Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 423-10TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2010 CMR: 423:10 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Appeal of the Director's Individual Review Approval of an Addition to an Existing Single Family Residence at 559 Everett Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This request is an appeal of the Director's approval of a Single Family Individual Review (IR) application for a two-story addition to a single story home at 559 Everett Avenue, an R-2 zoned parcel located in the Downtown North neighborhood. F our or more Council Members' votes would be needed to remove this item from the consent calendar to set the matter for a future hearing. Appellants Nancy Rogets-Zegarra and Stephen H. Rogers, owners of the adjacent 565 Everett Avenue, were mailed and emailed all decision and hearing notices regarding the project. The Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) visited the site prior to conducting the Director's Hearing, found the project complies with the Single Family Residential Individual Review (IR) guidelines, and added an approval condition to the project approval following the hearing. The appellants, who do not live in Palo Alto, did not attend the Director's Hearing but their comments were received and considered during the IR process. The Director's approval letter is attached for the Council to uphold on consent. The appellants disagree with the findings in the Director's October 18, 2010 approval letter (Attachment B), and their appeal letter dated November 2,2010 (Attachment C) sets forth arguments in support of their appea1. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council decline to hear the appeal of the IR application (file 08PLN- 00000-00282) for an addition to the home located on the subject property at 559 Everett Avenue and uphold the Director's approva1. BACKGROUND Council Review Authority The City's Individual Review (IR) procedure provides for City Council "call up" of appeals. When the Director approves an IR application after a Director's Hearing and a directly affected property owner appeals the decision, the project is placed before Council on the consent calendar for final action. If 1 four Council members vote to remove the project from the consent calendar, a hearing by City Council must be scheduled for a subsequent date. Otherwise, the item may be approved on consent calendar so that the Director's decision stands and no hearing is held. If the Council agrees to hear an appeal, a hearing is scheduled as soon as practical (PAMC 18.77.75). Proj ect Review and Director's Approval The Director's approval letter dated October 18, 2010 (Attachment B) includes approval fIndings and cites the applicable Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) sections. PAMC Sections 18.10.040 (i) and 18.12.110 require IR of the proposed two-story lateral addition to the one-story, single-family residence on an R-2 zoned site, since the project site abuts a parcel in single family residential use, 565 Everett Avenue, on the right side as one faces the subject property. The IR is required only for those sides that share an interior lot line with a single-family or two-family residence, with respect to the project's potential effects upon said single-family or two-family residence (per PAMC 18.10.040(i». PAMC Section 18.77.075 sets forth the IR process. The project site also abuts a seven story apartment building (Planned Community 2145) on the left side of the subject property. Approval findings, presented briefly below, and conditions of approval are included in the Director's letter. Condition #14 was added by the Director in consultation with the Planning arborist, to require protection of the appellants' trees along the right property line, since these trees would interrupt views of the new addition to soften its appearance. The IR application was submitted on September 8, 2008. Revised plans were submitted August 4, 2010 to address comments from neighbors, departmental staff and the City's consulting architect for the IR program. The application was tentatively approved on August 25, 2010. Prior to the effective approval (14 days after t4e tentative approval date), the appellant requested a Director's Hearing. On October 13, 2010, after the October 7, 2010 Director's Hearing was held, the Director approved the application adding the above-mentioned condition, and the approval letter was dated October 18, 2010. On November 2, 2010, the appellant submitted the appeal to Council (Attachment C, letter of appeal). DISCUSSION The project has been reviewed by staff, the consulting architect, the planning manager and the DirectOr" to determine compliance of the project with all five guidelines for Individual Review, as set forth in the attached approval letter (Attachment B), and complies with the R-2 Zone District regulations for development. The IR guidelines include criteria related to: basic site planning; neighborhood compatibility for height, mass and scale; resolution of architectural form, massing and roof lines; visual character of street facing facades and entries; and placement of second-story windows and decks for privacy. The appellants' letter (Attachment C) provides counter arguments regarding the project's compliance with the five guidelines. Below, staff has summarized the appellants' concerns followed by the Director's letter findings. Guideline 1, Basic Site Planning Appellants' concerns: The appellants' letter describes existing conditions pertaining to vegetation, fences and property dimensions along lines abutting the subject property and appellants' property. The appellants assert their belief the applicant will cut down the one redwood tree on 559 Everett when the addition is built, and note that there are no evergreen trees planted along the property lines 2 that adjoin their property. The appellants express their concern about a "box like construction" of a two story building adjacent to one story buildings which would look like an "add on" and without benefit of mitigating vegetation, other than the trees on the appellants' property. Director's finding: The subject property is a 50'xi44' deep lot, with a multifamily high rise building on its left, and a two story single family home on the right at 565 Everett. The rear lot line adjoins the backyard extension of 565 Everett, which contains a pool. There is dense, two-story tall, evergreen tree foliage at the rear lot line, and along the right side lot line abutting 565 Everett, except at its detached garage in the rear, and between front yards. This proposal puts the 2-story addition behind the existing elongated i-story house, and rebuilds the detached garage while maintaining the same driveway. The streetscape along Everett Avenue is only mildly altered as the addition is so far back on the lot, and largely blocked by the existing vegetation. Guideline 2, Neighborhood compatibility for Height, Mass and Scale: Appellants' concerns: The appellants are concerned the addition onto the 1920's one-story bungalow home would look out of place, and not harmonize with neighboring homes dating back to the early 1900's. The letter cites addresses of neighborhood houses that were sensitively remodeled to "enhance the neighborhood and maintain the integrity of the buildings." The houses so noted in the appellants' letter included 575 Everett, 558 Hawthorne Avenue, 428 Everett Avenue. The appellants are concerned the "abrupt change in height" between the existing and proposed house would be incompatible with the existing neighborhood houses. The letter ,goes on to analyze eaves, height, and scale, and cite a concern about the addition casting shadows onto the appellants' property, thereby destroying vegetation. Finally, potential for reduction in the appellants' property value is mentioned. Director's finding: Even though the addition starts at the elevated floor level to match the existing house and provide continuity offloor plan, the total height of the 2-story addition is still not as tall as the building at 565 Everett. Its rear placement further mitigates its impact on the streetscape. The second floor is significantly narrower than the existing house in the front. Guideline 3, Resolution of Architectural Form, Massing and Rooflines: Appellants' concerns: The appellants note their concern about viability of their lemon trees after shadows are created by construction of the project, and their concern that their lemon trees are being used as mitigation for views of the new addition on the subject property. The appellants state, "The second floor should be narrower than the first floor, but the first floor of the new part should be in line with or narrower than the existing house. This wider structure and the larger eaves create a "New York style" box structure also creating shadows, dampness, moss and an unsightly landscape." There are suggestions on how the addition should be redesigned, including separating the addition from the existing residence, and modifying the approval letter with respect to storm water runoff. The appellants are concerned the proposed project would preclude expansion or create adverse conditions on their site. Director's finding: Existing lemon trees between driveway and the left rear corner of existing house hide the transition between it and the addition, softening the abrupt change to 2-stories. On the right side, a significant one-story piece softens the transition, although trees block views from the neighbor and the street. 3 Guideline 4, Visual Character of Street Facing Facades and Entries: Appellants' concerns: The appellants note the visual character of the proposed house does not fit in with the other vintage houses, creating a lack of continuity and neighborhood character that will detract and "cause people not to want to live in the neighborhood." Again, the appellants cite 575 Everett as the current high standard of visual character for the neighborhood. Director's finding: The existing house at the front is untouched. The narrower second story addition placed in the rear provides good proportions. Matching roof slopes at the second floor and existing house, and matching details of eaves, walls, windows all help integrate the addition with the existing building. Guideline 5, Placement of Second Story Windows and Decks for Privacy: Appellants' concern: The appellants note the trees are in their driveway and cannot be used for privacy mitigation. Director's finding: One bedroom window and one bath-tub window face the 565 property, but views created to outdoor living areas (back porch and lawn) and windows of 5 65 are blocked by the existing trees. The only second story deck is on the left side, facing the high rise, the side that is not subject to Individual Review. FLOOD ZONE REGULATIONS The project is in a Flood Zone Hazard Area, so that the proposed construction (lateral addition) must meet all of the City's and Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) requirements for construction within a flood zone, in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.52, Flood Hazard Regulations. The appellants take exception with staff s determination that the project would comply with Section 16.52, but Public Works staff indicate that it would comply for an addition to an existing structure. Staff also notes that the flood zone criteria are outside the purpose and findings of the Individual Review, and are generally considered as part of the Building Permit review. ALTERNATIVE TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Council's alternative to upholding the Director's decision on consent is outlined in Municipal Code Section 18.77.075(g)(2): "Remove the recommendation from the consent calendar, which shall require four votes, and set the application for a new hearing before the City Council, following which the City Council shall apopt findings and take action on the application." If the Council so directs, staff will identify a date for the hearing and will provide appropriate public notice in advance of the hearing. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Director's decision to approve the application is consistent with staff s implementation of the IR Guidelines, and with the policies and intent of the IR Process. This is the first IR decision approving 4 an addition to a single-family residence in the R-2 district to be appealed to Council. The IR program was originally designed to apply to R-1 zoned property. In 2005, the zoning code was modified to require IR review on R-2 properties when adjacent to existing single-family residential homes. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~4J.o.-Ae£;.p JAMES KEENE . ypY" City Manager ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Approval Letter with conditions Attachment B: Appellants' Letter with concerns Attachment C: Plans (Council Members Only) COURTESY COPIES Vita and Alexandreev Gorgunova, 559 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Nancy E. Rogers-Zegarra and Stephen H. Rogers, 4801 Hillsboro Circle, Santa Rosa, CA 95405 5 October 18,2010 Vita and Alexandreev Gorgunova 559 Everett St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 ATTACHMENT A .~!tyQtret!QJ~JtQ Department of Planning and' Community Environment SUBJECT: 559 Everett Ave.; Individual Review 08PLN-OOOOO-00282 This application was heard at the Director's Hearing on October 7, 2010. The hearing officer, Curtis 'Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment, visited the ,site before the hearing. On October 13, 2010, he conditionally approved Single Family Individual Review application 08PLN -00000-00282 for a new two-story lateral addition to a one story single family residence at 559 Everett St, a property zoned R ... 2,' As stated InPalo Alto Municipal Code (P AMC) 18.1 0.040 (i), this proposal for single family use of.an R-2 site is 8ubjectto Individual Review provisions of Section 18.12.110 and Section 18,77.075, atthose sides of the site that share an interior side or rear lot line with another property of single f~ily use.' , Approval is based on plans dated.July 30,2010, received in Planning on August 4,-2010,; 'and is subject to compliance with the attached conditions. 'Condition #1'4, requiring protection of the neighbor's trees along the right ,property line, was added as a result of the hearing, prepared" following a consultation wit~ the Planning arborist. ' The project meets all of the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines and' 'complies'with the R-2 Zone District regulations for development. FINDINGS: Pertaining to Single-Family Individual Review G~idelines Guideline One Basic Site Planning: The subJect property is a 50'x144' deep 1pt, with a multifamily high rise building on its left, and a two story single family home on the right at 565 Everett. The rear lot line adjoins,the backyard extension of 565 Everett, which contains a pool. There is dense, two­ story tall, evergreen tree Joliageat the rear lot line, and along the rightside''lot line abutting 565 Everett, except at its d~tached garage in the rear, and betweep.front yards. This proposal puts the 2-story addition behind the existing elongated I-story house, and rebuilds the detached garage while maintaining the same driveway. The streetscapealongEverett Avenue is only mildly altered as the addition is so far back on the lot, and largely blocked by the existing vegetation. Guideline Two Neighborhood compatibility for Height, Mass and Scale: Even though the addition starts at the elevated floor level to match the existing house and provide continuity of floor plan', the total height of the 2-story addition is still not as tall as the building at 565 Everett. Its rear placement further mitigates its impact on the streetscape. The second floor is significantly narrower than the existing house in the front. Transportation Planning 15tfHamiHon Avenue P.o, Box 10250 ,.. "2'S"O'Hiiinilt6n'Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 650,329.2 441 650.329.2154 Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled papet processed without chlorine P.O, Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2520 650,617,3108 Building 285" Hamllfon-Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2496 650,329.2240 559 Everett Ave. appro _ after Director's Hearing Individual Review 08PLN-OOOOO-00282 Page 2 of7 Guideline Three Resolution-of Architectural Fonn, Massing and Rooflines: Existing lemon trees between driveway and the left rear comer of existing house hide the transition between it and the addition, softening the abrupt change to 2-stories. On the right side, a significant one story piece softens the transition, ~lthough trees block views from the neighbor and the street. Guideline Four Visual Character of Street Facing Facades and Entries: The existing house at the front is untouched. The narrower second story addition placed in the rear provides good proportions. Matching roof slopes at the second floor and existing house, and matching details of eaves, walls, windows all help integrate the addition with the existing building. Guideline Five Placement of Second-Story Windows and Decks for Privacy: One bedroom window and one bath-tub window face the 565 property, but views created to outdoor living areas (back porch and lawn) and windows of 565 are blocked by the existing trees. The only second story deck is on the left side, facing the highrise, the side that is not subject to Individual Review. This approval will become effective 14 days from postmark date of this letter, unless an appeal is filed as provided by Chapter 18.77.075 of the PAMC. Please be aware that only the applicant, or the owner or tenant of an adjacent property may request a hearing. An appeal may be filed by SUbmitting a written request with the City Clerk before the date the Director's decision becomes final. The written request shall be accompanied by a $126.00 fee as set forth in the municipal fee schedule for appeals. This letter and attached approval conditions shall be printed onto building permit plans relating to this approval. If the building permit has not been issued and construction commenced within one year from the effective approval date, this approval will expire. A written request for an extension may be submitted prior to the expiration date. The Director may grant a one-year extension of this approval. Should you have any questions regarding this approval, please do not hesitate to call Lee Mei, Contract Planner, at (650)-617-3100, ext. 3860, or e-mail at lee.mei@cityofpaloalto.org. Sincerely, Curtis Williams, AICP Director of Planning and Community Environment Proj ect Manager: Lee Mei cc: Neighbor notification list 559 Everett Ave. approval after Direuor's Hearing Individual Review 08PLN-OOOOO-00282 Page 3 of7 INDIVIDUAL REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 559 Everett Ave. 08PLN -00000-00282 The approval is subject to compliance with the following conditions. The property owner is solely responsible for the conditions of approval being met. Planning staff recommends the property owner discuss the conditions of approval with the contractor, designer, etc. and contact Planning staff with any questions. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION DIVISION 1. Apply for a building permitand meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 2. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with revised development plans dated July 30,2010, received in Planning on August 4,2010, on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Any proposed exterior changes from the elevations as approved shall require planning review and approval. ' 3. A copy of this approval letter shall be printed on the first or second page of the plans submitted for building permit. 4. Upon submittal of an application for a building permit, the project is required to Comply with both the City's Construction & Demolition (C&D) Diversion Program (P AMC 5.24) and Green Building Program (P AMC 18.44 Table B). The project is required to complete a green building application, and include in the building plans, on a separate sheet (GB-1 Fonn), Build It Green's Gr eenPoint Rated New Home checklist, shoWing a minimum of 70 points based on 1583 SF of living space, and 231 SF of garage. The green building application requires the applicant to have a qualified green building professional to provide evidence of adequate compliance. More information and the application can be found at http://Www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/plnJgreen _ buildingldefault.asp and all questions concerning the CitY's Green Building Standards should be directed to Kristin Parineh at (650) 329-2189. 5. In the Building permit set of plans, on AO, Proposed Floor Areas in Planning SUmmary shall be updated to be consistent with figures on A2. 6. In the Building permit set of plans, on AI, the second lemon tree on the other side of basement entrance shall be shown. Protection fence around both trees and basement hutch shall be shown. 559 Everett Ave. appro. after Director's Hearing Individual Review 08PLN-OOOOO-00282 Page 4 of7 7. In the Building pennit set of plans, First Floor Plan shall show a dimension of 6' -2" for side door recess from staiIwell. 8. In the Building pennit set of plans, on A9, the garage door shall be specified to be Model 11085 by Infinity Classic Garage Doors, built of metal, simulating clearly profiled wood styles and rails, painted to match trim or body color of the house. 9. In the Building permit set of plans, new' window grilles shall be specified to be externally applied. 10. In the Building pennit set of plans, new eave and soffit details shall be specified to match existing. . 11. In the Building permit set of plans, the roof over the Laundry protrusion and side door shall have roof pitch matching the existing house, and gutter and eave at the same height as existing. 12. In the Building permit set of plans, the overhang on the right side over first floor of the addition shall be corrected to be 2 ft wide. 13. Since the top plate of existing house is 10 inches higher than that of the first floor of addition, applicants have the option, in the Building permit set of plans, to allow the gutter of the existing house to be higher than that of the addition on the right (east) side, and the comer of the existing roof to show, for a more esthetic transition. 14. In the Building permit set of plans, Site Plan shall show Type II tree protection fence (TPF) along right property line, 3 ft. from existing fence, spanning from forward most drip line of right neighbor's orange trees to the rear-most drip line of tree near right neighbor's garage. A note on site plan pointing to this enclosed tree protection area shall specify that a single line of soaker hose shall be placed on the soil along and within the TPF, and turned on 1 hour per week except in wet weather or between December 15 to March 1. Another note shall specify that 3 inches of wood chips or ,shredded bark mulch shall be installed on the soil over the soaker hose, over the entire area enclosed by the TPF and existing fence. TREE PROTECTION MEASURES PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 1. For the 36" street tree and the adjacent neighbor's 10" street tree, use Type II fencing to enclose the planting strip under the canopy to the outer branch drip lines or to the existing driveway. Lemon trees at driveway and neighbor's trees along right property line s~all be protected as stated'in #6 and #14 above. All tree protection fences shall be shown as bold dashed lines on the Site and civil plans. 14" redwood behind garage, and other trees to be retained in the backyard should be voluntarily protected as well. 559 Everett Ave. approyal after DirectOr's Hearing Individual Review 08PLN-OOOOO-00282 " Page 5 of7 2. The plans submitted for building permit shall include Sheet T -1, "Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan" (http://www.city.palo- alto.ca.us/depts/pln/development center/building permits.asp), complete the Tree Disclosure Statement and Inspection( s) # 1 shall be checked. 3. All site and civil plan sheets shall require a note applied to the fencing of each street tree to be protected, stating: "Protected tree--before working in this area, contact the Public Works arborist at"650-496-5953". 4. Tree Protection Verification. A written statement from the contractor verifying that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the pro] ect. Tree fencing shall be adjusted after demolition if necessary to increase the tree protection zone as required by the proj ect arborist. DURING CONSTRUCTION 1. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 2. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING Joe Teresi: 1. It will be acceptable to bolt the new wall to the existing wall. 2. The new wall shall be supported on its own foundation, and that the addition be designed so that it would stand on its own if the walls were unbolted and the existing building were demolished. 3. The lateral addition may utilize and be connected to the existing utility services, as long as the utilities in the existing structure are not modified or upgraded. Rosemary Morse: SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter 559 Everett Ave. appro\ After Director's Hearing Individual Review 08PLN-OOOOO-00282 Page 6 of7 strip. Contact Public Works' inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspecter can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building peID1it plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works' inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the righV .. of-way must be done per Public Works' standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Pennit from Public Works at the Development Center. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property's frontage. Cal1 the Public Warks' inspecter at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so he can deteID1ine what street tree work, if any, wil1 be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the bUilding pennit plan set must show the street tree work that the inspector has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works' inspector has deteID1ined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-yv ay from Public Works' arborist -(650-496-6905). The follewing comments are provided to assist the applicant at the building permit phase. You can obtain various plan set details, forms and guidelines from Public Works at the City's Development Center (285 Hamilton Avenue) or on Public Works' website: www.cityofpaloalto.orgidepts/pwdlformsJ)ermits. Include in plans submitted for a building permit: FLOOD ZONE: The proposed improvements are located within a Special Flood Hazard Area. Accordingly, the proposed construction (lateral addition) must meet all ef the City's and Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) requirements for construction within a flood zone, such as: the finished bottom floor must be at or above the base flood elevation (BFE); the crawl space (if used) must have flood vents; and all construction materials and equipment below the BFE must be water-resistant. Garage slabs can be below the BFE, but the garage will then need flood vents. See Pale Alto Municipal Code Section 16.52, Flood Hazard Regulations, and our website for more infonnation. The plans must show the BFE on all applicable elevations, sections and details; must include a calculation of the required amount of flood, vents; must include the flood vents on the elevations and foundation plan; must note all materials below the BFE as water-resistant; and must include the Elevation Certification Submittal Requirements for Construction in the Special Flood Hazard Area form, which is available from Public Works at the Development Center or on our website. Please note that FEMA recently (May 2009) changed the vertical datum of the flood zones. You must use the new vertical datum (NA VD'88) on plans submitted for a building pennit. LATERAL ADDITIONS TO STRUCTURES IN THE FLOOD ZONE: Ifno improvements are made to the existing structure and building the lateral addition .-_ •• -___ • ____ • ____ • _______ • ______ •• • • •• ____ • ___ ._.. ... • ••• __ ., •• 0 _ •• ___ • 559 Everett Ave. approval after Director's Hearing Individual Review 08PLN-OOOOO-00282 Page 7 of7 results in the "absolute minimum" alteration to the existing structure, then only the addition needs to be conformed to the associated flood zone regulations. This absolute minimum alteration to the existing structure shall be made to avoid the triggering of the conformance to the associated flood zone regulations. The "absolute minimum" alteration occurs when: The exterior wall dividing the addition from the existing structure is not demolished; and • Only an entrance or doorway to the addition via a standard door (36" wide or existing opening) is constructed in the existing wall; and • Only necessary structural, roofing, foundation and utility attachments are made to make the entrance possible; and The remainder of the exterior wall is left intact and no other improvements are made to the existing structure. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention -It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public W or~s at the Development Center or on our website. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. WORK IN THE RIGHT -OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is . proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: If the project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on ourwebsite. End of Conditions of Approval· ( 4801 Hillsboro Circle Santa Rosa, CA 95405 Attachment B NANCY E. ROGERS-ZEGARRA Dear Mr. Williams and the Palo Alto City Council: Home: 707-527-9033 Work: 707-467-5101 November 2, 2010 I formally request an appeal of the final decision of the individual review of the project at 559 Everett Ave. Palo Alto Individual Review 08PLN-00000-00282. I am the owner of the adjacent property at 565 Everett Ave. Palo Alto. I was not able to attend the Director's Hearing on October 7, 2010. Also, I did not receive a copy of the approval letter dated October 18, 2010 from the City of Palo Alto. My brother, Stephen H. Rogers, also a co-owner of the 565 Everett Ave property emailed me the October 18th letter. There are several items in the October 18th findings letter with which we do not agree. Guideline I: Basic Site Planning: Your description of the two properties is inaccurate. The 559 property adjoins our 565 Everett Ave property on two sides. The 559 property is 50' x 144'. Starting from the sidewalk going back for 144 feet on the 565 Everett Ave. side there are several rosebushes and a low wooden fence four foot fence dividing the properties for approximately 25 feet. Next, there is a six foot wooden fence and citrus trees (not evergreen trees) planted along a thirty foot section of our drive way .. Then, one side of our wooden garage which is 25 feet long acts as the dividing line between the two properties. Finally, there is a six foot wooden fence for the remaining sixty four feet. Also, there is an additional wooden fence along the back side of the 559 property which is 50 feet long which divides our pool yard and the 559 Everett Ave property. The report makes it sound like there is dense evergreen foliage dividing the houses when in fact there is one redwood tree on the 559 property which will probably be cut down when the new structure is built. In fact, there are no evergreen trees planted along the 144' line or across the back 50' line. The current design for the 559 Everett house does greatly alter the streetscape for Everett Ave. because it adds a building which is two stories vs. one story. The new addition is a box like construction which looks like an II add on" without much thought given to the era architectural design. There is no front vegetation except a few orange trees set back 25 feet on our property to mitigate this two story addition. · \ Guideline 2: Neighborhood compatibility for Height Mass and Scale: The 559 Everett Ave. addition does not harmonize with the existing structures which are 1900 vintage wooden houses. As stated previously, the new addition is a box like construction which looks like an U add on" without much thought given to the era architectural design. The addition will be two stories not one story. The current 559 Everett Ave, house is a wooden 1920's one story bungalow style. The houses in the neighborhood are multi-million dollar properties. There have been at least six houses which have been remolded on our block and they have taken great care to build new structures which enhance the neighborhood and maintain the integrity of the buildings. The house at 575 Everett was a one story house, when it was enlarged they added a two story section which maintains the cohesiveness of the design and flows together resulting in an updated vintage house. Another house around the comer, at 558 Hawthorne Ave. which backs up to my property, maintained the front portion of the original house when it was updated but they added on in an architecturally coherent manner for the back portion of the house. Also, at 428 Everett Ave. when they remolded, they kept the historical front portion of the house but added a second level underground. The new 559 Everett design creates an U abrupt change in height" between the existing house and the projected house. This abrupt change which you noted in your report is not compatible with the existing neighborhood houses. In the approval of the plans under this category, the city also has allowed extra height, extra overhang at the eve, and a scale which is asymmetrically clumsy. The height of the addition has been allowed, by exception, which is an increase by an extra 1.5 feet higher above the code. There is no need for an exception. In addition, the visibility cone casting will create a shadow on the right side of our property which will prevent anything from growing in this area. The lawn and existing landscaping will be destroyed. The neighborhood vernacular will be severely damaged by a poorly designed structure. Our property value will be diminished by allowing a poorly designed building in an area of million dollar homes. Guideline 3: Resolution of Architectural Form, Massing and Rooflines: In your report you mention the U existing lemon trees between the driveway and the left rear comer of the existing house hide the transition between it and the addition, softening the abrupt change to 2 stories". These lemon trees are on my property. Suppose these trees die? The shadow which will be cast by the new structure will severely limit the sun. Then as you report, we are left with a house that has an U abrupt change to 2 stories" which will be visible from the street. The Architectural form of the new building which looks haphazard and boxy should not be mitigated because there are lemon trees on someone else's property which will theoretically block the proposed building. The second floor should be narrower than the first floor, but the first floor of the new part should be in line with or narrower than the existing house. This wider structure and the larger eves creates a" New York style" box structure also creating shadows, dampness, moss and an unsightly landscape. Softening of the addition between the existing house and the rear addition needs to be incorporated into the approved design. The rear hip roof of the existing house, should to be changed to prevent the rain water from flowing into the side of the new addition. Thus, there should be some off-set and connector that changes the elevation of the front roof as it changes to the rear boxy section of the roof. This feature needs to be added to the plans. Also, an appropriate earthquake design proof of a joint between one box of one floor and a box of two floors height needs to be properly addressed. Bolting through without anchors to the foundation and extra cross bracing is a concern. The proposed design will not work. If this issue is not addressed the two structures need to be separated. In addition, it is obvious that the square footage of the new addition roof, eave to eave, is greater than 500 square feet. The impervious area caused by this addition will create run-off that has no place to go except the back yard of 565 Everett. This is unacceptable. The plans cannot be allowed to go forward unless there are considerations incorporated into the approval letter which rectify our concerns. The Director's letter states, the plan will be reviewed by others, however, once the IP is approved, it has the appearance of tacit approval and it will just float through the rest of the way. Therefore, we request a hearing by the City Council and a letter addressing our concerns. Ignoring the fact that the owners of 565 could possibly build/expand on their site as well, the location, mass, height, eve overhang, dead zone in the side yard all created by this proposed construction will conflict and create unacceptable conditions. Any construction at 559 Everett Ave. which is allowed should not preclude additional expansion at 565 Everett Ave. nor should it create adverse conditions on our property at 565 Everett Ave. Guideline 4: Visual Character of Street Facing Facades and Entries: The report notes in one section that the house is built in /I good" proportion but in another section the report notes that the /I abrupt second story" is not in appropriate proportion. The new narrower addition to the house is not in proportion to the existing house and should be modified. In your report you do not mention the box-on-box appearance of the proposed design. The visual character of the proposed house does not fit in with the other vintage houses and will be a jolt to ones sensibilities. The lack of continuity and neighborhood character will cause people not to want to live in the neighborhood. A failure to insist on the "character quality" of a proposal and the allowance of the box on box appearance is a failure of the design and the maintenance of standards. Professionals on the City planning commission are supposed to help citizens maintain a standard of visual character quality and thus help maintain t ' neighborhood aesthetic appeal and property values. Once again a good example of a house which has had a proper architectural treatment and looks like it belongs in the Everett Ave/University Park Neighborhood is the home at 575 Everett. The current proposed plan for the 559 Everett Ave. addition does not live up to the current high standard of visual character which is required and if allowed to be built will detract from the neighborhood. Guideline 5: Placement of Second Story Windows and Decks for Privacy: Once again, in the report you mention the placements of the bathroom and bedroom windows on the proposed project are acceptable because the trees are blocking the windows. These citrus trees are not as tall as the proposed building and in fact they may not continue to grow if all sun light is blocked by the proposed expansion. Also, the trees are not directly in front of the proposed expansion but off to the side on our driveway. In conclusion, based on the various points discussed above, the approved plans cannot be allowed to go forward unless there are considerations incorporated into the approval letter which rectify our concerns. As approved, we object to the city's approved plan as unacceptable. Therefore, we request a hearing by the City Council to review our objections. Ignoring the fact that the owners of 565 Everett Ave could possibly build/expand on their site as well as, the location, mass, height, eve overhang, dead zone in the side yard and lack of visual character, all created by this proposed construction will conflict and create unacceptable conditions. Any construction at 559 Everett Ave. which is allowed should not preclude additional expansion at 565 Everett Ave. nor should it create adverse conditions on our property at 565 Everett Ave. I look forward to hearing from you regarding the date and time of our hearing with the Palo Alto City Council. Thank you for your attention to this request . . Sincerely, .~"'// :9" '·· ......... 7A ........... A-~y' //~ (/~ ... Y ~. /:./ , Nancy Rogers-Zegarra Stephen H. Rogers (owners of 565 Everett Ave. Palo Alto)