot lower than it would be if the daylight plane intrusion is not granted and will have less impact on the neighboring property than if the intrusion is not granted. The daylight plane intrusion will not reduce the amount of sunlight in the yard of the immediately adjacent parcel to the east of the subject site. The granting of the 82 additional square feet would have detrimental or injurious impacts to the surrounding properties in that when the subject site is viewed from surrounding properties, the additional square footage contributes to the generally over-built character of the site by adding volume to the garage elevation when viewed from the from and rear. Attachment 3a t ,/ Attachment 3b Attachment 3c ÷I Attachment 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA DATE: August 28, 1996 SUBJECT:Appeal of Zoning Administrator denial of Home Improvement Exception 96-HIE-15 at 1424 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California RE~ Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator denial of a Home Improvement Exception (HIE) application for a garage addition requiring an approximately 9-inch vertical encroachment into the accessory building daylight plane and a total floor area of 3,082 where 3,000 is the maximum allowed, in accordance with the proposed Findings (see Attachments 1)., BAC The subject siteis a flat, rectangularly shaped parcel of 7,500 square feet (60 feet wide by 125 feet deep). It is developed with a single-family house and detached garage, that are listed as Category 4 historic structures on the City of Palo Alto Historic Inventory. The site is located in the middle of the block and is stirtounded by singl~-family houses on parcels of similar size. There are no access or waterway easements on the site that reduce its usable square footage. Project Description and History_ The applicant applied for a Home Improvement Exception (HIE) on April 17, 1996 for a 9-inch vertical encroachment into the accessory building daylight plane and 82 square feet of floor area over the maximum allowed on the site. Both exceptions were requested for detached structures, not the main house. The vertical daylight plane encroachment was to accommodate the roof of a new carport proposed to be constructed in front of a portion of the existing detached garage. The encroachment wouM allow the roof pitch on the new carport to match the roof pitch on the historic garage. The 82 additional square feet would be added under the existing overhang on the garage and would enlarge it enough to comfortably accommodate one car and a small amount of storage. The main house was also undergoing remodeling on the first and second stories; however, these modifications were nbt subject to discretionai’yactions. Request for Hearing and the Zoning Administrator’s Decision Owners of property immediately east of the subject site had concerns about the proposed HIE and in May requested a public hearing to discuss the project. The Zoning Administrator held the public hearing and received public testimony, as summarized in the Public Participation section of this Planning Commission report, on June 6, 1996. The Zoning Administrator denied the HIE request on June 20, 1996 based on the findings that there is nothing unusual or extraordinary about the site wbAch prevents zoning requirements from being met and that according to testimony from neighboring property owners, there would be adverse impacts on the neighbors from the project (see Attachment 2 - Zoning Administrator’s decision regarding 96-HIE-15). Proper _ty Owner’s Appeal The property owner appealed the Zoning Administrator’s denial on June 28, 1996 based on the grounds that granting the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character (see Attachment 3 - Letter from John Paul Hanna, dated June 28, 1996). The appellant further states, in the letter that a one-car garage that meets minimum width dimensions is essentially unusable and would function better with a minor amount of additional room. The 82 square feet of additional area would provide the needed room. The appellant notes that the extra square footage would be located on the side of the garage closest to the interior of the site and would be minimally visible from other properties or the public right-of-way. The daylight plane intrusion was requested for aesthetic reasons and was intended to make the new carport compatible with the existing historic garage. Table 1 summarizes the pertinent information regarding the site. P:\PCSR\96HIE15.AP 8-28-96 Page 2 Table 1 Applicant: Appellant: Owners: Roger Kohler - Architect John Paul Hanna John and Barbara Hanna Assessor’s Parcel Number:003-23-006 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Zoning District: Existing Land Use ’ Surrounding Land Uses: Single-Fahaily Residential R-1 One Single-Family Residence garage North: Single-Family Residential South: Same East: Same West: Same with detached Parcel Size:7,500 square feet (60 feet by 125 feet) POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are two existing City policies that are relevant to this application. The first is Policy 1 in the Housing Element of the existing Comprehensive Plan. It states that the City should: "Maintain the general low-density character of existing single-family areas., This policy is further expressed as a set of R-1 design standards for single-family houses. The proposed daylight plane encroachment for the new carport roof and the additional square footage for the existing historic garage comply with the Comprehensive Plan policy in that they do not substantially alter the low-density character of the existing single-family area. The project does not, however, comply with the Ro 1 Residential Guidelines, which state that locating garages in the rear of the house should be avoided if the garage would be disruptive to neighbors (Guideline A10, page 22). The project also does not meet Guideline B3, which states that appropriate landscaping in the rear and side yards to be provided to maintain privacy between yards and shape spaces (Guideline B3, page 26). P:\PCSR\96HIE15.AP 8-28-96 Page 3 The project did not sufficiently address the impact on the neighbor or allow room for landscaping to help reduce the visual impact on the neighbor. The second policy that is relevant to this application, in an indirect manner, is Policy 2 in the Urban Design Element of the existing Comprehensive Plan. It states that the City should: "Encourage private preservation of buiMings which have historic or architectural merit or both. " Program 6 of this Policy further states: "Develop incentives for the retention and rehabilitation of houses with architectural or historic merit in all zones, The proposed daylight plane intrusion for the new carport and the additional square footage for the garage are not inconsistent with this policy. The policy and program statement were intended for the original historic structures and not new construction, such as the carport in the subject application. The approval of the requested HIE could be considered a minor incentive toward preservation of the existing historic garage. DISCUSSION Issues and Analysis There are three f’mdings that need to be made to approve an HIE (Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.90.055). The HIE f’mdings and conditions .for this application, as made by the Zoning Administrator (see Attachment 2). The discussion below summarizes the rationale used to make each of the findings. The appellant has addressed the second of these three findings, but has not sufficiently explained how the other two f’mdings can be made in order to overturn the denial of the HIE. HIE Find_ing Number 1 The first f’mding states that there must be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zoning district. The Zoning Administrator found that there is nothing that renders the subject site exceptional or extraordinary. It is a flat, rectangular-shaped lot of 7,500 square feet (60 feet by 125 feet). It is surrounded by parcels of similar size, configuration and topography. The site is fully able to accommodate all development requirements without an HIE or Variance. This is demonstrated by the fact that building permit plans had been approved in full conformance with all applicable codes and were under construction while the HIE was being processed. The enlargement of the existing garage and the addition of a carport were not required to meet minimum off-street parking requirements. P:\PCSR\96HIE15.AP 8-28-96 Page 4 The appellant has not addressed the first f’mding in his letter of appeal and has not presented grounds for finding that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that warrant approval of the HIE. In his original letter requesting the HIE, the applicant’s architect noted that the site is historic and that constituted the exceptional circumstance. An historic designation has been used on other sites to justify an HIE or variance; however, this is most often when the relief is needed to accommodate modifications to the historic structure itself so that the modifications are architecturally consistent with the original architecture or substandard-sized structures can be brought up to contemporary standards. The daylight plane intrusion for this project was requested for a new carport and the additional square footage for the original garage was not needed to meet minimum size requirements. These factors led the Zoning Administrator to conclude that the historic nature of the site was not sufficient by itself to consider the site extraordinary or exceptional. HIE Finding Number 2 The second HIE finding states that the exception is needed to preserve an architectural style or neighborhood character¯ The appellant’s primary reason for appealing the denial is that the granting of the HIE is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of the code (see Attachment 3 - Letter of appeal from John Paul Hanna, received June 28, 1996). The additional 82 square feet would result in a usable one-car garage and the one-foot daylight plane intrusion for the carport roof would prevent the carport from appearing "mismatched" or out of character with the historic garage. He has spent a considerable amount of time and effort on remodeling a previously incompatible addition to the main house so that it is consistent with the historic character of the main house and believes it would be unfortunate to violate the architectural integrity of the historic site with a mismatched carport roof. The original findings made by the Zoning Administrator acknowledge the architectural compatibility of the daylight plane encroachment for the carport roof and the minor garage expansion. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) also reviewed and recommended approval of the modifications as discussed further in the Public Participation section of this staff report. i The final HIE f’mding states that the exception will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The Zoning Administrator found that the intrusion of the carport roof into the daylight plane would have detrimental impacts on the P:\PCSR\96HIEI5.AP 8-28-96 Page 5 property to the east of the subject site in that it would diminish the quality of private outdoor living space and access to sunlight in the neighbor’s yard immediately adjacent to the new carport. In addition, the daylight plane encroachment would be a visual disruption to the neighbor in that it crates a 36’8" long wall, located 9" from the side property line, which is adjacent to the rear deck and landscaped garden of the neighboring property to the east of the subject site. Several neighbors attended the June 6, 1996 Zoning Administrator hearing to oppose the HIE request. The neighbors comments a.re summarized in the Public Participation section of this staff report. The appellant states in his letter of appeal that there is no reasonable claim of detriment to the neighborhood, public health, safety or general welfare as a result of the extra 82 square feet of space. The Zoning Administrator denial was based on the detrimental impact of the daylight plane encroachment, not the additional 82 square feet. The appellant comments that the daylight plane encroachment is needed to make the carport more visually compatible with the existing garage. He does not comment on the loss of sunlight or the visual impact the new carport would have on the neighbors to the south of his property. As stated in the Policy impact on neighboring property is addition, not allowing enough room impact on the neighboring property, section of this report, not adequately considering the inconsistent with the R-1 Design Guidelines. In for landscaping,, which could help reduce the visual also is inconsistent with the Design Guidelines. The appellant also statesin his letter of appeal that he believes denying the exception he has requested would be denying the entire concept of the HIE. He states that the HIE process is intended to grant relief from regulations where the floor area ratio is exceeded by less than 100 square feet, which is deemed to be incidental. He asks why there is an exception procedure if the exceptions are not going to be granted. He fails to acknowledge that the exception must be granted based on the three f’mdings discussed above, which show that the exception is warranted. The HIE process is discretionary, which means that there is no automatic approval. If approvals for all requests of additional floor area under 100 square feet were automatic, the result would be that the minimum floor area for all houses in Palo Alto would be increased by 100 square feet. That result was not the intention of the Planning Commission or City Council when developing the HIE process. The intent of the HIE process is to allow a small amount of flexibility for zoning regulations when there are compelling reasons to approve an exception and all three required findings can be made. P:\PCSR\96HIE15.AP 8-28-96 Page 6 Public Participation On May 1, 1996, the HRB reviewed the entire project, first- and second-story additions as well as the HIE request for additional square footage for the garage and daylight plane intrusion for the new carport; and, recommended approval of the additions to the main house as well as the HIE request. They stated that the garage modification and the carport roof would be consistent with the architectural style of the existing historic house and detached garage (see Attachment 4 - Excerpt from May 1, 1996 HRB minutes). On June 6, 1996, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing regarding the HIE request (see Attachment 5 - Excerpt from June 6, 1996 Zoning Administrator Hearing minutes). Approximately six neighbors attended the hearing to oppose the HIE request. The opposition focused on the detrimental impact the immediate neighbors believed the additional square footage and daylight plane intrusion would have on their properties and on the opposition to granting any sort of exceptions on a piece of property that was essentially the same as every other property in the surrounding neighborhood. The neighbors were concerned about the visual effects of the new carport roof on the site immediately to the east of the carport. They understood that a carport could be added to the site that did not intrude into the daylight plane and that a denial of the HIE did not mean that a carport could .not be built. Several neighbors stated thatif the project had been completely thought-out prior to application for a building permit, the main house could have been made 82 square feet smaller, thereby allowing the needed square footage to be added to the garage without exceeding the floor area limit. Letters from three neighbors opposing the HIE request were submitted into the record and are attached to this Planning Commission report (see Attachment 6 - Letters from neighbors in opposition to the HIE request). ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission can recommend one of the following actions to the City Council: 1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator denial of 96-HIE-15. 2.Approve the appeal as requested by the appellant, which will allow the original proposal to be constructed. P:\PCSR\96HIE15.AP 8-28-96 Page 7 Approve the appeal, and modify the original proposal by imposing any conditions or restrictions deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. In order to recommend alternatives 2 or 3, the Planning Commission will need to recommend supportive findings. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the City regarding any of the actions on the appeal. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEN’I~. A minor modification to an existing structure is California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). a Category 1 exem9tion under the ~TEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Proceed to the City Council on September 16, 1996. ATTACItMENTS/EXHIBITS Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5: Attachment 6: Attachment 7: Attachment 8: Proposed Findings for Denial of 96-HIE-15 Zoning Administrator decision dated June 20, 1996 Letter of appeal dated June 28, 1996 HRB meeting minutes Zoning Administrator Hearing Meeting Minutes Letters in opposition to HIE Location Map Plans [Commission members only] P:\PCSR\96HIE15.AP 8-28-96 Page 8 COURTESY COPIES: Roger Kohler, Architect, 721 Colorado Avenue, Suite 102, Palo Alto CA 94303 John and Barbara Hanna, 1424 Hamilton Avenue, ’Palo Alto CA 94301 John Paul Hanna, Hanna & Van Atta, Attorneys at Law, 525 University Avenue, Suite 705, Palo Alto CA 94301 Sue Garadis, 1420 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301 Rick and Regina Roney, 1428 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301 Heidi Lazar, 1432 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301 Ann Bingham, 1437 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301 Richard Armstrong, 1460 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301 Mark Harris, 1417 Dana Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301 F. Campbell, 555 Bryant Street, #260, Palo Alto CA 94301 March & Mary Ann Harris, 1417 Dana Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301 Prepared by: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Project Planner: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Division/Department Head Approval: Nancy Maddox Lytle. Chief Planning Official P:\PCSR\96HIE15.AP 8-28-96 Page 9 =.’TACHMENT 1 PROPOSED FINDINGS For Denial of 96-HIE-15 o o 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 an average-sized, rectangular-shaped lot with a demonstrated ability to be developed in full compliance with the zoning regulations (a remodel project has already been approved and is currently under construction). In particular, the proposed garage alterations which prompted this exception request are unnecessary to fulfill the site’s off- street parking requirements; The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character, which.would not otherwise.be accomplished through the strict application of this chapter in that it allows for a continuous, uninterrupted roof line between the proposed carport and the existing, original garage structure built at the same time as the historic (category 4) 1930 residence. The proposed garage alterations were reviewed and approved by the City’s Historic Resources Board; and, The granting of the application will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposed carport diminishes the quality of private outdoor living space and access to sunlight on the adjacent property (1428 Hamilton Avenue). The project is visually disruptive in that it creates a 36’8"-1ong garage/carport wall, located just 9 inches from the side property line, which is juxtaposed with the neighbor’s existing rear deck and landscaped garden. In matching the carport roof pitch with the existing noncomplying garage, the project causes a further reduction in the amount of sunlight which accesses the neighbor’s rear yard area. PAPCSR\I424HAM.FND 8-28-96 Page 10 Depa~l~v zt of Planning and Comm~mit!/ rznvirolm~ent Plmaning Division Application No. 96-HIE-15:1424 Hamilton Avenue Home Improvement Exception 96-HIE-15 is denied for alterations to an existing detached garage structure, including construction of a new attached one-car carport, with the following exceptions: (1) an approximately 9-inch vertical encroachment into the accessory building daylight plane; and, (2) a total floor area of 3,082 square feet where a maximum of 3,000 square feet is normally allowed, as per attached plans, at 1424 Hamilton Avenue, Zone District R-l, Palo Alto, California. The denial is based on the findings listed below. 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 an average-sized, rectangular-shaped lot with a demonstrated ability to be developed in full compliance with the zoning regulations (a remodel project has already been approved and is currently under construction). In particular, the proposed garage alterations which prompted this exception request are unnecessary to fulfill the site’s off-street parking requirements; The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character, which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of this chapter in that it allows for a continuous, uninterrupted roof line between the proposed carport and the existing, original garage structure built at the same time as the historic (category 4) 1930 residence. The proposed garage alterations were reviewed and approved by the City’s Historic Resources Board; and, The granting of the application will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposed carport diminishes the quality of private outdoor living space and access to sunlight on the adjacent property (1428 Hamilton Avenue). The project is visually disruptive in that it creates a 36’8"-1ong garage/carport wall, located just 9 inches from the side property line, which is juxtaposed with the neighbor’s existing rear deck and landscaped garden. In matching the c:\za\1424hami.dec 250HamiltonAvenue P.O. Box 109.250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 415.329.2441 415.329.2240Fax Page 1 carport roof pitch with the existing noncomplying garage, the project causes a further reduction in the amount of sunlight which accesses the neighbor’s rear yard area. LISA GROTE Zoning Administrator June 20, 1996 NOTE This decision letter does not constitute final action on the application for a Home Improvement Exception. Any person, firm, or corporation aggrieved or affected by the decision may file a written appeal with the Planning Division on or before July 1, 1996. The appeal will be forwarded for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. If no appeal is filed by the above-mentioned date a final action letter will be mailed to the applicant. CC:Roger Kohler, Architect, 721 Colorado Avenue, Suite 102, Palo Alto, CA 94303 John and Barbara Hanna, 1424 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Sue Garadis, 1420 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Rick and Regina Roney, 1428 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Heidi Lazar, 1432 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ann Bingham, 1437 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Richard Armstrong, 1460 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mark Harris, 1417 Dana Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 F. Campbell, 555 Bryant Street, #260, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Michael Bills, Associate Planner c:\za\1424hami.dec Page 2 ,JOHN PAUL HANNA DAVID M, VAN ATTA ATTORNEYS AT LAW UNIVERSITY AVENUE~ SUITE 7OS PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94301 June 26, 1996 Via Facsimile (415) 329.2240 Lisa Grote., Zoning Administrator City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Application No. 96-HIE-15:1424 Hamilton Avenue Dear Lisa: ECEIVED TELEPHONE 1415) F’ACSINILE D2PA~T?.!E;~" OF PLANNI~IG /~.ND CC.L,EU,~-ilTY D~,ELOPMENT This letter constitutes my written appeal filed within 10 days after the mailing of your notice of denial of my application for a home improvement exception. Enclosed is the $100 filing fee. The grounds for appeal are as follows. As stated in para~aph 2 of the findings, the granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an e~sting architectural style or neighborhood character, wlfich would not otherMse be accomplished through the strict application of the code. The house is designated as a "historic building," which I presume, includes the garage. We have spent a lot of money and have taken a great deal of time and trouble to conform the modifications to the main house to the existing architectural style, in order to preserve its integrity. After much thought, we believe that the garage should be saved, if possible. Our .original plan called for demolition of the garage, and replacing it with a smaller garage and carport to permit tandem parking. The exqsting garage is unusable as a place to park two cars, because the juxiaposition of the house and the garage make it all but impossible to back a second car out of the garage, if the car is parked in the slot closest to the house. To save the garage, and at the same time reduce its square footage to keep us under the 3,000 square foot maximum, we have to move one wall of the garage closer to the other wall. The location of the new proposed wall is such that it would still support the existing roof structure without having to add any structural elements that would be visible from the exterior. It does result in expanding the garage by 82 feet, which puts us over the 3,000 square foot limit; however, the extra space is in our interior backyard, is under the eNsting garage roof, and would not be noticeable by anyone else. As you know, a standard width, single-car garage is not really wide enough to open the car doors on either side of a standard size sedan or wagon, and also allows no room for storage on the sides o{ the garage. The extra width here would allow us room to open both car doors, and to have some small amount of storage. L. Grote Page 2 June 24, 1996 The HIE exception, as you -know, allows relief from regulations where the floor area ratio is exceeded by less than ~100 square feet, which is deemed to be "incidental." To deny us the exception under these circumstances would seem to me to be denying the whole purpose of the HIE in the first place. In other words, why have an exception procedure for "incidental" space, if exceptions are not going to be granted? There certainly can be no reasonable claim of detriment to the neighborhood, or detriment to the public health, safety, or general welfare as a result of this extra 82 square feet of space. As for the 9 inches of daylight plane, it is not something that we need, but we feel it would be desirable, because it would enable us to align the carport with the existing garage roof. Our architect thought that this would be more pleasing when viewed from the street, and we certainly agree w~ith him. The Historic Resources Board apparently concurred, because they approved the concept unanimously. That extra 9 inches at the peak of the roof of the carport will not make any significant difference to our complaining neighbors. As pointed out in your findings, the granting of that exception to the daylight plane is desirable for the preservation of the existing architectural style of the historic house, Unless the Planning Commission and the Council reverse your decision, and grant our exception, we will have to build a carport that is mismatched with the garage, and, after spending so much energy in trying to faithfully restore the style of the house to make up for the very badly done addition that was added to the house some years ago by prior owners, it would be a shame to violate that sense of architectural integrity by building such a mismatched carport, The carport will be built anyway, it is just a question or whether it looks like the rest of the house or not. Since our construction of the garage and. carport will be held up pending this appeal, I would appreciate anything that cma be done to expedite the matter. We are renting elsewhere in Palo Alto, and would like to move into our home as soon as possible. We anticipate that the rest of the construction would be completed in July, and would hope to have a hearing before the Planning Commission as soon as possible in July. We will not be able to move into the house until this matter is settled, because if the HIE is denied, we will then have to tear down the garage, and build a new smaller garage and carport. There will be so much disruption from that construction that we would have to postpone our moving date until its completion. Thank you for your consideration. very trulg,you ,% John Paul Hanna co: Roger Kohler JPH:vs\~oa-z6~4 VII. 1424 Hamilton Avenue 96-HRB-14 Application for first and second-story additions and garage modifications for an existing Category 4 historic residence, along with a recommendationto the Zoning Administrator on a Home Improvement.Exception (HIE) for 80 square feet of floor area over the maximum allowed and an intrusion into the day~{~h~--~---~--~--~----~Port to be attached to th~ existing garege~ Boardmember Kohler stepped down from t~is item since he is the project architect. Project Representative: Roger Kohler, Architect, gave a brief summary of the ~roject. Public Testimony: None Bummary of Board Action: After discussion of the project and HIE request, the Board moved to support the project and recommend approval of the HIE to the Zoning Administrator. VOTE:5-0-1-0 (Kittas absent, one. vacancy) VIII.327 Addison Avenue 96-HRB-15 Application to replace existing wood shingle roof with a new composition roof on an existing Category 3 historic residence located in the Professorville historic district. ADMINISTRATOR HEA_ NG June 6, 1996 Excerpt Minutes 1424 Hamilton Avenue 96-HIE- 15 Home Improvement Exception 96-HIE-15 for alterations to an existing detached garage structure, including construction of a new, attached one-car carport, with the following exceptions: (1) an approximately 9-inch vertical encroachment into the accessory building daylight plane; and (2) a total floor area of 3,082 square feet where a maximum of 3,000 square feet is normally allowed for the entire site. It is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Ms. Grote: Let us hear from the applicant while we await Michael Bills. Roger Kohler. Architect. 721 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto: I am the architect working with John and Barbara Hanna. This is ahouse that I started remodeling in the fall, pilot to receiving the building permit. We got into the project, and had several things happen as we proceeded. One of them was that the building is an historic building. At first, we thought we would be improving the historic structure by building this garage in the back. Then it became obvious to us as we worked on the project that the garage actually had quite a bit of merit in trying to keep it. In doing the design for this, we discovered that if we left the garage and added a carport to the front of it, to meet the current regulations for a carport, the roof line of the carport, as it extends out in front of the existing garage, would have an odd angle. The roof slope is different because of the daylight plane, and a carport is an accessory building. So we redrew the carport with the roof line matching the existing garage that was there. We felt that the continuation of the roof slope was a much better solution. The Historic Resources Board reviewed that and concurred that they preferred the solution where the roof slope extended the existing garage. They preferred to have the existing garage stay. Also, one of the reasons for the extra square footage was that when you look down the driveway, if we cut back the existing garage and left it open and you look beyond here through this little gate, we felt it was better to see a stucco wall which would be textured to match the existing house, rather than to see open space down there. That was one of the reasons why we asked for the extra square footage. I do not know if the HRB responded to that item or not. They seemed to, but it was fairly fast. That was one of the reasons we were asked to seek this exception. So in essence, it works out that the peak of the proposed carport is about nine inches above the required daylight plane. Actually, the ~vall line of the propc;sed carport is lower than what we could build, because the height of the plane of the existing garage, as you can see, the two lines here kind of tilt about this axis here so if we run this line on down, it comes down lower. So the actual wall height of the proposed carport is lower than we could build if we conformed to the zoning ordinance. So the ridge is nine inches higher, but the wall is nine inches lower, so there is a benefit in letting this happen. The other item structurally that we thought was important was if we left the garage open, as originally proposed, we would be required to run these diagonal braces on the outside to resolve the earthquake resistance requirement for the garage. The structural engineer said that by pulling 96-HIE-15 KITIPCMINS- 1996.31A:\ 1424HAM.ZA 6-6-96 Page 1 this wall forward, the weig: ~ nat was out there was no longer enoug -. warrant these diagonal braces. So we also think that creates a cleaner look. Those were the reasons for the HIE application. Ms. Grote: So your structural engineer said that if you kept the wall here, where it was originally, you would need to add exterior strengthening. By moving the wall, you would not have to add exterior braces. Mr. Kohler: Yes, by putting the wall back here, we would have to have to dcx diagonal braces. Just by coming out this four feet, it would make a big difference. Ms. Grote: So that it distributes the load well enough that you do not need the exterior braces. Mr. Kohler: Yes, this is only four feet. I could run the ceiling joists out there and pick this up. When you get to eight feet, that is too far, and to rtm those out, you then have to take care of this horizontal motion out here. Four feet is easy to take care of. Ms. Grote: When you were designing the additions to the house, did you consider at that time reducing the square footage by 80 square feet or so in order to accommodate this? Mr. Kohler: Originally, we were going to take down the garage. Through a series of events, there apparently was some miscommunication with me and the owner and the neighbors. Somehow, I was given the impression that the neighbors preferred to have the existing garage remain. I have received some information from them that that may not be accurate. If that is the case, I apologize for my misunderstanding. So we were just going to tear the whole thing down and build the minimum required, because it seemed to us to be more beneficial at the time to just take this off and reduce everything. When we got into the project and the garage was there, we were using the garage, and we saw the structure and the -detail of the roof, and we decided we ought to leave it. Some of the existing floor area is within the existing roof line. There is a portion of this entire roof that runs across here that is floor area, so it is city floor area, but it is not walkablefloor area. There are 17 feet right about here, for 209.8 square feet. So even if we were granted the 82 square feet, there is still 120 square feet ofwalkable floor area, which may or may not hold any weight. To the owners, it is important, because a major effort was made not to have this second floor area counted, because they want all this area to be walkable floor area. They don’t want to be counting up in the sky. So I would say that through a series of events, and the way in which the project evolved, we have ended up asking for this 80 square feet. The total addition that we have added is about 323 square feet for the entire project. That had to do with 28 on the first floor and 295 on the second, so that is 323 feet. Part of that was some of the first floor. The second floor was done in the 1960s, and it has little windows. We tried to save a lot of it, but in actuality, it turns out that all of it had to be taken out because it was not built properly. It was all substandard construction. We could not do the floor, and had to take it all off. That basically completes my presentation. ~: I will now open this up to the public. If there are people here who would like to speak to this item, please come forward. 96-HIE-15 KITIPCMINS- 1996.31A:\1424HAM.ZA 6-6-96 Page 2 Sue Garadis, 1420 Hamilt~ tvenue, Palo Alto: In general, the ne~ nstru~tion is of a very large scale in comparison to the surrounding homes. If the additional square feet had been in the original plan, I assume there would have been a corresponding reduction of the 80 square feet and the main addition of 300 square feet to the home. Consequently, I do not feel that it is in the best interests of the neighborhood as a whole to add even more square footage to the present addition. The extensive home addition has significantly reduced the light and privacy of my home and back yard. The large, two-story structure includes two tall chinmeys, a balcony and a window facing the upstairs master bedroom of my home. The unexpected construction of a new, seven-foot redwood fence directly outside my kitchen and dining area replaced a shorter, ivy covered fence and brick wall, although Mr. Hanna did send me a letter announcing that the shorter fence I had built 20 years ago would be torn down and replaced within three days. I was out of town for five days, and was unable to respond to that letter or talk to him before the work started. I am also concerned about the close placement of the new exterior stairs and hot tub. They appear to be probably less than six feet form the fence and very close to the main living area of my home. Although these issues are not directly related to the garage addition, I do feel that there are representative of the impact of this home on the entire neighborhood. ’Rick Roney. 1428 Hamilton Avenue. Pal0 Alto: As I read the homeowner exemption request, there were two justifications given. One was the detailing of the garage and maintaining that. The other was to accede to the neighbors’ wishes to the east. As Mr. Kohler said, we are the neighbors to the east, and those are not our wishes. So the two reasons are not valid. First of all, whatever detailing is on the garage, I do not know exactly what that means, but there is going to be a big carport in front of it, so who is going to see the garage. What is going to be maintained is a question. Second, there was obviously some miscommunication between ourselves, Mr. Hanna and Mr. Kohler, although we had not spoken with Mr. Kohler regarding our wishes, but we had communicated, at this point, quite clearly. Our wishes are (1) to leave this as it is with no carport; (2) if there does need to be a carport, if a carport is approved, to have it as a single structure and the whole structure maintain the daylight plane, which is very important to us. A third wish is that if there is not a single structure, to have the additional carport have the lower daylight plaiae. We have a question as to the need for the extra square footage. It is not needed to match any requirement on the part of the city code. There is enough parking on the lot, so we do not see a reason for the exception there. As far as Mr. Kohler:s discussion of the original idea, the first day I met Mr. Hanna, which was close to a year ago, he said he was going to put a carport out front, so that has always been a part of what was going to be done, at least in his mind. So I am not sure where the process went in the middle of that. As Sue mentioned, the building is a very large structure. It will significantly decrease the privacy of our back yard and patio. We do not see where adding extra square footage is justified in this process. Mark Harris. 1415 Dana Street. Palo Alto: I live on the property right behind 1424 Hamilton Avenue. I do not have much prepared; I just want to add a couple of comments. First of all,it is really very difficult to come here. Our bias, and I think our neighbors’ bias, is to be in favor of what neighbors want to do. After all, if somebody can improve their home and enhance the neighborhood and not hurt others, why not. We may want to do the same thing ourselves 96-HIE-15 KITIPCMINS-1996.31A:\1424HAM.ZA 6-6-96 Page 3 someday, so the idea is to t ~eighborly. So it is difficult for all of ~. ? come here. It is uncomfortable and unnatural. But we have been upset enough about rials process, and I would like to say that I am here as a result of cumulative trauma, not just this one project. There are other projects in this neighborhood that say to me, there is something wrong with the zoning ordinance. It is not working the way it was intended. We .all know that we are trying to balance in this community individual property rights versus how it affects everybody else. We are trying to find the right balance for this community. This project is another example where I feel something has-gone wrong. Another example within 100 feet of us is 1425 Dana where there is a house that I affectionately call The Clinic. That is exactly what it looks like, yet it meets our zoning requirements. So this certainly is not the worst example. It is just another example. When I see a situation where I feel the property is already exceeding the intent of the zoning regulations, yet meets the letter of the law, to go beyond that is additional trauma that the neighborhood should not suffer unless there are some mitigations. So my feeling is that if Mr. Kohler and Mr. Hanna would sit down with the neighbors and figure out some ways, and I have asked them on occasion, but I have not gotten a specific response, what can be done to mitigate some of these impacts, I would not be here today to oppose this. I would probably either support it or ignore it. There are other things I would rather be doing. Given the circumstances, this needs to work two ways, but from what I have seen, this has been strictly a one-way street, frankly. So that is the reason why I am here. Richard Armstrong, 1460 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto: I endorse the comments that have been made by my neighbors. I would also like to add that this town went through a lot of work in recent years figuring out what were the fight coverages for the fight sizes Of lots. I oppose any deviation from that which says they can build more than what is allowed. I looked at the property, and aesthetically, there is plenty of construction on that lot fight now, before we even add any more. The other question that has not been answered and that I would like to pose is, when we have an existing two-car garage, why are we having a carport? Thank you. Ms. Qrote: Was this an existing full two-car garage? I do not believe it was. Mr. Kohler: I do not think it met the zoning ordinance. Mr. Armstrong: I have lived in the neighborhood for years, and there have been two cars parked in that garage in the past.. Ms. Grote: It does not meet the minimum interior dimensions, however, for a two-car garage, inside wall to inside wall dimensions. Tile current parking requirement is one covered space and an additional uncovered space out of the front setback. So the site and garage still meet the zoning requirements, even though the garage is smaller than a standard two-car garage. I do understand your point. I had a question that Mr. Roney answered about what the neighbors would prefer on this side of the site, either removal of the ’existing garage or retaining the existing garage." Part of my question is whether or not the neighbors understand that a carport could still be built here, but it 96-HIE- 15 KITIPCMINS- 1996.31A:\ 1424HAM.ZA 6-6-96 Page 4 would just have a different ,fpitch to it. That might have a worse : jual impact for the most immediate neighbors than maintaining the roof pitch and intruding into the daylight plane, as the existing structure does. Just so you are clear on that. If the application is denied, the owners could proceed and build a carport with a different roof pitch. Mr. Roney: What about the square footage? Ms: Grote: If the square footage is denied, they would need to reduce to size of the garage, back to its original size. I believe this wall has already been -punched out. He would have to move the wall back and put in the exterior bracing. Mr. Roney: From our perspective, it is a package with the square footage in it altogether. Ms. Grote: Mr. Harris, do you have any ideas as to what you think would be acceptable mitigation for the overall project? Mr. Harris: I am not sure what those would be for the neighbors, but for us who live behind, some sort of landscaping could soften it. That works both ways; we do not want to look into their windows, and vice versa. There is some attractive landscaping that could hide whatever transpires there which could be very positive Mr. Kohler: They have a very extensive landscaping plan with lots of plants. I think that within a short while, you will not be able to see their house. Ms. Grote: If they do have landscaping on the rear property line, that would not only obscure some of the garage addition, but the addition to the main house, as well. That would help you. How about the neighbors to the side, the Roneys, where there really is not any room to put in landscaping between the garage and your property line. Would that do anything to mitigate your concerns about an intrusion into the daylight plane or extra square footage? Mr. Harris: There is no room, as you say. Ms. Grote: So that would not be enough mitigation for you. Mrs. Garadis: And we would prefer, if we are responsible for the landscaping, which we would be because there isn’t any room on the applicant’s site, we would have control over landscaping in a way that you do not have control when there is a stucco building and a roof line which is a solid block. There is no light able to come through that. Ms. Grote: Mr. Armstrong, there probably isn’t any acceptable mitigation, based on what you said. Mr. Armstrong: No, because I am not an adjoining piece of property. I am just opposed to the variance when there is so much coverage on the lot already. Also, Mrs. Garadis, how about landscaping on your side? 96-HIE- 15 KITIPCMINS- 1996.31A:\1424HAM.ZA 6-6-96 Page 5 Mrs. Garadis: At this poin .tndscaping would be the only thing tN ¯ -: ~uld help hide the addition. Ms. Grote: Maybe you could discuss the landscaping plans. Mr. Kohler: I do not have the plan with me. They are working with Jim Chadwick, a fairly well know landscape person. I know there is going to be planting all along this side yard here. The driveway itself is going to have paving with grass growing between it. This entire area will be landscaped. Mrs. Garadis: The existing landscaping is quite tall. Will that be kept there? Mr. Kohler: The podocarpus is staying. They are ten to fifteen feet high. Ms. Grote: And you have additional plant material back here? Mr. Kohler: There is a lot of existing plant material that will remain here and a whole series of plants planted along the back. Everywhere they can put it, they will put in landscaping. Ms. Grote: What about vines that could climbup the side of the existing garage and on the enclosed wall? Mr. Kohler: I am sure that if they were permitted access, they would be willing to plant some vines there with a drip system so they will not have to maintain it. There are one or two vines that are acceptable for use on the side of a house that are not invasive into the stucco. They will grow but not attach itself to the stucco. I am sure they will be very willing to do that. : Mr. Harris: The reason I am here is really not so much for myself. It is on general principles. I do not care if we are mitigated at all. If this is satisfactory to the neighbors that are really impacted, that is where the focus should be. Again, my .emphasis is that there, is something wrong. Maybe this is a novelty. Maybe this is the only place in Palo Alto that within 100 feet of our house, there are two monstrosities. There is something not quite right here. We want to make sure it gets mitigated. This is a test of this process. Ms. Grote: When I asked what would be acceptable to you as mitigation, I did not mean to imply that you were here to make sure that only you were taken care of and that you did not care about your neighbors. I know this is a concern for all of the neighbors. That is partly what my questions are intended to get at, whether you really are opposed to this in principle, any kind of overage or any kind of exception, or if you are willing to consider it if it can be mitigated, if it is not going to have negative impacts on you, whether there is a way that you would feel satisfied with certain mitigation measures that the applicant is willing to comply with. That is where my questioning is going. I need to know from you whether you do not want it at all, or yes, you would consider it with mitigations. Mrs. Garadis: We do not feel that any of those alternatives of vines are really adequate mitigation. Those mitigations don’t address our greatest concern of the wall and roof line or care for the property. So we are opposed to the square footage and we are opposed to the roof line 96-HIE- 15 KITIPCMINS- 1996.3 IA:\ 1424HAM.ZA 6-6-96 Page 6 being increased. I would t ~ that they do get privacy. I am sure tL would. We at our own expense have already taken measures to landscape and provide privacy, so we do not expect that they would take offense at that. We just expect that they would follow the laws of the City of Palo Alto. Ms. Grote: That gets back to one of my original questions. Do you realize that if this HIE is denied, they could then come in and build a carport with a different roof pitch, and the landscaping may or may not happen, depending upon whether they want to do it. Just so you are clear on what could happen. Mr. Armstrong: As I look at the picture of the garage, it looks like there is still extra room offto the right of the garage. Your comment to me was that it wa~ not big enough for two cars. That troubles me, because as I look at this, there is extra space here. Ms. Grote: What I meant by its not being big enough for two cars is that it did not meet our minimum dimensions for interior size for a two-car garage. You could probably get two small cars in there. Mr. Armstrong; But there is extra space here. They have put in a footing here, and it looks like there is some extra space here. It looks like there is a porch or something there. Yet there is framing here. Ms. Grote: They have already moved the wall out. In other words, they did something prematurely. Mr. Armstrong: Let me ask the question, if this footing was all taken out, would that make the garage big enough for two cars? Ms. Grote: No, it still would not. Mr. Bills: The interior dimension for the new walls shows at 15 fbet. He would need 17 feet to meet the city code. He could probably squeeze two cars in there, but to meet the actual code requirement, it would have to be 17 feet. Mr. Armstrong: So he would have to stretch the wall out two feet. Which is doable. Ms. Grote: It would only be doable under a home improvement exception to have overage on FAR. It would probably then bring his total overage up to a little over 100 square feet. The carport is not included in the square footage for FAR, but the garage is included. Mrs. Garadis: Is that balconyincluded in the square footage? It has an overl~ang of a roof on it’ that is quite extensive. ~: It is not included. 96ZHIE- 15 KITIPCMINS- 1996.31A:\ 1424HAM.ZA 6-6°96 Page 7 Mrs. Garadis.: There is qm ~ bit of a structure there already. It is ~ .llly visible to all three neighbors, It is not included in the square footage, so in addition to the 83 square feet, there is also what you call free space because the carport is not counted. As far as we are concerned, the site is overbuilt and most of it is 100% structure. A stucco wall is a big structure with a roof on it. Ms. Grote: A carport is something that is substantially .open, and that would be 50% or more, so that is two sides of the carport. As long as two sides of the structure are open, it is considered to be a carport, not a garage. Carports are exempt from square footage, because they appear open, for the most part. Unfortunately, your view of it is the enclosed side wall. Mr. Armstrong: The point is that with the allowable square footage, they are over, and then they have all of this other structure that impedes on the neighbors that is over but does not get counted. Mrs. Garadis: What about the staircase? Does that get included in the square footage? It is a very open kind of thing but you can see it from the street and from the neighbors. Ms. Grote: It counts as lot coverage but not as floor area. Mrs. Garadis: I am not sure whether there will be a fence there, but the thing about that is that it is very exposed and is most unattractive. It was also mentioned that there is a lot of free space here. Mr.Armstrong: Have you had a chance to listen to this? Ms.Grote: Yes, I have. Mr.Armstrong: So you know what we are talking about. Mr. Kohler: In terms of the added square footage in the.garage, the only people who are really going to see that square footage is the Hannas. It has no impact on any neighbors that I can see. Whether.the wall is there or there, it does not impact the garage. Mr.Armstrong: What is that space going to be used for? Mr.Kohler: It allows you to get the car door open, for one thing. Mr.Anderson: There is an extra overhang between the one footing that is in and the wall. Mr. Kohler: The extra overhang is for storing of yard furniture, and possibly a place to put a barbecue. I would like to say that I have lived in Palo Alto for over 40 years. I almost grew up here. If you read the papers, we are a victim or our success now. In response to Mr. Harris’ comments, if you go to the Building Department, there are probably 200 or 300 applications for remodels. Most of them are going to build to the maximum that they can build. If you are that concerned, you need to start speaking up and go down to City Hall. Another observation is that ten years ago, there was no floor area limit. 96-HIE- 15 KITIPCMINS- 1996.31A:\ 1424HAM.ZA 6-6-96 Page 8 Mr. Harris: Most of us hal ad to move because of this floor area i~ t. We had a house on Kipling and had go to a house on David. It is not like we are novices in Palo Alto. Everyone knows the name of the game. It is a balance. It is a clash, and we are trying to work with it. I am saying that this clash is now out of balance. It is working against the neighbors. If we did not feel that way, we would not be here. We would be supporting it. Our bias is to try and support it, but this is just too much. Mrs. Garadis: All along, we said we were not for the carport but we knew that the carport was free space and that was going to go and was okay by the city. A second thing that was actually approved was that single-car garage carport that was supposedly put on the back where there was a lower roof line. We had really learned to live with it. That is the way it is in the city plans. That was the approved structure. Keeping that very high roof line now is a mitigated situation that was more acceptable to us than the high roof line equal with the garage. Then it did not need the extra square footage. Why it was changed I do not really understand. I know it was a historical thing. Mr. Anderson: Can I ask a question? (Yes) Why can’t the garage be brought out two feet? Ms. Grote: That would be an overage of FAR. Mrs. Garadis: Wouldn’t that be a better solution than to have a carport there? Ms. Grote: That is something you could discuss and bring forward, and see if the applicant and his architect are willing to consider that. You are saying, take away the carport altogether and bring this out another two feet. (Yes) Then your overage of FAR is greater than 82 square feet. It is about 110 or 115 square feet. It would still be over the FAR. Mrs. Garadis: Aesthetically, it certainly would be better. Ms. Grote: That is what HIEs are for. They are to maintain or enhance the appearance of an existing structure. That would be something we could consider, although it would have to be renoticed as it is a bigger overage, but that runs contrary to what I heard most of you say, that you are opposed to any kind of overage or any kind of exception to the existing zoning. Mrs. Garadis: How about the garages in Palo Alto. Are they all built to a certain size? Ms. Grote: They are supposed to be at least 17 feet wide and 18 feet deep. Mrs. Garadis: What are the dimensions of the current garage? Mr. Bills: The rear wall of the structure is 20 feet long and 20 feet wide. Mr. Harris: For our personal situation, that would be a better solution for us, to have a garage that is two feet wider. It still raises the principle of over building. If it is 20 x 20, then it is big enough. 96-HIE- 15 KITIPCMINS-1996.31A:\1424HAM.ZA 6-6-96 Page 9 Mr. Kohler: Not exactly. ,- gould not have been approved because- . comer of the existing house is too far forward so that you cannot physically get a car into tins other car space. The transportation engineer would probably not have approved it. We tried it but it does not work. Ms. Grote: In other words, if they moved this wall out another two feet, the second space would be inaccessible. Carl Stoffel could not approve it. Mr. Kohler: The problem is also that I am not sure that the owners would find that acceptable. It is filling up more of their back yard, and that is open space they wanted to use. Physically, we might also have a code issue with the garage getting too close to the balcony. Ms. Grote: I do not think it would work, looking at it more closely. There is not enough backup space there. That is pretty clear. So we are back to either building the carport without intruding into the daylight plane and bringing the garage back to its original configuration. Mrs. Garadis: I have a question. If you have all of these footings in the existing garage and keep up the structure, it seems like that is the way of keeping that high pitched roof inside the existing garage. It is a new single-car garage. What we are opposed to is the really high pitched roof. At this point, we are going to get that. So it is like there is a whole new structure inside this garage already. How does that affect their ability that they do not get the square footage of keeping that very high roof line. Ms. Grote: It is an existing roof line, so they could keep it. Putting in new footings did not affect the roof line. It remained the same, so they can move those footings back to the original location, although that is difficult, and still keep the existing roof. Mrs. Garadis: What if they kept them in the location that they are in now and the extra square footage is allowed, would that mean the roof line would be lower? Ms. Grote: That means that the roof line would probably stay the same, unless it became a condition of approval to lower the roof. Mrs. Garadis: That extra square footage that we are talking about is on the side of the garage. So if, in fact, they do not get the square footage, that would become a single-car garage, which would lower the roof line anyway. Ms. Grote: You might want to lookat the plans, because it would be the same roof line. It would just be a narrower garage. Mrs. Garadis: So this would just be open, and then it does not count as square footage. Ms. Grote: That is correct. What about the option of lowering the pitch of the roof, making it less steep? Mr. Kohler: Sure, we can consider that. 96-HIE-15 KITIPCMINS- 1996.3 IA:\ 1424HAM.ZA 6-6-’96 Page 10 Mrs. Garadis: In this gard~ ? the back, those stairs are massive. T~ ; is no room left. You consider that open space. Wlaat does Palo Alto do to eliminate this being allowed? Ms. Grote: It meets the setback requirement and it meets lot coverage. Mrs. Garadis: I am asking what would it take for the pebple of Palo Alto to do something about this regulation. Ms. Grote: It would take an amendment to our R-1 zoning ordinance, which are our single- family zoning requirements. That would go through the Planning Commission and then the City Council. It is a legal and legislative action. Mrs. Garadis: Do you get a petition signed by the people of Palo Alto? Ms. Grote: Yes, some sort of interest expressed. In the fbrm of letters, etc. I don’t know that it has to be a petition. Initiating the change would need to come from the City Council and it would be put on the Planning Division’s work program. We have a list of items that we are directed to study by the City Council each year. So that would be initiated by the City Council and they would direct us, as staff, to evaluate it. This was discussed at length in the late 1980s, and it is coming up again. The regulations were changed in 1989, and we have been operating under those regulations for about the last seven years. I know that people have expressed concern about that, and that some still think too much development can occur on a single lot. Mr. Harris: It turns out that FAR is not necessarily the issue. The house I w~s pointing out at 1325 or whatever the address is has technically met the requirements and included porches, so they are not included in FAR, but visually, they might as well be enclosed. If you looked at it, you would not know that it is not enclosed. That is what makes it so intrusive. You could probably design a house way over the FAR requirements that would look very pleasing that would be an asset, and there are others that would be of less FAR that would be obtrusive. So it is a balance. There have been two houses, and now we are concerned about a potential third that could reasonably come up. We do not want to face this again, and that is what it boils down to. Mr. Bills: I want to point out this letter which is not represented by the people who are here. It is from Heidi Lazar. Mr. Kohler: The owners would prefer to lem)e the existing roof structure, because they think it is important to continue that. They like the look of the old siding on the house and the way it blends with the existing house. They prefer not to sabotage that. So they will probably give up this storage space. They would prefer to leave the storage structure alone. If you try to save part of the existing roof line, you would have one pitch on one side, and another one on the other side. It will took rather strange, and I am not sure the HRB would like that. We are talking about 21 or 22 inches difference in height. 96-HIE- 15 KIT[PCMINS- 1996.31A:\1424HAM.ZA 6-6-96 Page 11 Ms. Grote: We are back tc ¯aere we were. I will read this letter in~ ~e record. It says, "Dear Mr. Bills, I am unable to attend the public hearing on the above notea~ property. Mr. and Mrs. Hanna, who own the home, are personal acquaintances and will be new neighbors. Our home at 1432 Hamilton is not directly affected by their request, save the very high second story balcony and windows which could be construed as diminishing our privacy, but because of a previous situation regarding a variance which did directly affect us, my feeling is that it is important to conform to the city zoning regulations. The City of Palo Alto has been generous with allowances, and unless I am mistaken, it would seem that their property already meets existing zoning requirements. The Hannas appear to ha~,e’made a real effort to retain the architectural integrity, of the structure, although the historical significance of these modifications might be questioned. The changes under way substantially impact the neighbors at 1428 Hamilton and the neighbors at 1420 Hamilton. I would hope that Mr. Kohier and the parties directly involved will amicably resolve this issue so that the project can be completed without further delay. Sincerely, Heidi Lazar." Unless there are any other comments to be made, I will close the public hearing and issue a written determination within ten working days. 96-HIE- 15 KITIPCMINS- 1996.3[A:\1424HAM.ZA 6-6-96 Page 12 FROM : Panasonlc FRX SYSTEM PHONE NO. : Ru9, 28 1996 08:10QM P1 1417 Dana Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 August 20, 1996 The Planning Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 SIIBJECT: Appeal of Zoning Administrator’s Derision on 1424 Hamilton Avenue We are writing to support the Zoning Administrator’s decision of June 20, 1996, d~nying Application # 96-HIE-15. Normally, we would support or have no comment on a neighbor’s exception request. However, this situation has prompted our strong opposition. The main structure may comply with the letter of the zoning ordinance, but certainly goes against its spirit - to prevent .the overdevelopment on small single family lots. Since there are no other code or ordinance requirements addressed by this exception, to grant it would endorse and encourage circumvention of the ordinance and cause additional degradation to the quality and ambiance of the homes on either side of it. When evaluating this appeal, we would like you to consider the specific case and the general consequences of the current ordinance. We encourage you to view this home and the home at 1425 Dana, which was also built within the current zoning ordinance and the exception process, from a neighbor’s perspective. Is it the intention of the Planning Commission and the City Council to encourage homes with carports, massive balconies and roofless, but walled structures? Thus, in addition to .upholding the Zoning Administrator’s decision on 96-HIE-15, we strongly suggest that this ordinance is not functioning as intended and should be reexamined. We know first hand that some residents have been negatively affected by it when remodeling or building, while others seem to have discovered ways to circumvent it. The ordinance seems to be doing more harm than good, pitting neighbor against neighbor and still resulting in oversized homes. This issue is all the more critical as Polo Alto’s housing market is "hot" once again. Mark and Mary Ann Harris RICKAND REGINA RONEY~ 1428 Hamilton Avenue PaloAlto, CA 94301 Phone (415) 324-0480 - Fax (415) 323-8484 May 8, 1996 Mr. Michael Bills City of Palo Alto Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 1424 Hamilton Avenue (96-HIE- 15) Dear Mr. Bills: We would like to request a public heating on the above-noted property where the owners have applied for a Home Improvement Exception. We have included a copy of correspondence to the owner of the property whereby we have made known our concerns and preferences. Regarding exception: As neighbors who share the property line of the garage and carport being built at 1424 Hamilton, we are very affected by the vertical encroachment of the accessory building into our daylight plane. The present garage shades most of our backyard. Almost the entire light coming into our house and deck comes from Where the carport is being placed. This vertical encroachment wtl affect both the sunlight on our deck, the ability to grow plants to soften this long stucco wall from a tandem garage/carport and will affect the light coming into our office/bedroom window. For these reasons, we do not think the vertical encroachment of the accessory building, into the daylight plane should be approved. 2. Allowing any additional square footage on this property surely will result in a totally overbuilt property. The lot is small and the actual way in which the addition has been done allows for more structure than square footage. A new, large chimney already intrudes into the daylight plane. A very large second story balcony and staircase are not considered as structural square footage because they are at least 50% open. An area under the roof and on the side of the existing garage (to be used as a barbecue area) is open, and I do not think it is counted in the square footage, although it is enclosed on all but one side. The carport is not included in the square footage because it is 50% open I am told. (However, on our side the carport looks like a totally solid structure.) The roofline of the house is very tall and skims the daylight plane. Although this is not additional square footage, it stands very high over our backyard and is very visible from our entire yard. The existing, non-conforming roofline already on our property line again may be wittiin the square footage requirement but structurally intrudes into. our daylight plane. I also do not understand how they can build a new garage within this structure keeping the former shell and have it approved as a non-conforming garage. For these reasons we do not think the extra square ~footage should be approved. Mr. Michael Bills-Plm~ _iig Division Page 2 We look forward to hearing from the Planning Division to further discuss these issues. Sincerely, Ricl4 antl Regina Roney Enclosure copy to: Lisa Grote RICKAND REGINA RoN~Y~ 1428 Hamilton Avenue PaloAlto, CA 94301 Phone (415) 324-0480 ¯ Fax (415) 323-8484 May13,1996 Mr. Montgomery "Monty" Anderson, Chairperson Historic Resources Board 423 8th Avenue Menlo Park, CA 94025 1424 Hamilton Avenue (96-HIE-15):Roger Kohler Letter to Lisa Grote-4/16/96 Dear Mr. Anderson: We are writing you to correct some information regarding the above- mentioned application for an HIE for which your Board granted approval. Mr. Kohler states in his letter to Lisa Grote that the original garage/carport plans were changed because of the neighbor to the east (us) expressing concern over loss of privacy. He states that consenting to the neighbors’ wishes the drawings were revised. This is not true and has never been true. We never spoke to Mr. Kohler and our conversations with’John Hanna since September expressed the following: (restated from the attached FAX to John Hanna-4/16196) Our preference regarding the carport and it’s roof line (in priority sequence) is: (1)to leave the garage "as is" with no carport, (2)to have a single garage/carport roof line that meets the daylight plane requirement, (3) to leave the garage as is and add a carport with a lower (daylight plane) roof line. Our original discussion regarding privacy was before we saw the addition you were building. Your very high second story room and balcony are constructed so close to our backyard that we have lost our privacy. The carport and garage cannot return it. In addition, a high roofline running the length of the garage/carport has never been our idea oI~ aesthetic privacy. In addition, we think that in approving this HIE, your Board is doing a disservice to the philosophy of preserving historic homes and buildings in Palo Alto. Mr. Montgomery"Monty" Anderson Page 2 Mr. Kohler noted that there was a decision to keep the existing garage that had much architectural detailing on it. The only detailing are boards that can easily be repeated on a new garage as they have been on the addition to the house. This could be done on a garage/carport which meets the daylight plane as the original plan was drawn. It would be better for ourselves, as well as the view from the street. What is so upsetting about using the historical building approach for the owners’ desires is that the entire remodel changes the very description of the home in the historical register. This is no longer a moderately-sized home. It is extremely large for the lot. Since when is a very large second- story balcony and spira! staircase leading to the hot tub in keeping with the 1930’s charm? Adding a tandem property line carport to a pre-existing two-car garage on this size lot does not reflect 1930’s style but rather the large number of vehicles of the present day. Also two new chimneys, one in the daylight plane, and the very high second-story addition skimming the daylight plane do not reflect in any way the original charm of this beautiful home. They also spoil the light and yards of two charming homes on either side, as well as the view of the neighbor behind. This remodel does have architectural integrity; however, it robs the former home of its historical charm. Has anyone from your Board (other than Vice Chair, Roger Kohler) actually seen this addition in relationship to the lot size and adjoining yards? It seems that the architect applying for the HIE and being on your Board may have affected the approval process. We would greatly appreciate your reconsideration of the approval you have given for this HIE. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Rick and Regina Roney Enclosures copy to: Michael Bills Lisa Grote RICKAND REGINA RONE~" 1428 Hamilton Avenue PaloAlto, CA 943O1 Phone (415) 324-0480 ¯ Fax (415) 323-8484 May 13, 1996 Mr. Roger Kohler Kohler Associates Architects 721 Colorado Avenue, Suite 102 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Roger Kohler Letter to Lisa Grote Dated April 16, 1996:1424 Hamilton Avenue (96-HIE-15) Dear Mr. Kohler: We were rather surprised and offended by the above-mentioned letter, which was brought to our attention by a neighbor. To our knowledge we have never met or spoken with you, and you have never been on our property. To pass along misinformation regarding months of conversations between Rick Roney and John Hanna to both the Palo Alto Planning Department and the Architectural Review Board is extremely unprofessional and personally offensive. When we received a fax from John Hanna on April 15, 1996, it became clear to us that our views were being misinterpreted. We faxed John Hanna on April 16, 1996 (with a copy to you) clarifying what we thought had been our discussions all along. To give you the benefit of the doubt, you received and acted on misinformation heard from your client. When you received our fax on April 16, we would have expected that the misinformation you passed to the Architectural Review Board and the Planning Department would have been corrected. Please make this correction at this time. In addition a phone call or letter of apology for misrepresenting us would have been appreciated. Sincerely, Rick and Regina Roney Copy to:Michael Bills Lisa Grote Z..J Historic Resources Board w/Attachments KOHLER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 721 Colorado Avenue, Suite 102 Palo Alto, California, 94303 415-328-1086 Fax 415-321-2860 April 16, 1996 Lisa Grote Zoning Administrator City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, California 94301 RECEiVeD Subject:Home Improvement Exception, 1424 Hamilton Avenue, for: a. 82.7 sq. ft. ft of Floor Area beyond the 3000 sq. ft. of Floor Area. b. 1’-0"+ of Daylight Plane Intrusion above the required Daylight Plane. Dear Ms. Grote, On behalf of my clients, John and Barbara Hanna, we are requesting a Home Improvement Exception to allow construction of a new carport in front of an existing garage that would intrude into the daylight plane. The HIE would permit less floor area to be removed from the existing garage. The remodeling is under construction. The original intent of the remodeling was to demolish the existing garage and build a new garage and carport further to the rear of the property, permitting a larger backyard. As the work progressed, it has become apparent that the yard gained by the removal of the historic garage is not enough of a gain to offset the loss of the detailing on the existing garage. The neighbor to the east expressed concerned over the loss of privacy when the existing garage is removed and a new garage with a lower roof line is built in it’s place. Consenting to the neighbor wishes and in turn preserving the existing garage, we revised the drawings to allow the garage to remain. In doing this we planned to remove almost half of the garage floor area. Now that the final drawings are reaching a state of completion, it has become apparent that the new carport in front of the existing garage would harmonize better with the historic structure if we preserve the same roof line. This is also a preference of the neighbors to the East, who prefer a single roof line for the carport and garage. The daylight, plane required for new structures does not conform to the existing roof slope of the existing garage. Our proposal is to build the new carport as an extension of the existing garage. Once we decided on this plan, it became obvious that losing so much of the existing garage space was inappropriate. The diagonal structural braces required to support the roof (see drawings) were an inappropriate solution for this structural requirement. By permitting an expanded floor area in the garage the structural engineer says we can eliminate the diagonal braces and we have more solid wall facing Hamilton Avenue. Looking down the driveway, the passerby will see matching roof lines and horizontal wood facades and a solid stucco wall behind the carport. All these items will give this Historic home an original look. The average person will have an difficult time discerning the old from the new. The neighbor to the east will see a roof line that is continuous and uninterrupted with arbitrary breaks in the roof. The slightly taller ,carport roof will offer modest enhancement in privacy. a. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property: The original home and garage were built in 1930. This is the only historic home in the 1400 block of Hamilton Avenue. This is one of only a few homes in the vicinity with the original garage designed with architectural features to match the main structure. This exception will permit the carport design to compliment the historic garage structure. b. Thegranting of the application is desirable for the preservation of the existing architectural style: In the sixties, an insensitive addition with aluminum windows was added to the rear of the house. The current owners are presently remodeling the previous addition. Every effort has been made to emulate the original design concept in the new work. Permitting this HIE will permit the owners to follow through on their restoration program. The existing garage and carport will blend together mainta.ining the harmonious look of the historic home. c. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements: The exception for floor area will not have a negative impact on the neighbors. The extra floor area will occur under the existing roof. The daylight plane exception will allow the carport ridge to be higher and thus provide better privacy to the neighbor to the east. Since the carport roof will match the slope of the existing garage, this will require the plate height of the carport to match the existing garage. The existing garage plate is lower than would be required for the new carport. This will be a visual advantage for the neighbor. Thank you for your consideration, Sincere Roger K. Architect, C-7334 721 COLORADO AVENUE, SUITE 102 415-328-1086 PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, 94303 FAX 415-321-2860 Rick and Regina Roney 1428 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone (415) 324-0480 ° Fax (415) 323-8484 FAX TRANSMITTAL RECEIVED HAY Q 9 1996 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPM EWI" DATE: TO: FROM: RE: April 16, 1996 John Hanna Rick and Regina Roney Response to 4/15 / 96 Fax FAX NO.: (415)321-5639 NO. OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS): 3 John, We have always valued and maintained a friendly relationship with our neighbors and find it unfortunate that communication has not been easier between us. It’s a shame that, with such limited conversation, you have made changes to try to accommodate us rather than yourselves, because it turns out that these changes have not really accomodated our desires. I can also see that communicating in writing is, at times, important, because it’s clear that verbal communication is not working very well. When we last spoke I thought I was very clear that we did not want the carport roof line to continue the garage roof line. Our preference regarding the carport and it’s roof line (in priority sequence) is: (1)to leave the garage "as is" with no carport, (2)to have a single garage/carport roof line that meets the daylight plane requirement, (3)to leave the garage as is and add a carport with a lower (daylight plane) roof line. Our original discussion regarding privacy was before we saw the addition you were building. Your very high second story room and balcony are constructed so close to our backyard that we have lost our privacy. The carport and garage can not return it. In addition, a high roofline running the length of the garage/carport has never been our idea of aesthetic privacy. Although the landscaping along the existing garage had been an issue initially, when a garage/carport became the plan, we, at our expense, began designing landscape to soften the long stucco wail on the property line. The garage/carport structure as currently planned does not allow, any tall planting on your property. This leaves all the tall planting to us. The very tall roofline on the existing garage puts our landscaping in the shade, limiting our planting and rate of growth of plants. When we thought the roofline of the garage/carport was going to be lowered to meet the daylight requirement, we were pleased that at least we would have a greater choice of plants and they would grow faster to soften the long stucco wall. This is why we were so interested in when the existing garage would be coming down, so that we could schedule the work before the weather got too warm. You faxed that you would be unable to deal with the garage until May. We were very surprised to hear all the construction going on in a garage we thought was going to be removed a month before you were going to anything with it. I would also like to add some comments regarding the requests 1. and 2. in your fax. I did not intend to have a conversation with your work crew regarding the addition of the lattice or the building within the existing garage. I had talked with you regarding the desire to discuss anything that was done on the property line. One morning I heard out my bedroom window a workman talking to his worker about cutting a large branch that would expose our bedroom window to your driveway area. It seemed a shame to remove a large branch that added to the aesthetics of both properties for the purpose of adding lattice. At this point I called to remind you that we were very interested in communication over the property line work before it happened. You faxed us the drawings of the lattice, which was a nice addition to the brick wall. At this time I also asked for your plan for the property-line garage / carport and approximately a week later you faxed back saying that nothing would be done until May. Last week, after 2 days of jackhammering that went on outside of Regina’s home office, I went out on my way to work to see what was being built (approximately 7 a.m.). I met one of the workcrew and engaged in conversation. My intention was to see what was happening and call you. Regina did call you before calling the City of Palo Alto. I was unable to be reached that day and Regina had hoped to get a call back from you before she had to leave for the day. When she didn’t, she then called the City. I don’t know if you are aware that the noise ordinance in Palo Alto states that construction work can be carried out between the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. If your workcrew were complying with this ordinance there would have been no conversations, since I leave the house by 8 a.m. each day. Again, I think that the initiative I have taken toward you indicates that we are interested in communication and a neighborly relationship. There are a number of aspects of your project that are of great benefit to you that would not be our choice. However, we respect your right to do on your property what is within the code of the city. If it is not within code and does not have an effect on us, we don’t care. If it is not within code and affects our property, we do care. It is on this basis that we have taken action and will continue to do so. We will continue to first communicate with you, and I hope you will do the same. Also, we request that you allow enough time for communication to take place before the work begins. Sincerely, Rick Roney June 4, 1996 HEIDI LAZA~g J U N 0 8 199 DEPARTMENT OF PLA~NINO AND COMMUNITY OEVELOPMEI~ Mr. Michael Bills City of Palo Alto Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Pa!o Alto, California 94301 VIAF.EIX.EAK .(415)_329.:_22~ Re: 1424 Hamilton Avenue (96)-HIE-15) Dear Mr. Bills: I am unable to attend the public hearing on the above-noted property. Mr. and Mrs. Hanna who owB. the home are personal acquaintences and will be new neighbors. Our home at 1432 Hamilton is not directly affected by their request, (save the very high second story balcony and windows which could be construed as diminishing our privacy), but because of a previous situation regardi.~g a variace which did directly affect us, my feeling is that it is important to conform to the City zoning regulations. The City of Palo Alto has been generous with allowances, and unless I am mistaken, it would seem that their property already meets exiting zonig requirements. The Hannas appear to have made a real effort to retain the arckit¢ctural integrity of the structure, although the historical significance of these, modifications might be questioned. The -changes underway substantialy impact the neighbors at 1428 Hamilton, and tha neighbor at 1420 Hamilton. I would hope that Mr. Kohler and the parties directly involved will amicably resolve this issue, so that the project can be completed without further delay. Sincerely, I teidi Lazar TOTAL May 15, .1996 1417 Dana Avenue Palo Alto, Californ_ia 9430~ Lisa Grote, Zol~ing Administrator City of Palo Alto 250 Hairdlton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Ms. Grote: HAY 15 1996 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT We are writing regarding fl~e exception to the zoning ordinance requested by the owners of 1424 Hamilton Avenue, It is our understanding that they planned to construct a carport in order to increase the square footage of the addition to their ]tome as allowed by Palo A]to’s zooming ordinance, As a resu.]t, they have built a structure which is actually larger than the intent of Palo Alto’s floor/area ratio, and impinges on the privacy and aesthetic qu.ality of the adjacent neighbors’ homes, We would like to point out that this device was also used at 1425 Dana Ave, which is two doors from our residence. In rids case, the owner built a two story, partly roofless structure which fills ah-~ost the entire back yard. For us, from the second story windows, it appears float an apartme.~t building is there now; but that it has a set of u.seless two story walls. The carport, from our windows, looks like a tin roof on a shed. We strongly suggest that this ordinance is not function.ing to keep oversize houses from being built on small lots, and should be reexan’dned, We know first hand that many people have been negatively affected by it whether remodeling or building, while others seem to have discovered ways to ¢ircun’went it. It is time to reconsider Palo Alto’s goals in this matter, because the ordinance as it now stands seems to be doing rn.ore harm than good, pitting neighbor against neighbor and resulting in. oversized homes. With. regards to this specific exception, we feel the existing structure does impinge on the adjace~tproperties. Granting tl~is type of exception in effect adds an unwritten change to Palo Atto’s ordinance: roofless buildings and carports are encouraged here. Most of all, it is important that neighbors’ concerns are addressed. Si er ~ ’ Mark and Mary Aon~dHarr~s Td HdT2:’--O 966T qT "F,£H : ’011 BI.10H,4 blB/S,LS X~.4 o.~uo’.--’,~-c~,d : ¯JOMN I=AUL HANNA DAVID F4, VAN ATTA May 17. 1996 525 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 705 PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94301 RECEIVED HAY 17 1996 TELEPHONE t41S) FACS I {’41L ~; !,qA FAX (415) 329-2240 Ms, Lisa Grote City, of Palo Alto Planning Depan’ment Re: 1424 Hamilton Avenue DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Lisa: Roger Kohler sent me a copy of the letter dated May !3, 1996, addressed to him, from Mr. and Mrs. Roney, I was not copied on the letter, and obviously have no knowledge of the "attachments" indicated at the bottom of the Roney letter. Roger doesn’t need me to defend him, but I do thirxk that he is being unfairly attacked by the Roneys. It is obvious that there has been a failure to communicate here and I certainly have to share some of the blame for that. I don’t know if the Roneys itaduded in their package to you a copy of my fax to them of April 15, 1996. As you can see, I copied Roger on that memo a~d that was where he got his information about my communication up to that point with the Roneys. In addition to being motfi,’ated by desire, to clear up any question about R%,er s professionalism, I am also an,,dous to make sure that you are ~ot getting a one-sided picture of the situation. As you can see by my memo which was faxed to the Roneys, there has been prior communication and I have made a number of attempts to satisfy the Roneys. 1 have given up trying to satisfy them because I don’t think it is possible. After receiving the Roneys’ response to my April 15, 1996 fax, I decided that, since I wasn’t getting ar~)~vhere in trying to, in good faith, meet what I ~nderstood their requests to me to be, I authorized Roger to proceed in whatever fashion he thought best. He believed that it would be preferable from an architectural standpoint, to match the e:dsting roofline of the garage so that the carport addition will blend in with the historically designated structure. Based on his sketch, it wa~ readily apparent to me that he was right, which is why we decided to ask for the home improvement exception for the daylight plane. The extra 82 feet we have asked .{or on the inside of the garage is simply to provide enough space so that once you-drive a car i~to the garage, you can still open both doors without !fitting anything. It seemed like a fairly innocuous exception, Ms. Lisa Grote Page 2 May 17, 1996 both from a standpoint of its small size and its lack of impact on neighbors. surprised that anyone would make a big deal out of it. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Enclosure: Mr. Hanna’s 4/15/95 fax to Rick Roney cc: Mr. Roger Kohler (via fax (415) 321-2860) j Pt-I :vs\o~,o~’~..~7 I am frankly .A’l.~£O.P,t~.t:.,~: ,’-, A~. L.A~ 5.,.~ UNI~,rERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 705 PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94301 TEtz~no~: (415) 321-5700 lzAe$IMILE (415) 321-5639 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET DATE: May 17, 1996 TO:Ms. Lisa Grote Pale Alto Planning. Dept, CC:Mr..Roger Kohler FROM:John Paul Hanna -# of Pages: 4 TELEFAX: (415) 329-2240 TELEFAX: . (415) 321-2860 RE:1424 Hamilton Avenue COVER MESSAGE: Following is a letter to you from Mr. Hanna dated May 17, 1996 with enclosure. If any pages are not received or legible, please contact the fac.~imile operator at (415) 321-5700, This transmission is intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to whom it is addressed, and may contain irlformation that is pri,Aleged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law, You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or duplication of this transmission by someone other than the intended addressee or its designated agent is strictly prohibited, If your receipt of this transmission iS in error, please notify this firm immediately by collect call and send the original transmission to us by return mail at the above address. DATE: April 15, 1996 TO:. Rick Roney I--L-kNNA d~ VAN ,q.~A ATTOP,.NEYs AT LAW 525 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 705 PALO ALTO, CALIFO~IA 94301 ~L~o~: (415) 321-57~ F~CS~flLE (415) ~21-5639 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET # of Pages: TELEFAX: (415) 323-8484 PHONE: FROM:John Hanna RE:1424 Hamilton Avenue COVER MESSAGE: Dear Rick: In order to accommodate your latest request (the same roofline for garage and carport) we are once again changing our plans. This is the second time we have changed the plans, at your request, and I am sure you realize there is some expense involved in so doing. Our first change was to leave the garage in its present configuration in order to give some additional backTard privacy and to avoid, as much as possible, disturbing your landscaping. The second change, also at your request, is to conform the roofiine on the carport to the rooftine of the garage. We have asked Roger Kohler to make that revision and submit the plans for final approval. I trust that this accommodation will satisfy you, and that we can establish and maintain a good neighbor relationship, tt will help greatly to establish a good neighborly relationship ff you will do two things: Refrain from coming onto our property and discussing things with our work crew (if you have a question about something, call me). If you feel compelled to c’omplain to City Hall about something relating to our project, by all means, please call me first, so we can discuss it. We welcome your enthusiastic support of our project which will, upon completion, be one of the most elegant small homes in Palo Alto, and I am sure it will further enhance all of the property values in our neighborhood, as is the case for the improvements you have made in your home. Very truly yours, John Hanna cc:Mel Phillips/Design II (fax 952-8145); Roger Kohler ifax 321-2860) If eny pages are not re¢eived or legible,p_i-~ contact the facsimile operator at (41s) 321.5700, This ttansmiss}on }s intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to whom it is addre~ed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law, You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or duplication of this tr~,nsmission by someone other th~ the intended addressee or its designated agent is strictly prohibited. It your receipt of this transmission is in error, please notify this firm immediately by collect call and send the original transmission to us by return mail at the above address. AlOPL qATlOhJ CITY OF PALO ALTO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 250 HAMILTON AVE., PALO ALTO, CA.94301 (415)329-2441 ~~CEIVED (~ APPLICANT REQUEST ~ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ~HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD ~ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ~COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ~DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION [~HOME IMPROVEMENT EXCEPTION (~) PROPERTY LOCATION ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. ZONE DISTRICT ~’ I" ~CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT r---]VARIANCE [~SITE AND DESIGN ~ZONE CHANGE ~SUBDIVISION ~PARCEL MAP FILE NUMBER ~-HIE-/5" FILE HUMBER 9~,-- HRB-/9 @ APPL~ATIO,_,N FEE(S) FEE(S) "I-P "~ ~f RECEIPT# ~f ~ "" ~ L~ @ REQUESTED ACTION DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED ACTION APPLICANT ONLY THE APPLICANT WILL BE NOTIFIED OF MEETINGS, HEARINGS, OR ACTION TAKEN. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM THE OVNER OF RECORD OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED THE ACTION REQUESTED HEREIN. DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE (~)ACTION TAKEN ~ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD F----I PLANNING COMMISSION [][[[] CITY COUNCIL [[[[[] ZONING ADMINISTRATOR F----I DIRECTOR OF PLANNING IN BOX #3 ABOVE SIGNATURE OF OWNER,------- ~7~ DATE DECISION AND THAT I APPROVE OF YOUR NEXT STEP ~ APPLY TO THE BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT (OR OTHER ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT) FOR YOUR PERMIT. ~ FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS ARE ATTACHED. THE PROJECT MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL AP, LICABLE CITY CODES AND ORDINANCES. KOHLER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 721 Colorado Avenue, Suite 102 Palo Alto, California, 94303 415-328-1086 Fax 415-321-2860 April 16, 1996 Lisa Grote Zoning Administrator City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, California 94301 RECEIVED nD 1 7 i3 6 O~-~, HIE:- Subject:Home Improvement Exception, 1424 Hamilton Avenue, for: a. 82.7 sq. ft. ft of Floor Area beyond the 3000 sq. ft. of Floor Area. b. 1’-0"+ of Daylight Plane Intrusion above the required Daylight Plane. Dear Ms. Grote, On behalf of my clients, John and Barbara Hanna, we are requesting a Home Improvement Exception .to allow construction of a new carport in front of an existing garage that would intrude into the daylight plane. The HIE would permit less floor area to be removed from the existing, garage. The remodeling is under construction. The original intent of the remodeling was to demolish the existing garage and build a new garage and carport further to the rear of the property, permitting a larger backyard. As the work progressed, it has become apparent that the yard gained by the removal of the historic garage is not enough of a gain to offset the loss of the detailing on the existing garage. The neighbor to the east expressed concerned over the loss of privacy when the existing garage is removed and a new garage with a lower roof line is built in it’s place. Consenting to the neighbor wishes and in turn preserving the existing garage, we revised the drawings to allow the garage to remain. In doing this we planned to remove almost half of the garage floor area. Now that the final drawings are reaching a state of completion, it has become apparent that the new carport in front of the existing garage would harmonize better with the historic structure if we preserve the same roof line. This is also a preference of the neighbors to the East, who prefer a single roof line for the carport ’and garage. The daylight plane required for new structures does not conform to the existing roof slope of the existing garage. Our proposal is to build the new carport as an extension of the existing garage. Once we decided on this plan, it became obvious that losing so much of the existing garage space was inappropriate. The diagonal structural braces required to support the roof (see drawings) were an inappropriate solution for this structural requirement. By permitting an expanded floor area in the garage the structural engineer says we can eliminate the diagonal braces and we have more solid wall facing Hamilton Avenue. Looking down the driveway, the passerby will see matching roof lines and horizontal wood facades and a solid stucco wall behind the carport. Dana Avenue Forest Avenue Avenue ProjeGt: H.2~ Hamilton Avenue Appeal of Zoning Admlnie’~,ra’~,ore denial of Home Improvement, Excel~ion (96-HIE-15) Martin Avenue Kent Graphic Attachment Date: August 28, 1996 to Sta~ Report File #: 96-HIE-15 Scale: 1 inch = 400 FT North