HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 157-05C. Location Map
D. Applicant Submittal
E. Comprehensive Plan Compliance
F. Zoning Table
G. Background/Variance Approval Letter, dated December 7,2004
H.Shadow Study
1. Draft Excerpt of the Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes of
January 26,2005
J. Correspondence
K. . Project Plans (Council Only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Alena Campagna, Stoecker & Northway Architects Inc
George Stem
Stephen Pahl, Pahl & Gosselin
Denis Johnston
Chris Kron
Vera Shadle
Kathleen Dal Bon
Nirmal Iyengar
Mary Navarro
Edward Barry
Glenda Bennett
Terence Billings
Corrine Shelly Arlis
Kathy Bilbow
CMR:157:05 Page 3 of3
received ·are from the apartment residents and the property owner (both apartment buildings are
owned by the same entity). The issues cited are perceived shadow impacts of the proposed
second floor, privacy intrusions, increased noise due to increased floor area, and general
"interference" of the quiet enjoyment of the apartments.
Shadow Impacts
The issues raised regarding shadows are related to the rear apartment building which is 24 feet
away from the proposed second floor. The other apartment building to the left is approximately
57 feet away from the proposed second floor and does not fall within the path of the shadows
created by the project. The duplex to the right is approximately 48 feet away from the proposed
second floor.
The applicant provided a shadow study that illustrates that there would be minimal impact on the
adjacent apartment to the rear (see Attachment H). The worst-case scenario is during the Winter
Solstice when the sun is at its lowest angle. At this time ofthe year, the project would cast a
shadow over all or a portion ofthree of the rear property's private open spaces between 9:00 AM
and 1: 00 PM. By three 0' clock in the afternoon, the proj ect would cast a shadow over a portion
of the duplex's side yard. The existing mature Monterey Pine casts larger shadows, over more
rear yards, for a longer duration than the proposed project would. During the Summer Solstice no
shadow would be cast upon adjacent neighbors. Attachment H contains the shadow study for the
impacts during Summer and Winter Solstice and the Equinox for three different times of the day
(9:00 a.m., noon, 3:00 p.m.).
Privacy
The issue of privacy intrusions was raised by the apartment residents. This issue applies to the
rear apartment building. The distances between the proposed second floor and the adj acent .
buildings are large enough that there are no significant privacy impacts. The project does not
include any second floor balconies. Three windows are proposed for the rear of the house facing
the apartment building. The bathroom and staircase landing windows are approximately 24 feet
from the apartment building and the sitting room window is approximately 35.5 feet away from
that building. The issue of privacy is specifically addressed in the 1R process and it was
determined that the proposed project meets this guideline due to the distance between the
buildings and the fact that there is no direct line of sightinto a neighboring window. The
applicant has offered to install landscaping to help mitigate any perceived privacy impacts. It
should be noted that requiring additional tall landscaping would likely result in greater shadows
on the apartment building.
Noise
Although a two-story house is proposed, the use of the site would remain single-family and not
result in additional noise. The Noise Ordinance would remain in effect and would continue to be
enforced by the Police Department.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
TIME LINE
Action:
Application Received:
Application Deemed Complete:
P&TC Meeting:
Tentatively agendized for Council consent calendar:
RESOURCE IMPACT
Date:
July 7,2004
November 30,2004
January 26, 2005
February 26,2005
The project does not have any economic impacts to the City's General Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the provisions ofthe California Environmental Quality Act per Section
15301.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Record of Land Use Action
B. Location Map
r; -'"*ppTi~aRt.gtihft'l:1:Ml
B. CsF1.'tf'feftcns-h'e-Plan .. -eempli,ance
-E: " ' l '""ZOning Table
fl. -.... Baekg1'0l:lflclt:V-arianee-A:pprovai~"l~ettel'·,~datetH~eeem.ber 7, 2004
"'." Shaaow ,~
iff.' "Corresp€H:}Q@Gee
"f. Pi ej 88t PItt);):" Eg8mmi:s~i~11CI' 8 Q~')
COURTESY COPIES:
Alena Campagna, Stoecker & Northway Architects Inc
George Stem
Stephen Pahl, Pahl & Gosselin
Denis Johnston, email
Chris Kron, email
Vera Shadle, email
Prepared by: Clare Campbell, Project Planner
Reviewed by: Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning
Department/Division Head Approval:_-,-/~",-~_. '.J..,' _·;;_J_}_,,-A __ l/'_:0_~_'_-_' _________ ~
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto Page 3
APPROVAL NO. 2005-
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR
705 ELLSWORTH PLACE: VARIANCE 04-VAR-11 (STOECKER AND NORTHWAY
ARCHITECTS ON BEHALF OF GEORGE STERN, APPLICANT)
On [Date], the Council upheld the Director of Planning and
Community Environment's December 7, 2004 dec:j.sion to approve a
Variance to allow an encroachment into the front and rear setback
and a rear daylight plane protrusion, making the following
findings, determination and declarations:
. SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Al to ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. On July 7, 2004, Stoecker & Northway Architects, Inc.
on behalf of George Stern applied for a Variance in conjunction
with the construction of a new two-story residence to allow: (1)
Front setback encroachment: Instead of 20 feet minimum, the project
is proposing 10 feet. The existing condition is 10 feet. (2) Rear
setback encroachment: instead of 20 feet minimum, the project is
proposing a 5-foot 6-inch rear setback. The existing condition is 2
feet 11 inches. (3) Rear Daylight Plane encroachment: The proposed
second floor would encroach into the rear daylight plane for a
length of 40 feet 10 inches. ("The Proj ect") .
B. Following staff review, the Director of Planning and
Community Environment's tentatively approved the project on
December 7, 2004. Upon the request of a public hearing, the
Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project on
January 26, 2005 and voted [x-x] to recommend that Council
{approve/deny] the project The Commission's action are contained in
the CMR: [xxx: 05] .
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. This project is
exempt from the provisions of the' California Environmental Quality
Act per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines.
1
SECTION 3. Variance Findings
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the
subject property, including (but not limi ted to) size, shape,
topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of
the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title
substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other
property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the
subject property:
The project site is located on a private street, Ellsworth
Place, that has 13 developed lots. All the lots on Ellsworth Place,
with the exception of the project site, are classified as
substandard lots in size. The site does not fall into the category
of s~bstandard due to its dimensions and area of 5,117 square feet.
The project site is wide (lIS') and shallow (44.5'). Due to this
)shallow configuration, the buildable area of this lot is
significantly restricted (463 square feet) once the standard
setbacks are applied. The majority of other R-1 lots in this
neighborhood are not subjected to these same limitations due to the
fact that most are not wide shallow lots. If the site were oriented
such that the narrow portions of the lot were the front and rear
and the longer portions were the sides, like most R-1 lots in the
neighborhood, the buildable area would be 2,437 square feet with
the standard setbacks applied. The daylight plane exception does
not apply to any other site on this street because the lots are
substandard size and are not permitted to have a second floor.
2. The granting of . the application shall not affect
substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant
of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the
subject property.
The project site requires a Variance in order to build the
permitted second story. The project site is subject to the same
regulations that apply to other R-1 parcels in the neighborhood.
The granting of the Variance does not affect substantial compliance
with the R-1 development regulations and allows the project site to
develop in a manner more consistent with the surrounding R-1
neighborhood.
3.
Palo Ai to
(Zoning) .
The granting of the application is consistent with the
Comprehensi ve Plan and the purposes of this ti tie
The proposed project of a new single-family residence is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policy L-12. The proposed
residence is designed to be compatible with the existing charact~r
of the residential neighborhood. The proposed replacement house
2
does not conflict with the promotion and protection of public
health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience, and general
welfare; there.is no change of use proposed.
4. The granting of the application will not be detrimental
or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience.
The project will not negatively impact the streetscape and
maintains the street context for the front setback. The project
is surrounded by higher density use (RM-15 and R-2) and the
existing single-family use is unchanged. The project shall be
constructed to meet all the City's development regulations
(Planning, Building, Fire, etc.) and, therefore, will not be
detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare.
SECTION 5. Variance Granted. Variance No. 04-VAR-11 is
granted for [Description of the variance]
SECTION 6. Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Stoecker and
Northway Architects titled "A New Residence for George Stern",
consisting of 7 pages, dated August 26, 2004 and received August
27, 2004 i except as modified to incorporate the conditions of
approval in Section· 7. A copy of these plans is on file in the
Department of Planning and Community Development. The conditions of
approval in Section 7 shall be printed on ihe cover sheet of the
plan set submitted with the Building Permit application.
SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval.
Planning Division
The Variance approval is contingent upon the approval of the
associated Individual Review application 04-IR-44.
SECTION S. Term of Approval.
1. Variance. If the Variance granted is not used within
one year of the date of council approval, it shall become null and
void, pursuant to by Palo Alto Municipal Code Section lS.90.0S0(c).
PASSED:
3
This would make the site unbuildable and would result in sUbstantial property
. loss.
b. The application of the rear daylight plane regulations at the 20'-0" dimension
from the rear property line would also make the construction of a usable second
story impossible and remove a substantial property right. '
c. Because of the minimal depth and size of the lot it is not possible to tandem
park in front of the covered parking spaGe' without intruding into the front
setback as is customary now both on the subject property and the rest of the
street. Tandem parking is allowed in the R-1 district but this option would be
withdrawn because of the unique circumstances of the lot configuration.
Imposing a restriction against parking the second car in the driveway, partially
in the front setback, would preclude the property from enjoying the same right
as the homes on the rest of the street.
C. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience.
a. All of Ellsworth Place has these unique site conditions so the result has been
that the whole street is built out with front setbacks of ±10'-0" and very minimal
rear yards .
. b. Almost all of the properties supply only one covered parking space with the
second space in the front setback or on the street.
c. Because of the unique circumstances of Ellsworth Place, the granting of this
application would improve existing conditions in the front, rear and sides of the
property. Because this application involves a new second story home it will
also be subject to the Individual Review process for conformance to the City's
guidelines for second story construction.
d. Granting this application will generally improve open space conditions on the
street. The yard on the north east side of the lot has been of long standing
enjoyment to the neighbors asthe only undeveloped frontage on the street.
The proposed design has significantly increased this space, specificaUy
considering the general welfare of the street as a whole.
e. Because of the other unique circLimstances stated above the granting of this
application will·not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in
the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public. health, safety, general
welfare or convenience. .
.'
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE
705 Ellsworth Place
Attachment E
The proposed project of a new single-family residence is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
Policy L-12. The proposed residence..is designed to be compatible with the existing character of
the residential neighborhood.
City of Palo Alto
'.
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
Site area
Site coverage
Floor area ratio (FAR)
Front setback
Rear setback
Side setback -left
Side setback -right
House height
House daylight plane
Parking spaces
City of Palo Alto
ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE
705 Ellsworth Place
EXISTING PROPOSED
CONDITIONS PROJECT
5,117 s.f. 5,117 s.f.
Not available 1,504 s.f.
Not available 2,285 s.f.
10' 10' -Variance
2'-11" 5' -6" -Variance
11' -6" 6'
63' -3" 39' -3"
One-story 23' -2"
Conforms . Rear encroachment
-Variance
2-car garage I-car garage, 1
uncovered
Attachment F
R-l ZONE DISTRICT
STANDARD
6,000 s.f.
1,791 s.f.
2,285 s.f.
20'
20'
6'
6'
30'
Measure at rear setback,
16' above grade at an
angle of 60°
1 covered, 1 uncovered
Page 2 of3
classified as substandard lots in size. The site does hot fall into the category of
substandard due to its dimensions and area of 5,117 square feet. The project site is
wide (115') and shallow (44.5'). Due to this shallow configuration, the buildable area
of this lot is significantly restricted (463 square feet) once the standard setbacks are
applied. The majority of other R-llots in this neighborhood are not SUbjected to these
same limitations due to the fact that most are not wide shallow lots. If the site were
oriented such that the narrow portions of the lot were the front and rear and the longer
portions were the. sides, like most R -1 lots in the neighborhood, the buildable area
would be 2,437 square feet with the standard setbacks applied. The daylight plane
exception does not apply to any other site on this street because the lots are
substandard size and are not permitted to have a second floor.
(2) The granting oj the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the
regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and ~n the same zoning district as
the subject property.
The project site requires a Variance in order to build the permitted second story. The
project site is subject to the same regulations that apply to other R-l parcels in the .
neighborhood. The granting of the Variance does not affect substantial compliance
with the R-l development regulations and allows the proj ect site to develop in a
manner more consistent with the surrounding R-l neighborhood.
(3) The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehe.nsive
Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning).
The proposed project of a new single-family residence is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan Policy L-12. The proposed residence is designed to be
compatible with the existing character of the residential neighborhood. The proposed
replacement house does not conflict with the promotion and protection of public
health, safety, peace" morals, comfort, convenience, and general welfare; there is no
change of use proposed. .
(4) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or'
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience.'
The project will not negatively impact the streetscape 'and maintains the street context
for the front setback. The proj ect is surrounded by higher density use (RM -15 and R-
2) and the existing single-family use IS unchanged. The project shall be constructed to
meet all the City's development regulations (planning, Building, Fire, etc.) and,
therefore, will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare.
I~
(te)tA.IWa
sire seC110N #~ -eX1511NiA CONtZl110N5
STOECKER AND NORTHWAY
ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED
437 L"YTl'ON AVENUE PAID ALTO CAo 94301 650-327-7070
PROJECT ~694 -5reRN -707 eL.L5WORrH PL.N:e
SHEET 11TLE
~
51re seC110N
SCALE 1/811 _1'-011
I~
I
•••.•.•••. _. . . . . . . . . • . . ., .1I651.11're1i! H'f. ~~~!l m_,l
\ L(te)6'HaII'l!Nl!!
L(E:) alWtZlSc:MR
IEI«~L.N:
These pions ore DAlE cop}'"ighted and ore
subject. to cop)<ight 12/21/ '"'A protectIon os on V'T
·orchitecturel work-
under sec. 102 of the
Cop)<ight Act. 17 u.s.o. ORA WN BY os amended December
1990 and known os
Architectural Works Ae:.r
Cop)1'ight Protection Act r\..,Jl."
of 1990.
SHEET
6
1'Ii1OI'~
~
~
I I~ ............................... 1 ..... ).1............ . ..... 11I6~ H'f.
YlK~;1 .... ,~p~ ..... ··11
(N)PNlO
slresecl1QN_~~_ .. ·J:~~QPQ5et/ CONt/1110NS
STOECKER AND NORTHWAY
ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED
437 LYTl'ON AVENUE PALO ALTO CA. 94301 650-327-7070
SHEET llTLE
sire seC110N
PROJECT ~694 -SreRN -70r.!? E:L..L5WORfH PL...Aa: I SCALE II 8"-11-0"
\ L m6,HCiim.a
"--(N) 6' HCii~
These pIons ere DATE
copyighted and .a~e
subject. to cop)fight 12/211 I")A protection as on v-J
·orchitectural work-
under sec. 102 of the
Copyight Act, 17 U.S.O. DRAWN BY as amended December
1990 and known os
Architectural Works
Copyright Protection Act
of 1990. A5C
SHEET
7
2901
MIt/t/\"~flaIA7
APf. #11
1
-----') ~ bY'
o
Ie
J\
#112
(e) HOU5e'
10rf?
I
I
I
5UffeR A~NuJ APf5.
#114 I #116
I
~ ~~ J1lr\
1
I #118
I
Y ---l' rf1-,. ':':'. nr-'-.
T( f;:) MONre~Y {::) ~ PINe J/
~
I
~.
(f;:) UJf!Mf;:
•
( -;
~
•
I--';>d ~ _ ';;>-0 -!
STOECKER AND NORTHWAY
ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED
437 LYTl'ON AVENUE PALO ALTO CA. 94301 650-327-7070
PROJECT ()!}694 -5reRN -10rf? eL..L..5WORrH PL..PCe
~\"\"5WORfH P\.,,AC~
SHEET TITLE
9riN?OW 511..1t7Y: f;:XI511Na f,AL.L.. ~e
5UMMeR 5OL..11Ce NOON
SCALE 1/16"-11-0"
These plans are DATE
cop)fighted and ore
subjed. to cop)right 12/21/ AJI. protection os on ~
-architectural wont
under sec. 102 of the
Copyight Act, 17 U.S.O. DRA IJN BY as amended December
1990 and known as
Architectural Works I her Copyright Protection Act ~
of 1990.
SHEET
10
2901 Mlt/t/~E:fl~~t/ ,APr. #11
I.
D
o
#112
1
---
(~) HOUse
10rf7
I
I
I
I
surfeR AveNi..b ,APf5.
#114
~~-
I
I
#116
---
(e) ~
•
1
I
I
#118
............
D
u
I--;>A ---' _ ::>-a J
STOECKER AND NORTHWAY
ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED
437 L'YTl'ON AVENUE PALO ALTO CA. 94301 650-327-7070
PRDJECT ~694 -5reRN -70rf7 eL..L..5WORfH PL...Aa:
E:~~5WOt<1H P~,ACE:
SHEET TITLE
'3rfN}OW 51t11?Y: ~XI511Na ffJ.-L.. ~e
eQUINOX NOON
SCALE 1/16"-11-0"
These pions are DATE copyrighted and ore
subjed to COPl'ight 12/ 21/ r"IJi. protectIon as on ~
·orchitectural work-
under sec. 102 of the
Copl'~ht Act, 17 U.&D. DRA IrIN BY os amended December
1990 and known CIS
Architectural Works I IJ.cr Copyight Protection Act .~ of 1990.
SHEET
13
"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23·
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
January 26, 2005
DRAFT EXCERPT
Attachment I
Chair Cassel: Let's come back. Okay, I am calling this meeting to order. The next item
on our agenda under New Business is an application at 705 Ellsworth Place. It is a
request by Stoecker & Northway Architects, Inc. on behalf of George Stem for a
Variance in conjunction with the construction of a new two-story residence to allow front
setback encroachment: Instead of 20 feet minimum, the project is proposing 10 feet. The
existing condition is 10 feet. A Rear setback encroachment: instead of 20 feet minimum,
the project is proposing a 5-foot 6-inch rear setback. The existing condition is 2 feet 11
inches. The Rear Daylight Plane encroachment, the proposed second floor would
encroach into the rear daylight plane for a length of 40 feet 10 inches. This is in an R-l
zone and the environmental assessment says that this exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council uphold Director of Planning and Community
Environment's decision to approve the Variance. This was done as a Variance under the
new procedures and a request for a hearing is now i~ place. Would the Stafflike to give
us report?
2. 705 Ellsworth Place [04-V AR-llJ*: Request by Stoecker & Northway
Architects, Inc. on behalf of George Stem for a Variance in conjilnction with the
construction of a new two-story residence to allow: (1) Front setback
encroachment: Instead of20 feet minimum, the project is proposing 10 feet. The
existing condition is 10 feet. (2) Rear setback encroachment: instead of 20 feet
minimum, the project is proposing a 5-foot 6-inch rear setback. The existing
condition is 2 feet 11 inches. (3) Rear Daylight Plane encroachment: The
proposed second floor would encroach into the rear daylight plane for a length of
40 feet 10 inches. Zone: R-l. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act per section 15301.
SR Weblink: http://www.cityofualoalto.org/cityagenda/publishlplatming-transportation-
meetings/4175.pdf
Ms. Campbell: Thank you. I will start by clarifying the Staff Report. One ofthe
attachments, Attachment F, was missing the second page. That is complete now and has
been put at places and also on the public table.
The proposed project is for a new two-story house in the R-l zone. An Individual
Review application was filed in conjunction with this Variance.· The Individual Review
project was tentatively approved on December 20, 2004 and is scheduled for the
Director's Hearing on February 3, 2005 because a public hearing was requested. Tonight
the Planning and Transportation Commission is reviewing the Variance portion of this
project, which was tentatively approved on December 7,2004. This Variance has been
processed using the new findings that were codified in July 2004. Part ofthe change in
1 this process is that your recommendation to Council will be placed on the Consent
2 Calendar and will require three votes to be heard.
3
4 The proposed project requires a Variance for the front left side and rear setback as well as
5 the rear daylight plane. The issues raised by the neighbors in the adjacent apartments and
6 the property owner relate to shadow impacts, privacy and noise.
7
8 The shadow impacts are illustrated in Attachment G of the Staff Report. These
9 illustrations show that there is an increased shadowing at certain times of the year but it is
10 not significant or worse that the existing shadow conditions of the mature Monterrey
11 Pine.
12
13 The project has three windows directly facing the rear apartment building. The bathroom
14 and staircase landing windows are approximately 24 feet away from the apartment
15 building and the sitting room window is approximately 35 and a half feet away from the
16 building. The issue of privacy is specifically addressed in the Individual Review process
17 and it was determined that this proposed project meets this guideline.
18
19 The noise issue raised cannot be regulated by this review but is regulated by Noise
20 Ordinance, which is enforced by the Police Department.
21
22 Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City
23 Council uphold the Director's decision to approve the Variance based upon the findings
24 and conditions in the Record of Land Use Action attached to the Staff Report. This
25 concludes Staffs report. The applicant is present and prepared to make a presentation.
26 Thank you.
27
28 Chair Cassel: Are there any clarifying questions before I go to the public hearing? The
29 applicant is George Stem and he is listed as the first person to speak. You have 15
30 minutes to make your presentation and that includes your comments by your staff person,
31 Mr. Northway.
32
33 Mr. George Stem, 705 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. I
34 would like to tell you briefly about the existing house, why I want to replace it and what I
35 have tried to do to make it consistent with and a benefit to the neighborhood. Then the
36 architects will go into mbre of the specific information you may need to consider this
37 request for a Variance.
38
39 I bought the present house about ten years ago primarily as a residence for my son Gary.
40 We think it is about 70 years old. Although it was and is charming and quaint in many
41 ways it was and is dilapidated and out of date. For example it has no central heating. It
42 has many structural problems for example serious cracks in the foundation and bearing
43 walls and needs other upgrading. For various personal reasons only tweaking has been
44 done so far. However, in May 2002 at the age of 47 Gary had a cerebral hemorrhage
45 causing severe brain injury. After the initial acute period he remains paralyzed on the
46 right side of his body, has severe speech and memory disability and other serious medical
1 problems. However, he has a normal life expectancy, probably another 25 or 30 years,
2 and has a continuing desire and capability for independent living. He does need about
3 seven or eight hours a day of personal care of various kinds and is largely confined to a
4 wheelchair. The present house has steps inside and out, narrow openings and corridors, a
5 four by seven bathroom, a six by ten kitchen and many other features that make it
6 inaccessible. Ramps and interior remodeling cannot make it either an accessible or
7 conforming house. At present he is living in the garage because he can get in, out and
8 around it and because considering all the living alternatives it is actually the best situation
9 for him now on a short-term basis. Obviously that can't go on.
10
11 I am providing the majority of his personal care myself with assistance from medical
12 therapy personnel, several part-time helpers and the incredible support and assistance of
13 many Ellsworth Place neighbors. Their contribution to making Gary feel welcome and at
14 home is very generous and greatly appreciated and I want to thank them publicly now for
15 being the wonderful warm-hearted people they are.
16
17 The neighborhood is modest and entry level for the Palo Alto market and it houses
18 families, single people and retirees. It is perfect for Gary not only because of the
19 neighbors themselves but because it is within rolling distance of Midtown Center, which
20 has a wealth of stores, services and diversions that Gary uses every day. He is used to the
21 neighborhood and the neighborhood is used to him. So I want to build a modest house
22 that he can live in and enjoy as a severely disabled and later on elderly person who needs
23 a satisfied and responsible full-time live-in caregiver and can also retain as much
24 independence and dignity as possible.
25
26 A couple of years ago, as soon as I knew the house would have to change I began to raise
27 the question with as many of the neighbors as possible and we discussed it at length over
28 time. Ellsworth Place has a distinct and cohesive neighborhood character, which I knew
29 we could compliment. It became clear that many of the Ellsworth neighbors welcomed
30 an upgrading of the house and thought it would be good for them as well as for Gary
31 especially because it would reduce the concern of some of us that the entire street was
32 ripe for purchase by a developer. However, as you know one side of the lot is bordered
33 by a large two-story 30-foot high apartment complex in the RM-15 zone. The rear is
34 bordered by single story apartments in the RM -15 zone, which are older and legally
35 zoned to permit new two story apartments 30 feet high. I am aware that these residences
36 are part of the larger neighborhood and that their needs must be taken into serious
37 consideration which I have tried to do. The 705 lot is not substandard so after a great
38 deal of alternative planning with both the architects, the City Staff and many of the
39 neighbors we decided to propose a partially two story 23 foot high design which is
40 allowed by the zoning code. I think this proposal benefits all the neighbors in the
41 following ways. At 1,504 square feet oflot coverage the proposed house covers only 120
42 more square feet than the current house and all the gain comes from the area of the
,43 internal patio of the current house. This compact structure prevents the ~emoval of
44 mature but non-protected trees and reduces the structures mass. The current garage is
45 removed in the proposed house and is replaced by a garage at the opposite end, whichis
46 part of the 1,504 square feet coverage. This step accomplishes at least three goals. First
1 it increases the open space directly on Ellsworth Place. The side yard length increases
2 from 28 to 39 feet. The lots on Ellsworth are small and this relatively large undeveloped
3 area provides a green relief from what could be wall-to-wall houses. In addition it gives
4 Gary a yard to enjoy and continue his rolling gardening. Second it removes all structures
5 from behind two of the four single story apartments, 716 and 718 Sutter. Third, it
6 corrects the current condition of the garage which currently actually protrudes over the
7 apartment owner's property line and backs up to the apartment sidewalk in front 716.
8
9 The second story which is about half of the 1,504 square foot footprint is not at the
10 allowed 30 foot height but is at23 feet, two inches. It is placed in an L-shape in a
11 position that has at least three distinct advantages. First it casts now shadows on any
12 property on Ellsworth or the street itself besides mine with a slight exception for a small
13 shadow during midwinter mornings on part of the side yard of the duplex next door.
14 There are trees there, which cast much larger shadows at this time. It casts minimal
15 shadows on either the two story or one story apartment buildings except for winter
16 mornings when there is a shadow on a portion of 714 Sutter and smaller portions of 712
17 and 716 Sutter and on Equinox mornings when there was a small shadow on a portion of
18 the 714 patio. It happens that a large Monterrey Pine in the patio of714 Sutter currently
19 casts larger shadows on the same and other areas at those times and other times and
20 seasons. That tree and another one, a tall acacia at the comer ofthe 30-foot apartment's
21 lot, and the 30-foot apartment itself cast constant shadows at all times and seasons on 705
22 Ellsworth Place as would a new two-story apartment behind. My take on that is that it is
23, a minor inconvenience maybe even a benefit of city living and I am not planning to
24 demand the removal of the trees, the apartment house or any new apartment that may be
25 built there.
26
27 Second, the current situation in which the 30 foot high two story apartment building is
28 about 30 feet away from the current living room and its 14 foot peaked roofwould
29 improve. There would instead be 60 feet from the 30-foot tall 'apartment to the 23-foot
30 high new second story. None ofthe windows of the proposed second story face into any
31 other window and the lines of sight do not promote the loss of privacy. Instead of being
32 near the tall living room of the old house the two story apartments would be near the new
33 shorter one story garage and laundry room where hopefully less activity will take place
34 than at the living room at the other end of the new house.
35
36 Third, the two-story design permits the new house to be less massive and present than a
37 one-story design would be. One story would have to cover much more of the lot.
38 Because of the long narrow dimensions of the lot a one story design would stretch from
39 one end ofthe lot to the other occupying much more frontage on Ellsworth and be closer
40 to 716 and 718 Ellsworth which have no structures behind them in the two story design.
41 A one story desi,gn for architectural reasons would probably have up to 17 foot peaks
42 which would create much larger and longer shadows at more times and in more seasons
43 ofthe year. A one story design would also require the removal of several mature but
44 non-protected trees now on the lot and would fill most of the present open space side yard
45 instead of enlarging it as in the proposed design. Probably most disturbing the one story
46 design would look out of place on the street because of its length and bulk. In addition
1 the one story design does not achieve the goal of creating some privacy for the live-in
2 caregiver who I would like to have a good life too.
3
4 To summarize before the architects give you some more specific information about this _
5 proposal this house is a beneficial design that meets Gary's needs, benefits the neighbors
6 and the neighborhood and harms very little and much less than the alternatives including
7 the alternative of doing nothing. Now I would like to ask the architects to give you more
8 details. Thank you. ..
9
10 Mr. John Northway, 437 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto: Thanks, George. In the brevity of
11 time, I think we have about five minutes left, I will just go through a few things and then
12 we are available for questions and we have lots of backup material and overheads if you
13 want to get into some of the details.
14
15 This is primarily a land use hearing although this is kind of a chicken and egg situation
16 because there is a specific design in front of you that is the result of why we are asking
17 for the Variances. The existing lot is 44 feet deep and it is unfortunately the long 115
18 length of it that is the front of the lot. If you did·a 20 foot front yard and a 20-foot rear
19 yard we would end up with four and a half feet to build in. That is the unusual
20 circumstance that triggers the need for the variance. How did we come up with the
21 dimensions that we are requesting for the Variance? Essentially on Ellsworth there is a
22 very steady and consistent front yard of around ten feet that is what we are asking to
23 maintain. Currently, the lots are very irregular in their rears. Many of the homes are
24 built directly on the rear property line. The existing house is about two and a half feet off
25 the rear property line. We designed the house and then decided what to ask in terms of
26 the rear. There were two factors that came into play. The overriding factor is to create a
27 structure that works for an individual in a wheelchair. The way the layout worked Gary's
28 bedroom and master bath are in the rear portion of the house to keep away from street
29 noise and it is very important that the handicap access for the bathroom is maintained and
30 also for the bedroom. This worked out to design, we brought the lower floor, and that is
31 important, the lower floor goes to five foot, six to the property line. Please note that the
32 second floor is set three feet further back. It is back eight foot, six. You say well, can
33 you lose six inches? In a normal house you probably could lose six inches. In a house
34 that is handling handicap wheelchair access six inches actually is the difference between
35 the bathroom working or not working.
36
37 The other critical dimension is the garage. We wanted to provide 18 feet in front of the
38 garage and then garage itselfis 21 feet leaving again five and a half feet. This five and a
39 half feet for the rear setback is only on the ground floor. The second floor is set back
40 eight and a half here and I think it is over 19 feet here. It is 19 feet, six inches to this
41 p~int. So essentially this rear window is setback the same as it would be if it was a
42 normal rear yard. These windows are setback eight and a half feet, one is in the
43 bathroom above the bathtub and the other window is a window at a stair landing. So the
44 invasion of privacy aspect really isn't there.
45
1 We did figure out shadows and Alena Campagna who is the project architect did it. She
2 is a graduate of MIT and a master's from Cal and if you want to know how they were
3 cast and you want a short tutorial in shadow casting Alena can give it to you.
4
5 We did look at alternatives becal;lse that is usually a question you ask. Did you look at
6 any other way to do it? We looked, as George said, at using the existing floor plan and
7 layout and putting a second story on it. For numerous technical reasons, irregular floors,
8 bad footings that was a bad idea. Another thing that would have happened if we had
9 stayed with the 20-foot setback ofthe daylight plane we could still do a second floor. A
10 second floor is granted because this is a conforming lot. What would have been created
11 would have been one of your most favorite buildings, Pat, the one at the corner of
12 Parkinson and Newell which goes straight up two floors and is very narrow and runs the
13 length of the property. We really wanted to do something that was much more
14 articulated, worked with the cottage feel of the street and broke up the massing of the
15 second floor. So to make a long story short we said we have to go for these Variances so
16 we .can do an appropriate design for the street, for the area and something that will work
17 for Gary. I will stop because I am probably out oftime anyway.
18
19 Chair Cassel: You have one minute.
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: Can you pass the model around, John?
22
2} Chair Cassel: Do any of us have questions for the applicant? Bonnie.
24
25 Vice Chair Packer: I have a question for you, John. How high is the existing structure?
26
27 Mr. Northway: The existing structure is 13 feet, ten inches.
28
29 Vice Chair Packer: Thanks.
30
31 Chair Cassel: Anyone else have a question at this time? Thank you. We do have people
32 who would like to speak to this item. If anyone else would like to speak will you please
33 complete the card and tum it in toZariah, our Secretary. You each have five minutes and
34 you don't have to use the whole five minutes. The first person to speak is Kathleen Dal
35 Bon.
36
37 Ms. Kathleen DalBon, 741 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto: Myself, my husband and our two
38 children live at 741 Ellsworth and we would like to speak in support ofthe Variance.
39 Our street is a group of moderate income and retired homeowners. We have gone to a lot
40 oflengths to try and improve the street which when we moved there had a lot of
41 problems. We would even have people come visit and say is it safe to park on your
42 street. It was very substandard in many ways. We have done a lot of effort~ It used to be
·43 you couldn't get through the street because cars were parked on the street and it is very
44 narrow. We have gotten the cooperation of our neighbors even though it is quite difficult
45 on our small lots everybody parks off street now. We have worked to paint house fronts.
46 My kids and Iwith some ofthe older homeowners on our street have actually done some
"
1 of this and cleaned up yards. There has been a lot of tree pruning. The canary palm that
2 is at the front of our street has been cleaned up very well and looks quite nice. New
3 fences have been put up. Our big effort was to pave the road. We are moderate income
4 or on fixed incomes on the street and we had a window of opportunity which is what we
5 see this project being to improve. We had three days to take advantage of a low cost
6 paving opportunity and managed to get everybody on the street together and do that. We
7 are concerned about this highly visible entry onto the street. It has always been an
8 eyesore frankly and we see this as an opportunity to upgrade the whole street by having
9 this done. I have heard from many of our neighbors concerns that unless we can
10 accomplish this it does make our entry-level type homes vulnerable as a target for
11 development for real monster homes or apartment houses. Our retirees and young
12 families want it the way it is if we can. So we are welcoming the new structure when this
13 thing that you are seeing is going around. We actually walked through the neighborhood
14 and chatted with neighbors about it and they were very excited about it especially the use
15 where we had this little relief from the endless. row of cottages with some open space.
16
17 The one concern I had is Vladim across the street from me although may be moving in
18 with his fiance wasn't around and I didn't hear what he thought of it but I noticed in the
19 packet that he has come out supporting this effort.
20
21 We are not sure not why a much higher apartment building and on my side of the street
22 apartment buildings look down into our yards would be so concerned about a small two
23-story extension on this house. We see it as supportive of our neighbors and necessary for
24 what we are doing. So at ,any rate we just see this as uniq'ije window of opportunity and
25 would like to support it. Thank you.
26
27 Chair Cassel: Thank you. The next person to speak is Stephen PaW and the person after
28 that is Nirmal Iyengar. I am sorry if I pronounced that wrong.
29
30 Mr. Stephen PaW, 160 Santa Clara Street, San Jose: Good evening. I am attorney and I
31 represent the property owner northwest of this property. The Ellsworth property as you
32 have read in your Staff Report is generally substandard lots however this is a standard lot
33 but what Ellsworth has more importantly is all single story height homes. This will be a
34 major modification to the streetscape. All of Staffs recommendations in support of the
35 Variance go to the second story aspect and while the project is desirable the concept is
36 desirable, admirable you can't take an applicant's personal needs under California law
37 and specifically the government code into account. You must look at this as a separate
38 zoning application.
39
40 If you look at items three and four of Staff s recommendation both of them argue to the
41 validity of the Variance, it is not. The difficulty that you have is the second story is not
42 comparable to the neighborhood. It will be injurious to the adjacent property both in loss
43 of privacy as well as the fact that it actually encroaches even deeper because of the
44 height. Perhaps a Variance covering one of the questions you will ask among yourselves
45 is is there an alternative. There is, you can get this same amount of square footage on this
46 property without going to a second story. You can clearly do that. So if square footage is
.'
1 the desire it can be handled on this property. Yes, it will take up some yarded space but it
2 is the only yarded space that is currently on the property. The strict application of the
3 your Zoning Ordinance it will provide a privilege not otherwise available to the
4 community and that is a second story.
5
6 I did not see anywhere in the Staff's analysis where they evaluated other 45 foot deep
7 properties. Is this the only 45-foot deep property with R-l zoning in the City of Palo
8 Alto? I trust it isn't. It must be unlike any other property under government code 65906.
9
10 Finally, other nonconforming uses such as the apartments being utilized as an excuse to
11 grant a Variance cannot be included also in your analysis. I didn't want to use up all five
12 minutes because I know you have a lot of other speakers. Do you have any questions?
13 Thank you.
14
15 Chair Cassel: Thank you. Mr. Nirmal Iyengar to be followed by Mary Navarro
16
17 Mr. Nirrnal Iyengar, 712 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live at 712
18 Ellsworth Place with my wife and daughter. We moved in there in early 1998 and over
19 the years we have seen Gary's house in various states some desirable some not very
20 desirable. For many years we have wished that something would be done about that lot.
21 Now there is an opportunity and we would hate to see this go by without any changes
22 taking place.
23
24 Over the years, like I said I have a 14 year old daughter, and we have always
25 contemplated remodeling. We have taken a hard look at some of the rules that govern
26 such substandard lots and as you are well aware there are not many options and there is
27 really no incentive to remodel. I think that is why those houses that were built in the
28 1940s are still in the same state they were when they were built. From a community
29 standpoint once there is an opportunity to change something for the betterment of all
30 concerned there is an incentive right now and we must fully make use of this opportunity.
31
32 It is really interesting how the zoning laws have been written. This is not a criticism of
33 the people in general but just the way things are. When I walked around the property just
34 recently and walked around that area I noticed that the apartments can look into the single
35 family homes but the people don't want the reverse to take place. They are concerned
36 about single-family home residents looking into their apartments or looking down into
37 their places. So I don't understand how they have such conflicting requirements.
38
39 In general like Kathleen mentioned earlier we spent quite a bit of time and the
40 community feels that we can improve that area by repaving the road. One of the things
41 we did when repaving the road was to get the cars off the street. That really changed the
42 look of that area because now it suddenly looks wider. One ofthe things that we can do
43 is if you allow two story houses to be built it will allow the cars to be taken off the street
44 and improve the general outlook of that community. For that reason I fully support the
45 idea of going ahead with the Variance. Thank you very much.
46
1 Chair Cassel: Thank you. Mary Navarro to be followed by Corrine Shelly Arlis.
2
3 Ms. Mary Navarro, 706 Ellsworth Place, Palo Alto: Good evening members of the
4 Planning Commission. My name is Mary G. Navarro the G stands for Good Girl. I am
5 now a semi-retired educator with the Palo Alto School District where I have taught
6 English.
7
8 Chair Cassel: Mary, before you get started can you tell us where you live?
9
10 Ms. Navarro: I live across the street from 705 Ellsworth. I live at 706 Ellsworth, I'm
11 sorry. I was getting to that. I am now a semi-retired educator in the Palo Alto School
12 District where I have taught English at all levels for almost 40 years. It is hard to believe
13 but I did and I still enjoy it. My cottage at 706 Ellsworth Place is across the street from
14 705. I am in favor ofthenew structure at 705 for three reasons. My first reason is Mr.
15 Stem's son, Gary, has had to live in the adjacent garage because the cottage IS not
16 wheelchair accessible. As a result his living space is so limited that when I play
17 dominoes with Gary we must go to a nearby cafe, which is often crowded. I enjoy
18 playing games and so does Gary. By the way he has become such a challenging
19 opponent we now often end our games as a tie, which I am proud of. Good for him. The
20 second reason, the new structure would greatly benefit Gary's living conditions as well as
21 contribute to an improvement in his health. This mayor may not be a valid reason
22 according to the regulations but it is important to us. The third reason is the new
23 . structure would fit in with the character of the neighhorhood and add to its value. In
24 addition it would also add to the value of my property. If the new structure would consist
25 of only one level it would not be as attractive or fit into the neighborhood as well. In
26 addition the length would greatly limit the space for a yard. Gary, by the way, loves to
27 garden. Nor would it fit in with the character of our neighborhood. Thank you very
28 much for listening. .
29
30 Chair Cassel: Thank you. Corrine Shelly Allis. You can come up and speak. I can
31 move yours to the end. The next person to speak is Edward Barri to be followed by
32 Glenda Bennett.
33
34 Mr. Edward Barri, 19927 Villa Drive, Sonora: Good evening council. I am Edward
35 Barri. I am the owner ofthe property, the 12 units located at 2901 Middlefield Road and
36 the eight units that are behind 705 Ellsworth. These eight units are most of our concern.
37 There are four on the front that face Sutter Avenue and there are four in the rear that
38 border the back property line of 705 Ellsworth.
39
40 First of all I just got wind of this thing from the City's mailing back in September and
41 George had mentioned that he had talked to the neighbors for a couple of years prior to
42 that. Well, I was never approached. We have known each other for years. He has had
43 the property I think he mentioned ten or 12 years. I have owned these properties for 30
44 years and 18 years respectively. We are good neighbors. We have a lovely
45 neighborhood. I want to say first of all that I am not at all opposed to redevelopment of
46 this property and I think that all of the people that live in our buildings are not opposed to
1 that. We feel that it could be done better. Mary and the other woman they both referred
2 to the houses they live in on Ellsworth as cottages. These are small homes. I think
3 probably the largest one is close to 1,500 square. Mr. Stem is proposing almost a
4 structure that is 2,300. That is not in keeping with the neighborhood not when it is two
5 stories. When I first got wind of this I called George up and wernet. I actually went over
6 the drawings with him. We walked the site. We walked back to my properties. We
7 walked the back building ofthe Middlefield Road property. I said check out the antenna
8 up there, this is how high it is going to be. We walked the back sidewalk along our
9 shared property line. I explained my concerns.
10
11 It probably wouldn't be such an issue except these apartments are very unique. I don't
12 know how many there are in Palo Alto, maybe 40. They are Eichler style. They have
13 individual yards. They are one bedroom. They have fireplaces with yards you can
14 garden in. So where do you find a one bedroom with a fireplace and a yard? They are
15 not common. So people love these apartments in a sensitive market like we have now
16 with apartments. It is not too much of a problem renting them compared to other
17 properties just because of their uniqueness. A two-story house is really going to affect
18 these. Regardless of the studies and these windows looking straight, I read it, people are
19 going to look around they are going to look down, they are going to want to see what is in
20 that yard down there. There is going to be a shadow there. It says Winter Solstice, nine
21 0' clock in the morning to one 0' clock on the longest day of the year that is going to be in
22 shadow. That is a lot. These apartments face east so one of the joys is they get that
23· morning sun on a cold winter day. Now existing, I just checked it out, we are a month
24 later from the Winter Solstice but the sun is hitting those walls now at approximately nine
25 in the morning. So we are talking about a four-hour difference. Winter Solstice we are
26 probably talking about probably half the day, four hours, that that's going to be in
27 shadow. I don't know what kind of science was behind that study but if you go to the
28 site, and that is the thing, every site is unique and needs to be looked at individually. As I
29 say, I think there are alternatives to this.
30
31 When I met with George I had a little cutout on the drawings and I took the 750 square
32 foot proposed second floor and I had the cutout and I said look you could put it over here.
33 Yes, you are going to be cutting out some yard. I don't want that I want ino be nice for
34 them. Yard is important for all of us but I think it could be reconfigured. I also
35 suggested instead oftaking that 750 square cutout and just putting it on the side which
36 would pretty much take up the whole lot but you could tum it and you could actually
37 build a smaller second floor more in the front. That way it would cause less of a visual
38 impact, your view shed is going to be cut down. We talk about that Monterrey Pine well
39 pine trees are 90% air. That is ambient light that goes through there it is not like a wall.
40 You are seeing the setbacks currently are 2.6 odd feet that is only for a 12-foot length of
41 that building. So you think about this 40-foot plus encroachment into the rear daylight
42 plane. It is going to be a big wall. Thank you for your time.
43
44 Chair Cassel: Thank you. The next person to speak will be Glenda Bennett to be
45 followed by Terence Billings.
46
1 Ms. Glenda Bennett, 714 Sutter Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening council. I currently
2 reside at 714 Sutter Avenue and I am one ofthe apartments that will be mostly affected
3 by this two-story building. I currently do have, it is mentioned in there and it is also in"
4 the drawing, there is a Monterrey Pine on my patio, which I get filtered light all of the
5 time through. It is not a shade. It does partially shade my patio area I would say mid
6 morning to late afternoon but I as of right now enjoy a lot of morning sun. Also my
7 living room sliding glass windows face the outside patio, which will now face this two-
8 story building. My bedroom window which I can mostly leave open now because the
9 patio is so private I have quite an arrangement of orchids that grow because I receive the
10 filtered sunlight. I mainly chose this apartment because of its privacy, because I was able
11 to have an area to garden in and I do really believe that this two-story building will affect
12 the vegetation and the plants that I grow now and that I enjoy. I do believe that my
13 privacy will be invaded. I have an outdoor fireplace on the patio that on nice evenings I
14 can either barbeque or use to build a small fire and have visitors over and it is quite.
15 Everyone comments on how private and how quiet. How did you find this pla~e? I think
16 that will be gone once this two story building is up. Thank you.
17
18 Chair Cassel: Thank you. Terence Billings to be followed by Denis Johnston.
19
20 Mr. Terence Billings, 2901 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live at 2901
21 Middlefield; number six, which is an apartment that overlooks kind of kitty-corner in the
22 back about 50 feet from the proposed site. The single story -fine. Like the last person
23" said I actually rented that apartment" for an outside deck that I have. It is a really unique
24 apartment. The deck is actually almost bigger than the apartment. That is definitely why
25 I rented it for privacy. Two stories that close by, window angles I don't about all that
26 science but it definitely will be a privacy issue. Upgrading thatlot, all that would great
27 forhim I know, the two story aspect of it would look right down on my deck which is the
28 reason I rented that apartment. Thank you.
29
30 Chair Cassel: Thank you. The next person to speak is Denis Johnston to be followed by
31 Vera M. Shadle.
32
33 Mr. Denis Johnston, 716 Sutter Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening. I have a couple of
34 concerns. I live at 716 Sutter Avenue and my apartment patio and my bedroom window
35 will face directly into the back of this home. I applaud Gary and his family for" taking
36 consideration for his son to provide a better living situation. As I understand it as the
37 house sits now it is quite old and dilapidated and really substandard to say the least.
38 However, I have concerns about a second story being there. I don't think it fits into the
39 pattern or the footprint of the street of Ellsworth. I have concerns that this will open a
40 Pandora's box if you will and set precedents for the other neighbors on Ellsworth to
41 potentially build as well not that it is not within their right but it is a concern. of mine.
42 The footprint of the shadow line is a concern as well and I just wanted to voice this.
43 Thank you very much.
44
1 Ms. Likens: Okay, is this better? I lived in that apartment for about seven and a half
2 years. My first concern has to do with the characteristics of the neighborhood on
3 Ellsworth Place. This would be the first two-story home there. This is a significant break
4 from the current neighborhood appearance and as a matter of public policy I actually
5 disapprove of that. We have had lots of controversy the last several years in Palo Alto
6 about people building monster homes out to·their property lines and intruding upon their
7 neighbors. I believe in the greatest good for the greatest number, worldwide democracy
8 not by plutocracy and that is what that represents to me.
9
10 My bedroom window overlooks the side yard and left side of the house at 705 Ellsworth.
11 I deeply concerned by the prospect of a two story house looming over my apartment and
12 furthermore contrary to what Mr. Stem has said this evening it appears that the
13 caregiver's sitting room windows will look directly into my bedroom window. Now the
14 issues are that my apartment is what called a junior one bedroom, it is essentially an
15 overgrown studio. There is literally nowhere to go to get away from windows and the
16 only doors that close are my walk-in closet and my bathroom so there is nowhere for me
17 to go if somebody is intruding upon my privacy.
18
19 The third point that I want to make actually has to do with my experience ofliving there
20 over the last seven years. Because of the various partiers and other tenants who have
21 been in and out at a great rate at the 705 Ellsworth Place property I have already
22 summoned the police innumerable times over the last seven and a half years to deal with
23 party noise, complaints and other late night and early morning disruptions of my sleep
24 and privacy. Whatever goodwill the tenants of this property possessed was exhausted
25 early and often many years ago from where I sit. I should add also that there are other
26 occasions in which I attempted to solve the problem on my own and asked to cease the
27 disturbance and have been greeted either by being ignored or by verbal abuse. I really
28 just don't have any reason to trust that in my opinion the people at this house have never
29 taken into consideration the privacy or the needs. They have been dreadful neighbors and
30 I really don't want to see that a second story be added to this home because it would add
31 to the noise problems I've had and then be a visual intrusion into my bedroom and further
32 disturbance of my privacy. It is not that I don't sympathize with the need to redevelop
33 the property I just joint with my landlord, Mr. Barri and our other neighbors who ask that
34 it be done in a one story format. Thank you.
35·
36 Chair Cassel: Pat. Could you clarify, I think you are alluding to on I guess the rear part
37 of the property you reside at which faces the backyard of this proposed property.
38
39 Ms. Shadle: It faces the side yard.
40
41 Commissioner Burt: How much open glass space were you saying exists in your
42 apartment?
43
44 Ms. Shadle: Open glass space?
45
1 Commissioner Burt: Yes, if I understood you correctly you were alluding to transparency
2 of your apartment from a second story view. Is that because there is a great deal of open
3 glass?
4
5 Ms. Shadle: Yes, there are two bedroom windows in my very small bedroom and one of
6 them looks out directly onto the side yard at 705 Ellsworth. That has been a big problem
7 because people have, various tenants of that house at various times have not only partied
8 well into the morning hours usually 2:00 AM at least sometimes later and other times
9 during the summertime people have chosen to take cell phone conversations out into the
10 side yard and wake me up or disrupt my sleep, hammering late at night, you name it,
11 anything goes.
12
13 Chair Cassel: I have one more card from Kathy Bilbow. Would you please come
14 forward and speak?
15
16 Ms. Kathy Bilbow, 2901 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto: I used to occupy the space that
17 Terry now occupies at 2901 Middlefield Road, the apartment sits kitty-corner to the
18 property.
19
20 Chair Cassel: For the record could you please tell us where you now live please?
21
22 Ms. Bilbow: I now live in apartment four just across the hall. I initially rented this
23 apartment because of the uniqueness and because of the privacy. I lived there with my
24 daughter who was able to utilize the deck area that overlooks that property that would
25 now if a two-story structure was built would invade some of the privacy. She was able to
26 have private birthday parties, bring her friends over. We were able to have nice
27 barbeques out there. I do believe that this second story would impact that privacy. I was
28 aware of this house on Ellsworth because of the noise and since moved because ofthe
29 banging and some of the loud screaming and things that took place over there. So we
30 since moved from that area to across the hall to get a little bit more privacy. I think with
31 the second structure it would impact the niceness and the privacy of the deck area.
32 Thanks.
33
34 Chair Cassel: Thank you. That is the last card I have so I will bring this back to the
35 Commissioners.
36
37 Commissioner Griffin: I have a question for the applicant.
38
39 Chair Cassel: Fine and then he gets three minutes to make comments ifhe wishes to.
40 We have a question for the applicant. Which person would you like to speak to Mr.
41 Stern?
42
43 Commissioner Griffin: I really don't care whether George or his architect responds. I am
44 wondering if you could perhaps reiterate the rationale for not going with the alternative of
45 building on all one level. You did make reference to that previously but you might want
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23·
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34·
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
to elaborate a little bit more on why you elected not to choose the all on one floor
alternative.
Mr. Northway: The all on one floor alternative was looked at the problem with it is that
it became a very long kind of homogenous building, 17 feet high and it basically severely
diminished this really nice 40 foot wide pocket of open space that the community of
Ellsworth Place enjoys and is very critical to the gardening activity that Gary needs and
enjoys.
I I don't know if you want to see it or not but we actually in part of the shadow studies we
did a study of what a single story 17 foot high building that fills up most of the building
envelop which it would, what kind of shadow it casts. We found essentially it casts a
much bigger shadow over the backyards of the Sutter apartments on December 21 st which
is of course the worst day of the year and in most cases there is no sun. We kind of
laughed at, didn't show it and we kind of in the office called it the "be careful what you
wish for drawing," because it really had a worse shadow pattern than the two story house.
Chair Cassel: Lee had a question for you.
Commissioner Lippert: I have a couple of questions actually. Have you done any
[helidon] studies?
Mr. Northway: Any what?
Commissioner Lippert: [Helidon] type studies.
Mr. Northway: I don't know what those are, Lee, enlighten me.
Commissioner Lippert: Put the light on the table at the PG&E energy center and you sort
of crank it up to the right date, December 21, and then you do the summer solstice as
well.
Mr. Northway: No, we didn't do those. The photos you have in the packet Alena can
explain the data were taken and we actually did orient them properly.
Commissioner Lippert: So those aren't just pictures ofthe JTl.odelthose were solar
studies.
Mr. Northway: That's right.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay, I got it. Then the second question I had is did you look at
shorting the plate line along the backside of the house?
Mr. Northway: The plate line is only eight feet high so we didn't want to make it any
shorter.
1 Commissioner Lippert: Hear me out. Did you look at all at shorting the plate line and
2 coming up with an average ceiling height of seven-six by cathedralizing some of the
3 spaces? What I am looking at particularly is on the second level the closet area and the
4 area over the tub and then possibly dormorizing the landing at the top of the stairs to
5 make it appear shorter in the back.
6
7. Mr. Northway: We actually didn't because we felt that eight-foot plates were marginal,
8 we usually work at higher ones. And we also felt that an overall building height of 23
9 feet two inches was very modest in a zone that allows a 30-foot height.
.10
11 Commissioner Holman: Okay, thank you.
12
13 Chair Cassel: Is there anyone else that has a question of the applicant? Karen.
14
15 Commissioner Holman: I can hear where yoil are going in terms of a single story house
16 being 17 foot high but when I went and visited the court it seems like there are other
17 single story homes there that look to be more like 12 or so feet high and there are
18 different pitches and different plate heights and stuff that could be considered. So why
19 specifically a 17 foot height for single story as opposed to some of the other pitches?
20
21 Mr. Northway: Because if you can work with a 17-foot height you can actually open up
22 the ceilings and have the spaces be much nicer inside. If you go to Ellsworth and about
23· two doors down from George's property on the opposite side of the street there is a house
24 that clearly has done some kind of entry atrium and that has a roof that has been popped
25 up to 17 feet. '
26
27 Chair Cassel: Any other questions or the applicant? Pat.
28
29 Commissioner Burt: John, clearly we have a couple of issues. One is some of the things
30 that might be able to be addressed by the IR review process and others are daylight plane
31 issues that probably are most appropriate here. So when I look at your model I keep
32 looking at is there some way to reduce this section ofthe second floor and thereby reduce
33 the daylight plane either with some modest extension out into the other area not making it
34 necessarily a single story or you have this rear patio which I am sure is very desirable for
35 the resident but we are dealing with the trade-offs between this resident and the adjacent
36 residents. So can you comment on the feasibility of either ofthose mechanisms to reduce
37 the daylight plane impact on adjacent properties?
38
39 Mr. Northway: First of all the second floor is really relatively small. It is about 700 feet
40 and it is really setup for the caregiver. So it has a bedroom, a bathroom and there has to
41 be a stair getting up and then there is a sitting room. The sitting room is what is the
42 furthest pushed back and the bathroom and the stair is what are most forward. What we
43 did was we located the functional parts of the second floor so that again working with the
44 privacy aspect ofIR so that any windows that were generated wouldn't be windows that
45 people would stand at and look out of. As I said on the second story part that is closest to
46 the property line one window is a bathroom window above a bathtub so you would have
1 to stand in the bathtub to look out of it. The other is a window that provides light to the
2 stair landing. We looked at an awful lot of things and making the second floor work for
3 someone who was going to live in it was obviously the challenge. If you look at the leg
4 part of the L, the narrowest part, we have it on an overhead, which Alena will put there.
5 Essentially the daylight plane if you don't grant the Variance for the daylight plane is
6 absolutely flush with the face ofthe sitting room wall. I think it is important to note we
7 are not asking for permission to do a second floor. The second floor is part of the granted
8 uses under the zoning for this site. Weare really talking about how to configure the
9 second floor so that actually it looks the best for the site and for the neighborhood. What
10 would happen if we took off the closet, the bathroom and reconfigured the stair is the
11 second floor would just get longer and pulled more down the face of the property creating
12 a much less well composed and less well massed second floor. So the Variance for
13 moving the daylight plane really helps to create a better design and the windows that are
14 on that part of the design that intrudes into the daylight plane are not windows that
15 anyone is going to stand at and look. I think it is also important to note that on that
16 drawing to the right and down on the other side of the property is a two-story apartment
17 and to the left is a two-story apartment. The apartments that people are worried about
18 their privacy are actually 67 feet away from that one window that looks in that direction
19 which is a greater distance than occurs in most of our regular R-l zones where you have
20 20-foot rear setback lines.
21
22 Not to go into too much history but when we did the IR, and you all know about it,
23 privacy is a very relative word in a town that has small lots and permits second stories.
24 There is no absolute privacy. If you want to stand at your window and look at somebody
25 you can. Most people don't.
26
27 Chair Cassel: John, when I looked at the plans if you take what would normally be a side
28 lot line and the daylight plane for a side lot line if it was six feet and you draw it up as
29 high as you are supposed to and angle it in the way you are supposed to does this second
30 floor meet a standard .side line daylight plane?
31
32 Mr. Northway: Yes. I can do it from here. This is some kind oflaser. We actually drew
33 it and it is in your packet. This is the property line and the daylight plane would come up
34 and go over just like that. It does touch the eave. It is this line right there. That is a
35 normal side yard daylight plane. So ifthis lot wereJi't so screwy ifthe front yard was on
36 the side and rear yard was on the side and the two that are now fronts were the sides this
37 absolutely would hit the R-l zoning for the daylight plane. This is the worst-case
38 scenario. We have the cross section for the other one too.
39
40 Chair Cassel: You had a question, Michael?
41
42 Commissioner Griffin: John, I am wondering in the course ofthe IR review did any of
43 you discuss the possibility of addressing privacy by using frosted glass or partial window
44 coverings with film for example? I am trying to get at some of these concerns raised by
45 the nearby neighbors.
46
1 Mr. Northway: Leaping ahead to the February 3 hearing for IR ifthat becomes an
2 overwhelming problem it is not a problem because it is a bathr09m window they can
3 have frosted glass and it is a stairwell and we really put it there to provide light to the
4 landing ofthe stair. It is not a place anyone is going to stand and lookbut if anyone is
5 concerned about it putting an obscure glass is not a problem at all.
6
7 Chair Cassel: That will be reviewed at the IR process hearing.
8
9 Commissioner Griffin: That likewise could apply to the sitting room I think is the third
10 window that is at issue here.
11
12 Mr. Northway: It could. Again, that is more of a bedroom kind of a habitation room. It
13 certainly can. One of those sets of windows either the window that looks at the Sutter
14 side or the Middlefield side has to be the size that it is because of the egress requirements
15 but one of those windows could change in size and become a clearstory window too if
16 that is a major overriding concern.
17
18 Commissioner Griffin: Also, you say something to the effect that your client would be
19 willing to provide some landscaping in the back some tall trees or something of that
20 nature.
21
22 Mr. Northway: Absolutely, George would be happy to. We didn't want to get super
23 specific with that because there are sort of conflicting complaints. One is a complaint
24 about privacy, which the landscaping certainly does help. Another complaint is about
25 real or imagined shadows. and obviously landscaping grows. Quite frankly the most
26 dominant shadows there are cast by the trees but iflandscaping used to obscure the view
27 ofthe second floor is desirable that is absolutely not a problem.
28
29 Chair Cassel: That would be discussed I believe at the IR.
30
31 Mr. Northway: I assume that would be out of another union over at the IR group.
32
33 Chair Cassel: Are there any other questions we have for the applicant? Karen.
34
35 Commissioner Holman: 'I have a couple. John, can you clarify something for me
36 because on sheet five of the plans that we have it indicates that the side daylight plane, I
37 need help with this, it indicates that the side daylight plane is measured up ten feet and
38 then at a 45 degree angle?
39
40 Mr. Northway: This is back to Phyllis's question. That is not the daylight plane that is in
41 play. That we put on that drawing to show that if this were a side yard the side yard
42 daylight plane goes up ten feet and over at 45. The rear yard daylight plane, which is
43 what you are considering tonight as part ofthe Variance, it goes up 15 and then at a 60-
44 degree angle.
45
1 Commissioner Holman: Understood, but my confusion is that in heard correctly I think
2 the question from Chair Cassel was that if this were a side yard as opposed to a rear yard
3 . would it be within the daylight plane?
4
5 Mr. Northway: The answer is yes.
6
7 Chair Cassel: Sheet five doesn't deal with that.
8
9 Commissioner Holman: I understand. I am Ve1Y clear on that. What I am saying is that
10 it seems to me that a side yard daylight plane that would be applied, which it isn't your
11 side yard it is your rear yard.
12
13 Mr. Northway: Correct.
14
15 Commissioner Holman: But it would appear to me that if you were going to do it that
16 way to give a clear answer it seems like there should be a line drawn up ten feet and at a
17 45 degree angle to determine whether it would be compliant or not and what we have
18 here is a line up 16 feet and at a 60 degree angle.
19
20 Mr. Northway: That is because that is the rear yard daylight plane.
21
22 Commissioner Holman: I understand but the question ....
23
24 Mr. Northway: We did .....
25
26 Chair Cassel: Wait a minute both of you. I think we can find the drawing for your that
27 shows that.
28
29 Commissioner Lippert: It is sheet four, Attachment G.
30
31 Mr. Northway: That just projects on there what the side yard daylight plane would look
32 at if this was a side yard but of course it is not a side yard it is a rear yard.
33
34 Commissioner Holman: How does sheet four deal with daylight plane?
35
36 Chair Cassel: You have to look at Attachment G, sheet four.
37
38 Commissioner Lippert: It is in the Staff Report, Attachment·G.
39
40 Mr. Northway: It is up on the screen.
41
42 Commissioner Griffin: It is just not very clear.
43
44 Ms. Grote: On that sheet the daylight planes are shown in dashed lines. They are lighter
45 than the lines of the house but they are shown in dashed lines. It shows the measurement
46 going up ten feet and then angled back at 45 degrees.
1
2 Commissioner Holman: I see it now. I was looking at the plan drawings. I have it now.
3 Thanks for the clarification on that. Then the other question is in considering this all
4 being a single story house was there consideration given to, I don't want to design it for
5 you but at the same time I did have when I was reviewing this if you will there was some
·6 space that could be eliminated in the main portion of the house like the family room.
7 There is a family room and a living room for instance and the courtyard could be the
8 open space could them be to the side and there could be a connector so that the caregivers
9 unit could still be nearby with open space in between and that would break up the mass of
10 a single story house too. Was that a consideration?
11
12 Mr. Northway: The general different layouts that we did and again looking at the
13 function and it was really to give a private place for the caregiver and a private place for-
14 Gary and to preserve quite frankly the aim was preserve and enlarge the open space that
15 serve both the house and the street. It just didn't work very well with a single story
16 scheme.
17
18 Commissioner Holman: Thank you.
19
20 Chair Cassel: Okay, the applicant has three minutes to summarize and answer any
21 comments that have been made or respond to any comments that have been made. Do
22 you wish to use that?
23-
24 Mr. Northway: No.
25
26 Chair Cassel: Okay, they don't wish to do that so let me close the public hearing and
27 bring the item back to us. Do you have any other questions of Staff? Annette.
28
29 Commissioner Bialson: I want to clarify exactly what we are deciding tonight. I assume
30 in that regard we should be looking at the December 7 letter and the Variances that are
31 set forth there, the three items, and our discussion should be to that. Is that correct?
32
33 Ms. Grote: That is correct.
34
35 Commissioner Bialson: Any assistance other than bringing our attention to that as to how
36 we should formulate our discussion or narrow our discussion?
37
38 Chair Cassel: I have a couple ofthings I think we need to think about. One is that we
39 cannot make a decision here either for or against the applicant based upon the situation in
40 which the members of the household of the applicant find themselves. Discrimination
41 either for or against would be very bad either way. You can say something to that if want
42 Dan but we are not making this decision based on the particular tenants that are in it but
43 rather upon the plans that are presented before us.
44
45 Mr. Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys: I just want to point out that this
46 is the first Variance before the Planning Commission that is being processed under the
1 newly adopted Variance procedures you have. As you remember those findings for
2 making a Variance were slightly modified and the point that you just raIsed was actually
3 incorporated into the very language of the findings. If! can find them here just briefly. It
4 really relates to the special circumstances that you have to find in making a Variance. As
5 you know, we explicitly put in the ordinance that.special circumstances that are expressly
6 excluded from consideration are the personal circumstances of the property owner and
7 any changes in the size, shape of the subject property made by the property owner or his
8 predecessors and interests while the property was subject to the same zoning designation.
9 So that is explicitly in the ordinance now. When we are talking about special
10 circumstances we are talking about special circumstances dealing only with the property
11 such as shape, size, topography, location and surroundings. So it has to deal with specific
12 real property considerations. It may be helpful to focus on those findings in the Record
13 of Land Use Action that is attached to your Staff Report. As you know there are four of
14 those findings for a Variance.
15
16 Ms. Grote: The other thing that I did want to point out is that the Variance findings are
17 addressed as a whole, as a package,so the requests for Variance you won't see pulled out
18 specifically or individually in the findings. The findings are made to address all three
19 requests together. So they are not specifically pulled out.
20
21 Chair Cassel: Pat.
22
23 Commissioner Burt: Perhaps Staff could review not only for the Commission but for the
24 benefit of the public who may not be so familiar with it how the IR review process would
25 be attempting to address the privacy concerns.
26
27 Ms. Grote: The IR process looks at a variety of guidelines or standards there are now
28 nine ofthem, three of which relate to privacy. It has to do with window placement and.
29 balcony location and other types of orientation of buildings to one another. In this
30 particular case it was reviewed by our Planning Staff as well as our consulting architect.
31 The findings were made or the determination was made that those guidelines or those
32 standards had been met. At that point neighbors and/or occupants are notified that live
33 adjacent to and across the street from the subject site and they can request a Director's
34 Hearing should they want to discuss any of those aspects, any of the guidelines or the
35 standards. In this case that was requested particularly around the fact that there are three
36 windows that face adjacentproperties. As the applicant's architect mentioned tonight
37 two ofthose windows are in areas that are less used ina traditional sense. One is over a
38 bathtub, one is on a stair landing and it is unlikely that there is going to be a lot of activity
39 there that would lead to someone viewing somebody's backyard or into their private
40 space. The third is a window that is in a sitting area again the way it is located it is not
41 directly across from an existing window in the apartments adjacent to it and it is quite a
42 distance from those existing windows. So it was determined not to be an encroachment
43 on that neighbor's privacy. That will be further discussed again as the applicant's
44 .architect mentioned tonight that can be further discussed at the Director's Hearing. There
45 may be some options for clearstory windows or obscure glass in that window as well.
1 But that was what was looked at as part of the IR or Individual Review process, window
2 placement, adjacency to neighboring buildings and balconies.
3
4 Commissioner Burt: Lisa, when you say there may be opportunities to look at different
5 types of glass materials that would provide greater privacy we are kind of in a dilemma
6 here because the IR review process is intended to take on those kinds of issues. On the
7 other hand within the Variance in finding number three we are talking about having to
8 have a finding that it would not conflict with comfort, convenience and general welfare
9 of the neighbors. So in the absence of having adequately addressed those privacy
10 concerns we have a dilemma on how we can grant a Variance. So we kind of have a
11 chicken and egg problem in that regard in my mind.
12
13 Ms. Grote: The Staff recommendation asapproved by the Director would be that there is
14 not an encroachment into privacy or a negative adverse impact on the use of adjacent
15 properties. That is why we had approved the Variance. So we were making that finding
16 in the negative so to speak that there is no negative impact or no adverse impact on a
17 neighboring property due to those window placements or other aspects of the Variance
18 request.
19
20 Commissioner Burt: But you had stated that at the appeal, ifI understood you correctly,
21 the request for a public hearing on the IR that I thought you had said that Staff may be
22 open to looking at those types of window materials.
23
24 Ms. Grote: I said there may be some opportunity. I don't know that Staff would· be
25 making that request. In fact Staff would not be making that request. If there is a
26 discussion between the concerned neighbors and the applicant and the applicant would
27 like to make those changes then that is certainly an opportunity for them to do so. It
28 would not be a required condition that Staff would place on the IR approval.
29
30 Chair Cassel: Dan, I would like to ask you a question. There isn't in the process that we
31 are facing an absolute guarantee that there will be no shadows in your backyard under
32 any circumstances when we build a project first or second story, is that correct?
33
34 Mr. Sodergren: That is correct. In just getting back a little bit to the discussion as far as
35 the overlap between the IR and the Variance process there is that finding number four
36 that the granting of the application will not have any detrimental effects properties in the
37 vicinity. If you do find that there is substantial evidence that there would be a
38 detrimental effect you can suggest conditions to mitigate that effect to the Council as part
39 ofthe Variance. They are not mutually exclusive the IR and the Variance process and
40 there may be some overlap.
41
42 Chair Cassel: Looking at questions. Bonnie, do you have a question?
43
44 Vice Chair Packer: Yes, I have a question. I want to ask if this is a way to approach this
45 in order to separate out the IR from the Variance request. There are three Variance
46 requests that are very physical in terms of distance from property lines, the setbacks.
1 Two of them are the setbacks and the third one is the daylight plane, which affects the
2 physical shape ofthe roofline. None bfthe Variances in my mind if! am correct relate to
3 where the windows are. So is an appropriate way to look at this as just look at this
4 building shape and envelope and its footprint because those are what the three Variances
5 are addressing? That way we don't need to in our discussion look into the placement of
6 windows because there is nothing in the Variance thattalks about windows.
7
8 Mr. Sodergren: You are correct. The detrimental effects would have to be related. to the
9 requested Variances. So in other words the setbacks and the daylight planes. If those
10 considerations cause concerns and you feel that you can't make that fourth finding simply
11 limited to those considerations then you could suggest conditions.
12
13 Chair Cassel: The next person is Annette.
14
15 Commissioner Bialson: I assume that the apartments located at 704 to 718 Sutter the
16 zoning requirements allow those apartments to be rebuilt at some point in the future to
17 two stories, is that correct? I assume there would be no regulations that we could impose
18 on them if zoning allows that as to window placement, etc. for the apartments. Is that
19 correct?
20
21 Ms. Grote: That is correct. They could build to two stories. They would go through an
22 Architectural Review with our Architectural Review Board but they could be built to two
23-stories.
24
25 Commissioner Bialson: And in that Architectural Review would there be an issue with
26 regard to privacy?
27
28 Ms. Grote: The ARB standards don't specifically address privacy but they do address
29 transitions between uses.
30
31 Commissioner Griffin: I am wondering if we could pick up on some of the discussion
32 that Dan and Pat were having on the apparent overlap between the Commission tonight
33 for example asking for privacy to be addressed through modification of the windows and
34 you are indicating that we can make a motion that includes that condition of approval and
35 at the same time that would not conflict with what is going to happen in another couple of
36 weeks when this application goes before the IR hearing?
37
38 Mr. Sodergren: Well two things. Th~y are separate processes and like I said there may
39 be some overlap depending.on ifthere are conditions suggested tonight. As I mentioned
40 previously you can as long as it is tied to the impacts of the requested Variances, the three
41 . items, the setbacks and the daylight plane you can make those suggested conditions as
42 part of the Variance. When it goes to IR those may be further enhanced or may be
43 potentially modified.
44
45 Commissioner Burt: Follow on to that, I just wanted to make sure I was clear on the
46 issue of given that the discussions that we are having about rear windows and things all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23-
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
fall within the setback Variance are they not then within the aspects that are properly
within our purview tonight?
Mr. Sodergren: Yes I think they would be if they do relate to those Variance
considerations.
Commissioner Holman: I was curious about what the rear daylight plane would look like
for this project. There was not one included in our packet and I had submitted that
previously. Does Staff have anything to show us as to what the rear daylight plane would
look like?
Chair Cassel: Do you want the rear daylight plane, as it would be if this were a 20
setback?
Commissioner Holman: Correct.
Chair Cassel: So you would take the property line 20 feet back from the rear line to
almost the middle of the property and then do it.
Commissioner Holman: Correct.
Ms. Grote: We did not prepare that. I believe the applicant did.
Chair Cassel: Is it okay if we have the applicant demonstrate this for us?
Mr. Northway: This may be a little dim but I will trace it with my finger. This is the
house through Gary's room on the bottom and a stairwell. This line running along here is
20 feet and going up and over is the normal rear daylight plane. That is for the wider part
of the second floor. This is the sitting room and you can see the daylight plane goes right
up the wall and over. So essentially this part of the second floor, the narrower part. Yes,
pretty close.
Chair Cassel: I need to hear what you are saying.
Commissioner Holman: I was asking the architect, John, if what I had drawn was
accurate and he said, yes, essentially. So I was asking ifhe could put that up it mightbe
a little clearer.
39 . Mr. Northway: This is basically correct. I am just looking. This is the one that I just
40 showed you. This is the wider part of the second floor, this side and then the one up
41 above is the narrower part. Basically the narrower part fits into the 20-foot daylight
42 plane. When you are asking about had we looked at other configurations we looked at
43 this but the problem is you would get a second floor running the length ofthe building
44 this wide.
45
1 Commissioner Holman: So I have a question for the City Attorney. There is a lot to
2 contend with here and based on the comments from the other Commissioners I don't
3 think, I am not trying to speak out of tum here, I don't think anyone has difficulty with
4 the front and rear setbacks. Speaking for myself there would be pretty much no
5 development potential on the property if we didn't grant Variances for the front and rear
6 setbacks. I think where we are having some difficulty is with the daylight plane
7 encroachment. So the three questions for the City Attorney would be even though a
8 second floor is permitted is it guaranteed by zoning? Is full FAR that is permissible on
9 the property guaranteed by zoning?
10
11 Mr. Sodergren: Perhaps one way to explore those issues would be to maybe as far as the
12 daylight plane issue go back and revisit the first two findings. The first finding is one of
13 special circumstances and the special circumstance in this case is that this is a wide
14 shallow lot. So in other words the purpose of this finding is to determine whether the
15 wide shallow lot would deprive that property of a normal daylight plane that the other
16 properties would enjoy. Then the second finding really deals with the magnitude of the
17 Variance. If you find that there are special circumstances then you have to determine the
18 amount of Variance necessary to bring that property in parody with other properties in the
19 same zoning district in the same location. So it may be helpful to split it into those two
20 findings and explore those findings a bit.
21
22 Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: To the Chair, I would like to add on to the
23 comments ofthe City Attorney. The reason this is a unique lot is because ofthe lot shape
24 and orientation. It is orientated away and the reason it is wide and shallow is that it
25 doesn't front on a street in the conventional way. The narrow part of the lot as we know
26 on a conventionaUot faces the street and lots are long and deep. So if you look at this in
27 those terms and make that exception finding we think the daylight plane is a very close
28 connection to that because you know in your comments from both Staff and the applicant
29 that the daylight plane for a side yard, which this would be if it were in the correct
30 orientation, conforms. So we think there is a direct relationship between the orientation
31 of the lot and the unique circumstance that justifies the daylight plane as well as the other
32 findings because they do very closely relate.
33
34 Chair Cassel: I would like to bring this back to us for discussion amongst ourselves to
35 see where we are at with each other. I think it is important that each of us express our
36 concerns and we talk amongst ourselves about what are concerns are. Karen.
37
38 Commissioner Holman: I have just one or two more questions for Staff. One is the
39 findings that were associated with number two that Staff had proposed. I will save it for
40 comments.
41
42 Chair Cassel: Okay. We have three Variances we are looking at would someone like to
43 begin to talk about how they feel about these and any comments they might have?
44 Annette.
45
46 Commissioner Bialson: Does Karen want to speak to it first?
1
2 Commissioner Holman: Sure. I have absolutely no problem. 1 am very, very
3 sympathetic to the front and rear setback Variances as I stated previously there really
4 would be no development potential on this property if we didn't grant those Variances
5 and that has to do with of course the orientation of the property being shallow and long
6 rather than the other way around. The difficulty does come with the daylight plane
7 exception. We have to make findings. I am having difficulty making those findings for
8 the daylight plane exception. The findings for the Variance that have been used talk
9 . about the development pattern being consistent, substantially compliant with the
. 10 regulations and not special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other
11 properties in the vicinity in the same zoning district. What is presented before us is that
12 this project is being allowed to develop in a manner more consistent with the surrounding
13 R -1 neighborhood. When I went and visited this court while there is a two-story
14 apartment building oriented towards Middlefield it transitions down as you enter into the
15 court. Then everything else except for the little what I called a little topknot on the one
16 house across the street and down some from this one everything else is single story,
17 everything else is if you average them out they are probably an average of700 square
18 feet, the buildings, the homes. There may be some that are a little bit smaller and some
19 maybe a little bit larger. The Comp Plan does talk about not making abrupt changes so I
20 am having some trouble making that finding. The granting of the applicant will not be
21 detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The daylight plane
22 samples show me that there would be considerable daylight plane intrusions on
23· surrounding properties. So I am having some difficulty with this and perhaps the rest of
24 the Commission might enlighten me.
25
26 The rear daylight plane is as I have understood it, well obviously it is not a side daylight
27 plane and a rear daylight plane is there I believe to protect the privacy of adjacent
28 properties. Most people's private area is in the rear of their property. That is true with
29 most properties. So that is why we have a 20-foot at the rear setback and a daylight plane
30 and it is only six feet on the side. It is to address the daylight plane to the rear and their
31 light. Perhaps the other Commissioners can enlighten me but I am struggling with being
32 able to make the findings for the daylight plane. And, while I understand that there are
33 preferences perhaps to a 17-foot high building on a single floor there are other ways to
34 design. It might not be optimal but we don't always get what we want. So I am open to
35 what other Commissioners have to say about this.
36
37 Chair Cassel: Annette.
38
39 Commissioner Bialson: Well, I agree with Karen that the issue of the front setback and
40 rear setback encroachment Variances is sort of a non-issue. I feel completely
41 comfortable making those findings. With regard to the rear daylight plane encroachment
42 I have no problem making the findirigs necessary for that as well.
43
44 We are talking about a ten inch encroachment and it does run 40 feet but I do believe that
45 if you look at the various ways that the applicant has attempted to design the building so
46 you have minimum impacts on neighbors and mitigate the need for any sort of Variance
1 in that regard I think he has done an excellent job with regard to that. Surrounding this is
2 multiple dwelling units on two sides. We are a substantial distance away from those and
3 apartments could be modified. There is a question as to whether they are at the end of
4 their useful life at this point in time. They could go to two stories very easily without all
5 the protections and safeguards given by the Individual Review process. I would rather
6 see the Individual Review process address the issues that I think we are wrestling with
7 here. So I am going to propose that we agree entirely with Staff and let this go on to the
8 procedure that we created to address these issues and that is the Individual Review
9 process.
10
11 Commissioner Griffin: I wanted to revisit the point that Commissioner Holman was
12 'discussing about the two-story structure if I understand your point, Karen. The two story
13 structure not being particularly consistent with the courtyard streetscape and massing. I
14 guess the flip to that is a single story solution yields a long drawn out structure, which is
15 not particularly consistent with the cottages on the court either. So for me I then listened
16 to Steve's comment in the Staff Report here that talks about if this property were
17 reoriented so that what is currently a rear yard setback were to be a side yard setback it
18 would pass and we wouldn't be here tonight discussing this thing. I think that from a
19 personal standpoint it is meaningful to me because this property does mimic in many,
20 many respects my own and consequently I am pretty empathetic to the applicant's
21 situation and I think that I would probably be in favor of supporting the Staff
22 recommendation with the addition of some language that would direct either Councilor
23 the IR process or both to pursue this privacy aspect on those three windows that seem to
24 be causing a problem and make sure that they are addressed. I am proposing that frosted
25 glass would be one method of doing that.
26
27 Chair Cassel: I guess I will talk as we go down the line rather than being last all the time.
28 I don't have any problems with the front or the rear setbacks based on all the reasons that
29 everyone else has been talking about. I argued with myself about why the rear setback
30 should be the way it is and what it is and finally decided that it meets the daylight plane
31 for the side setback. The fact this is not a second story that it is going to reach the 30 foot
32 height or is not try to reach the maximum height that sometimes exist means that it is able
33 to stay within that daylight plane. The second floor is actually some distance from the
34 other buildings that are around it. It is very common in town to have a 20-foot setback on
35 one property and a six-foot setback 9n the next property based on the orientation ofthose
36 particular houses on comer lots, etc. This is very common. It is the experience that I
37 have in my house and it is not unusual. If this house happened to have a road along
38 behind the apartments that are along Middlefield we would now have a standard lot, we
39 would have a 20-foot setback along the apartments and we would have a six-foot setback
40 along this side of the street. It is a very standard procedure that we have all over town. It
41 is the standard way we build houses in this town. Two stories are very common in this
42 house. I think the other piece to note is that although this is a second story there is no one
43 on the street where we are comparing these small units that would prefer to have a long
44 thin house. They would prefer to have the two-story house and they are here to support
45 that two-story house. They have expressed an interest in having the side yard or
46 backyard whichever way you see the orientation be large enough so it does provide them
1 some break and some space on that street and feel a little more open. So I will be
2 supporting the motion and I can make the findings. Bonnie. No, I don't have a motion.
3 Eventually there will be a motion. I will be supporting this issue.
4
5 Vice Chair Packer: If you want I could probably make a motion.
6
7 Chair Cassel: No let's go down the line first.
8
9 Vice Chair Packer: Okay. Then my comments will be that I agree with what Phyllis has
10 said and what Michael and Annette have said and also Karen with regard to the first two
11 Variance requests. I don't have a problem with the daylight plane Variance request
12 because if we agree amongst ourselves that it is appropriate to have a variance for the rear
13 setback which is approximately equivalent to what might be a side setback if we used our
14 semantics differently then since a second story is allowed under the R-l zoning for this
15 area, there is no single story overlay here, then it is just logical to go with the third
16 Variance request. Since they do want to build a second story you have to deal with the
17 daylight plane and the daylight plane has to start from that point where the setback is as
18 opposed to the 20-foot setback so it is all tied together. You can't say that you agree with
19 the rear setback Variance and not agree with the daylight plane Variance because second
20 stories are allowed. If you say you don't agree with the daylight plane Variance then you
21 are in essence saying you can't have a second story or you can have a second story that is
22 a very tiny second story. So that is another perspective I want to add to the comments
23 that my fellow Commissioners have brought forth. When there is a motion to support the
24 Staff Report I will support that motion.
25
26 Chair Cassel: Would one of you please start?
27
28 Commissioner Burt: Well first I would like to offer a different perspective on this issue
29 of if we think that a ground floor setback Variance is not a problem to any of us therefore
30 we cannot have any concerns over the second floor impact ofthat setback. I think that is
31 an incorrect assumption. We may still want to support this proposal but I don't think it
32 necessarily follows. I think what we have here is agreement among all Commissioners
33 that we don't have a problem with granting a setback variance on a ground floor. Where
34 the rubber meets the road is what is the impact if you extend that variance up to the
35 second floor? What is the impact on the daylight plane and the privacy issues? That is
36 what is the crux of the problem that we have here or those of us· that have any problem
37 with it.
38
39 So it could also follow if we had to technically make a decision that we can say yes, I am
40 in perfect support I have no problem whatsoever with a setback on the front and rear on
41 the ground floor but if that necessarily means that the daylight plane encroachments are
42 all granted then maybe I could not support that rear setback. Now having said that I am
43 inclined to support something that would allow a second story and allow those setbacks.
44 The question is how can we balance the interests and the preferences of those on
45 Ellsworth both the applicant and the neighbors on Ellsworth who are in favor of this
46· design because from that streetscape it has desirable aspects with the interests ofthose on
1 Sutter who have a negative impact imposed upon them. I think that is what we need to
2 attempt to balance. In the findings and a literal reading of the findings as opposed to
3 what might be our inclinations to support this I think it is a bit more problematic because
4 even though the Staff says it is consistent with Policy L-12, Policy L-12 talks about
5 preserving the character of the residential neighborhood in remodels and to make it
6 compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Well that is what we are
7 struggling with, is it compatible with adjacent structures and adjacent includes behind?
8 So that is the issue. I certainly at a minimum would favor what Michael was talking
9 about is that because a Variance is something that goes beyond normal circumstances,
10 beyond an HIE and in this case these are significant Variances that we are granting. They
11 may be justified but these are very significant Variances then it seems to be within our
12 purview and I would be inclined to say that it would be appropriate to impose certain
13 restrictions in the Variance review process to help protect some of the privacy.
14
15 Second, I would wish that there were a proposal that would have that second floor
16 remodeled somewhat somewhere in between what would be the maximum allowed
17 without a second floor setback and what is being proposed. I think it just extends too
18 close to that rear yard property line and too much of a daylight plane encroachment on
19 the properties on Sutter but I don't know that there is a reasonable solution to that
20 problem and that was one of the reasons that I was interested in hearing whether
21 Commissioner Lippert had any ideas on that subject.
22
23· Commissioner Lippert: Well in looking at this the first thing I would like to say is that I
24 agree with most of the comments that my fellow Commissioners have said here. This
25 definitely is a lot that had been turned around and there are serious constraints on it
26 allowing for normal development. With that said I am pretty much in support of the
27 findings and the recommendations here for a number of reasons. First of all I want to say
28 that had the adjacent property behind this property been zoned R-l I might not be
29 inclined to support the recommendations here. If there was an overlay zone that said that
30 this is a one-story neighborhood and constrained all the other properties and making it
31 single story I wouldn't want to see a second story here. But with that I think that the
32 architect here as well as the owner is making the best of a very, very bad and difficult
33 ·situation. Just if this lot had been oriented the other way so that the narrow portion had
34 been facing the street we wouldn't be having this discussion. There were a number of
35 comments also that the public had made with regard to this being a monster home. I
36 think ifthis were located on a typical standard lot this would be a modest home that we
37 are talking about here.
38
39 Now getting to the crux of the matter that Pat has sort of hemmed me in I live in a very
40 similar situation. I live in a single story cottage on a comer lot and I happen to have a
41 two-story apartment building literally adjacent to me. The neighbors do have their deck,
42 their staircase and their deck how they approach their apartments overlooking what
43 would be considered my side yard. I don't consider that to be a privacy issue at all. In
44 fact they can look right into my bedroom windows and I have curtains that I use to
45 maintain my privacy. They put up with my dog. I have a dog run out there and I have a
46 rather large dog that likes to be verbose but we seem to get along just fine. They respect
1 my privacy and I don't see them lingering out there overlooking my side yard trying to
2 gawk into my windows at all. That is their main staircase into their building.
3
4 In addition to that the daylight plane issue as it turns out these buildings are configured
5 exactly the same way as my house and my neighbor's. I don't see that building next door
6 as an inherent right to continual daylight. I get a lot of daylight most of the day and in
7 the winter time most of the time it is overcast in the morning and the sun generally
8 doesn't peek through until about nine 0' clock and then it hits my property and it is just
9 fine. So I really don't see any problem with this and if Bonnie had not said something
10 ab()ut wanting to make the motion I would have done it.
11
12 Vice Chair Packer: Go ahead Lee.
13
14 MOTION
15
16 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Well I make a motion here that we support and uphold
17 the Director's recommendation for the Variance along with the Record of Land Use
18 Action.
19
20 SECOND
21
22 Commissioner Bialson:· I second it.
2J
24 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you.
25
26 Chair Cassel: Okay, a motion has been made by Commissioner Lippert and seconded by
27 Commissioner Bialson. Do you wish to speak to it any more than you have?
28
29 Commissioner Lippert: Yes I just want to say one other thing about obscuring windows.
30 I have had to deal with this before and it is not an unpleasant thing to have to do to some
31 windows to apply a film but it does severely limit what happens in those spaces
32 considerably. I think that it can be handled in a number of ways with regard to curtains,
33 draperies. I think that it is inthe neighbor's best interest to also take ample steps to make.
34 sure that they have curtains and draperies that they can draw equally.
35
36 Chair Cassel: Annette.
37
38 Commissioner Bialson: I think we have all spoken to it and I have nothing further to say.
39
40 Chair Cassel: Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this? Michael.
41
42 Commissioner Griffin: I was going to propose a friendly amendment but I will wait for
43 Commissioner Holman's comments.
44
45 Commissioner Holman: Well, this is an unusual lot and that is why everyone is in favor
46 of the front and rear setback Variances. However, what IS illustrated up here is what the
1 typical daylight plane area would be. I can appreciate that this would be compliant if this
2 were a side yard but indeed it is not a side yard it is a rear yard and for reasons I stated
3 earlier the rear yard's daylight plane is there to provide some assurance of some daylight
4 to neighbors behind which is typically people's more private space. Indeed the
5 apartments behind could redevelop but they also have a daylight plane that they have to
6 comply with and there are people who live there now who have a right to expect that
7 daylight planes will be considered as a part of their expectation. The single story aspect
8 keeps being referred to as a long building incompatible with the neighborhood. John
9 Northway is a very capable creative architect and there are ways that it doesn't have to be
10 that. I couldn't be more certain of that. Privacy that we keep talking about is really an
11 Individual Review process and while I appreciate that people are mentioning that and are
12 sensitive to that it is really an Individual Review process and my concern about this is the
13 daylight plane. I have not heard anything that has helped me be able to make the
14 findings. The fact that the apartment behind could redevelop doesn't help me make
15 findings. The fact that this could satisfy the daylight plane if it was a side yard even
16 though it is a rear yard doesn't help me make findings. I am struggling with that. I can't
17 make the findings for that third Variance for the daylight plane.
18
19 Chair Cassel: Michael.
20
21 AMENDMENT
22
23· Commissioner Griffin: I would like to propose a friendly amendment without specifying
24 exactly what techniques would be used to mitigate the privacy concerns of the neighbors
25 without talking about film or curtains or whatever. I would like to propose text that
26 would direct Council and the IR review committee to pay specific attention to the three
27 rear facing windows of the project. Maybe somebody else has some better way to phrase
28 that but that is my proposal.
29
30 Chair Cassel: It is up to Lee to decide whether he will accept this.
31
32 Commissioner Lippert: I will accept it. I think that you have made it pretty open there.
33
34 Chair Cassel: Annette?
35
36 Commissioner Bialson: That would be fine with me.
37
38 Chair Cassel: Do either of them want to make any comments on that? No, okay.
39
40 Commissioner Lippert: I think the IR process can handle it.
41
42 Chair Cassel: Pat.
43
44 Commissioner Burt: Can we get clarification? I was under the understanding we might
45 condition a Variance with specific requirements but I am not sure that we can direct an IR
1 review process as part of a Variance condition that we ask them to pay special attention.
2 'I am not sure whether that is proper.
3
4 Mr. Sodergren: The way I interpreted the friendly amendment and COlTect me ifI am
5 wrong was not so much a condition but as a request to the Council to consider that. So it
6 wouldn't be formally incorporated as a condition but it would be noted probably in the
7 Staff Report and in the record as a request that that be focused on. Is that the nature of it?
8
9 Commissioner Griffin: Yes.
10
11 Chair Cassel: Do we have any other comments?
12
13 Commissioner Burt: I would just like to comment on one notion of this curtains
14 somehow having a protective value on the privacy of the neighbors who are being looked
15 down upon. Curtains on the second story would in no way protect the privacy of those
16 that are potentially having their privacy infringed upon. We are not worried about the
17 single story neighbors in the rear infringing upon the privacy of people who have taller
18 windows on a second story it is vise-versa that is the issue. So I don't see how curtains
19 would in any way provide any of the protections that those people are concerned with.
20 So I think it needs to be some installed obscuring ofthe glass and I don't think I am
21 comfortable with merely asking that it be a consideration being adequate. I think overall,
22 as I said before, I think I am comfortable with the project in terms of the front and rear
23' setback. I am comfortable with there being a second story. I don't think this particular
24 proposal before us goes far enough to balance the needs of the applicant and the interests
25 of the residents on Ellsworth with those residents behind. I am not totally opposed to it I
26 think it can be modified and still provide the square footage on a second floor and
27 provide a bit more protection. I think regretfully I am not going to be able to support the ,
28 motion on that basis.
29
30 Chair Cassel: Well I will make a comment to the windows. An elevated window in the
31 bathroom allows very little viewing that angles down unless you are going to stand on
32 your tiptoes. A window placed will in the staircase provides light and if it is placed well
33 it doesn't get you don't into the neighbors as long as it is done well. The other window is
34 far back from the 20-foot setback that would there or could'be there if that room, it is at
35 least the 20 feet back within the site. So I don't think these windows are that major.
36 None of us have talked about-the window at the end of the sitting room that was
37 discussed but again that is long ways from the apartment complex and there is a tree in
38 between. I would like to call the vote.
39
40 MOTION PASSED (5-2-0-0, Commissioners Burt and Holman voted no)
41
42 All those in favor please vote aye. (ayes) All those opposed? (nays) That vote passes
43 five to two with Lee Lippert, Annette Bialson, Bonnie Packer, Michael Griffin and
44 Phyllis Cassel voting yes and Pat Burt and Karen Holman voting no.
45
1 Thank you very much for coming this evening and for hearing this through. I hope
2 everyone has learned something. The discussion of the windows will go on to the IR
3 process.
4
CORRESPONDANCE
705 Ellsworth Place
Attachment J
There were several communications r~ceived on this project. Including phone messages and one
email, staff received at least four statements for support for the project. These comments came from
residents of Ellsworth Place. There were six statements of non-support of this project. These
comments came from the property owner of the adjacent apartment buildings and residents not on
Ellsworth Place.
The emails follow this sheet.
City of Palo Alto
Page 1 of 1
Campbell, Clare
From: Kathy Bilbro [k_bilbro@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 03,200512:16 PM
To: Campbell, Clare
Cc: ebarry@inreach.com
Subject: 705 Ellsworth Place 04-VAR-11
Hello Clare,
My name is Kathy Bilbro and I am a resident in the Sutter Arms Apartments (2901 Middlefield Road) that sit kitty-
comer to the Ellsworth property. I attended the 1126/05 meeting where the variance and encroachment issues where
addressed.
I would like to appeal to you regarding my concerns with the potential intrusion that the large 2-story structure will
pose. My concerns relate to the infringement of privacy created by the second floor, the increased noise due to the
increased floor area and the general interference of the quite enjoyment of the apartments.
I moved to the area three years ago because the the quiet, quaint community. I initially moved in to an upstairs junior
one bedroom apartment with anunuasually large balcony which provided more space than the actual apartment. This
apartment appealed to me because of the balcony which I used to entertain and enjoy private parties with my friends
and family. .
I'm concerned that with the construction of the large 2-story residence, all of those things that were once enjoyed will
be taken away and ultimately have an adverse affect to the apartment's appeal.
During the time that I rented the apartment, I did recall many instances where there were loud disturbances (banging
noises, screeming, etc) coming from the residence which resulted in the policed being called. I shudder to think of the
potential of bring that noise from the ground floor to a second floor. I eventually moved from that particular
apartment into an apartment across the hall to get away from the noise.
Please consider the impact the large structure can have on the community. I believe th~t improvements are needed
but not at the expense of the neighboring community. ,
Kathy Bilbro, 2901 Middlefield Road #4 Resident
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents -Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
2/8/2005
Page 1 of 1
Campbell, Clare
From: Edward Barry [ebarry@inreach.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 10:20 AM
To: Campbell, Clare
Subject: 705 Ellsworth.
Dear Ms. Campbell,
This letter serves as follow up to my attendance at the Planning and Transportation Commission hearing' of January 26, 2005.
Beginning my address to the Commission, I again stated my position, not against the redevelopment of the site, I believe the
construction of a new horne in keeping with the character of Ellsworth Place will benefit all of us in the neighborhood. My
opposition to the project is the construction of a house on average, two to three times the size of the other 12 homes on the
street, and the granting of variance allowing encroachment into the rear setback along with the variance allowing encroachment
into the rear daylight plane.
Both I and the apartment residents are justifiably concerned about the very real impact this house as proposed will create.
These are unique apartments. Each apartment has a picture window in the bedroom looking outside to the patio and beyond. A
sliding glass door allows access from the living room. The yards have a patio with a garden, along with a built in brick BBQ.
Residents enjoy near complete privacy along with a very sunny, cheerful orientation. The apartments have fireplaces. A great
portion of the unique character these apartments now offer will be taken away if the house as proposed is b.uilt. The Middlefield
Road apartments are also unique. Several of the property's residents attested to the very private, oversize decks they currently
enjoy, and the fact that had in their choosing that particular apartment.
Mr. Stern did not contact"all neighbors" to discuss the project. My first knowledge came from a mailing from the City of Palo Alto.
At my initiative I met with Mr. Stern on September 22,2004 to discuss my concerns. I had the project plans and showed him two
options that would be acceptable to myself and the residents of the two apartment buildings. We also toured the common areas
of the apartments. Keeping in mind the square footage, I presented the idea of a single story in character with the existing
homes on the street. The second option was a two-story / loft semidetached addition. The lot size is sufficient to accommodate
the requirements of Mr. Stern in a manor which will take into account the concerns of myself and is sensitive to the well-being of
the current and future residents of the apartments. There are options. I have made effort to work with Mr. Stern and will remain
available to him and the City to address these issues and secure a solution which is acceptable to both parties. I encourage City
staff to continue looking at options to the variances along with further investigation into the negative impact the current proposal
. will create on my business along with the well-being ofthecurrent and future residents of the apartments.
Sincerely,
Edward D. Barry
2/8/2005
Campbell, Clare
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
FYI.
zariah, x2440
Betten, Zariah
Tuesday, February 01, 2005 7:15 AM
Grote, Lisa; Emslie, Steve; French, Amy; Campbell, Clare
FW: 705 Ellsworth Ln
-----Original Message-----
From: Denis Johnston [mailto:kauaifoods@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 4:37 PM·
To: Betten, zariah
Subject: 705 Ellsworth Ln
T
To whom it Concerns,
This e-mail is in response to the Planning Departments
approve the 705 Ellsworth Place project and my wish to
appeal your decision.
Despite overwhelming disapproval from all rear
neighbors who reside on Sutter Ave. and the lack of
concern expressed by the current owners of said
property I feel the need to express myself.
After walking down Ellsworth Place this past Sunday
and noticing how out of place this proposed housing
project would be I could not help but notice that
there is no garden on 705 Ellsworth nor is there any
sign of gardening taking place at 705 Ellsworth. I
mention this because the owner of Ellsworth in his
plea to sway your decision stated that his son loved
to garden and this was to be an integral part for
building a 2-story house on the west portion of the
Ellsworth Lane, thus leaving the eastern side of the
lot open for his sons pastime. I strongly disagree
with his point of view and. attest that it was a
blatant comment made only to distort the truth and
persuade your ultimate decision.
I could not help but notice that 2 doors down
Ellsworth Lane from this proposed site there is a
perfectly suited home that is divided by a single
driveway and carport. I suppose that it is used as an
apartment on one side and small home on the other. How
perfect for someone disabled and their caregiver.
Thanks for listening .....
. Kind regards,
Denis Johnston
Sutter Ave
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
1
Page 1 of 1
Campbell, Clare
From: Vera Shadle [vmshadle@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 20052:45 PM
To: Campbell, Clare
Cc: Ed Barry
Subject: RE: VARIANCE FOR 705 ELLSWORTH PLACE
Dear Ms. Campbell:
Thank you again for keeping me informed regarding the hearings and other matters regarding the 705 Ellsworth Place variance.
Please know that I plan to attend the Thursday February 3 IR meeting at City Hall for the first hour only; unfortunately, I must be
in San Francisco by 6 PM that evening and must leave no later than 4 PM because of anticipated traffic and parking issues.
I appreCiated the chance to attend last week's Planning Commission meeting and hear from all interested parties. I especially
appreciated the support of Commissioners Burt and Holman, who clearly grasped the issues I and the other immediately
adjacent neighbors have been trying to raise.
I am nonetheless still unconvinced that a second story is necessary. The 705 lot is indeed oddly shaped but clearly large
enough to contain all the desired interior space in a one-story configuration.
Also, from a purely personal point of view, I cannot understand how or why Mr. Stern and the city staff maintain that the second-
floor caregiver sitting room window would not look directly into my own bedroom window: the drawings indicate that the window
is double-wide, and if the front setback in the proposed replacement home is the same as the current front setback, how can
those windows not look directly at one another?
Although the proposed window will indeed be further away from my bedroom window, given the sordid track record of privacy
invasion that the occupants of this house have built up since I moved in, I am fiercely and fully committed to preventing further
encroachment upon the privacy, security, and quiet enjoyment of my home of seven and a half years.
As Commissioner Holman has already done, I encourage all interested parties to pay a visit to the proposed building site and
assess the prevailing architecture and layout of Ellsworth Place and its neighbors in person. I also hereby invite any interested
party to take in the view out my window (with the proper 24 hours notice, of course) for a three-dimensional reality check of their
assumptions.
Thanks again for all your assistance. Please let me know if you need any further documentation from me.
Sincerely,
Vera M. Shadle, MHA, MHS
2/8/2005
Campbell. Clare
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ms. Campbell/
Glenda Bennett [gbennett@emso.com]
Sunday, January 30, 2005 9:48 PM
Campbell, Clare
ebarry@inreach.com
705 Ellsworth Place
I would like to first thank the Board of Commissioners for presenting an open forum for
those of us wishing to express our views and concerns in regards to the project planned at
705 Ellsworth Place. Unfortunately I walked away from the meeting feeling somewhat
confused with the board of Commissoners recommendations/solutions to the issues at hand.
My concerns are listed below:
1.· Originally it had been stated that the homes on Ellsworth Place were all very small
lots ... and 705 was unique in the sense that it was a double-lot/ therefore allowing it to
build up (2story) as planned. My understanding was no other home on Ellsworth Place could
build to be 2 story because of the square footage of their lots. During the meeting
several Commissioners alluded to the fact that at a later date it could be that other
residents would decide to build to 2 story/ therefore the "Monster Home" proposed for 705
Ellsworth would not at all appear to be out of place.??????? The street named Ellsworth
Place/ is lined with small bungalow type homes/ surrounded by very old trees and mature
foilage. It will very much look.out of place!
2. A couple o.f Commissioners stated that they have visited 705 Ellsworth Place but at no
time did I hear anyone stat~ that Sutter Ave. had been visited. This is somewhat
disturbing to me/ since my particular unit stands to be one of the most negatively
impacted. I believe it was someone from the city panel that suggested the apartments
located on Sutter Ave. could also become 2 story should the owner of the apartments decide
to rebuild. All the more reason for the apartments located on Sutter Ave.to be visited by
the Planning Commission/ to see just how unique these Eichler style apartments really
are/ and just why one would want to protect them as is. I also think a visit would make it
very clear as to the loss of sunlight all of us living along the backside of Sutter Ave.
would experience. It will indeed have a negative impact on our plants living both on our
patios and inside our homes.
3. The privacy issue. One Commissioner of the panel expressed that he lives in a cottage
with an apartment building stairway in very close proximity to his residence/ and didn't
feel his privacy was at all invaded. He felt blinds or curtains would be the solution to
any privacy issues. His situation is very different from the situation I/we face in the
very Sense that it appears that he moved in accepting the conditions as they are now .
·Many of us living at the apartments located on Sutter Ave .... chose our place of residency
due to the quiet/ secluded environment. I must express that I truly know of no-one who
would accept living within the confines of their home 24-7 with blinds or curtains drawn
to obtain reasonable privacy. On a personal note/ last fall I was faced with having a very
rare heart surgery. I have spent the last 16 weeks in a recovery mode and for many weeks
my only chance to 'step outside was to go onto my patio. It was at times sunny/ always
private/ and just what I needed. I cannot imagine having to have spent those 16 weeks
inside my home deprived of natural-daylight/ or inside my home with the curtains or blinds
drawn.
Finally/ I would like to say that after caring for my father/ a stroke victim himself for
more than 11 years/ I admire Mr. Stern for wanting to improve his son's living conditions
and for making sure that his ongoing care be supported/ it is not an easy task.
However/ with the lot size available to him/ and with some architectural creativity I feel
the upgraded home could be accomplished all on 1 floor. The current 2 story plan clearly
benefits only the resident at 705 Ellsworth Place/ while negatively impacting many others
within a close proximity.
Please accept this letter as notice of me being in complete opposition to the current
plans for 705 Ellsworth Place to be upgraded to a 2 story home.
1
Sincerely,
Glenda Bennett
714 Sutter Ave, Palo Alto, CA. 650-566-1361
2
Campbell. Clare
From:
Sent:
To:
csaulgur@aol.com
Friday, January 28, 2005 1 :48 PM
Campbell, Clare
Subject: RE: protest 2nd story variance 705 Ellsworth Place
Aulgur
Ca 94306
rentals, Palo Alto
City Planning Department
variances for 705 Ellsworth
Ms Clare Campbell
Dear Planning Commissioners:
Corrine Aulgur and Robert
648 Maybell Ave, Palo Alto,
Owners of 720-738 Sutter Ave
behind Ellsworth Place.
650-494-2519
Regarding proposed
We appose the proposed variance allowing a second story to be built on the
very narrow street of small Ellsworth Place cottages.
since the oblong lot is unusually narrow and double long and sits virtually
against the 4 small private patios with Eichler style glass walls facing the
proposed high structure it will by necessity adversely deprive 4 to 5 existing
small one bedroom rental homes directly behind 705 of privacy, sunlight, quiet
enjoyment and a sense of a little open space distance from the very close back
neighbors.
These renters have rights, too. In Palo Alto they are valuable members of our
community, often our teachers, social workers, nurses, food, clerks,
business, office, service, safety, and tech workers and the quality of desirable
affordable housing must be maintained.
By necessity the proposed top floor structure will be nearly to the property
line of the patios and substantially adversely affect four (4) small one
bedroom Eichler style rental homes and the nearby 2 bedroom family apartments with
large balconies. Most second stories anywhere are set back 10-20 feet at least
from neighbors.
Since it will be built so close to the property line (the variance proposes
5'6" feet) it will allow viewing directly down into the glass walls of these
small studio style open design homes which, if they needed to keep drapes closed
for privacy and peace and quiet as suggested by a commissioner at the last
me'eting, they would really be claustrophobic as well as deprive them of a half
days worth of sunlight. The indoor plate glass windows walls opening to private
outdoor patios would be affected by the gardens loosing sunlight to grow thus
diminishing the quality of life there. The second story walls 'will be so
close it may seem prison like living below.
They would loose the very qualities that these residents find desirable. This
second story addition would cause a loss of property value and income for the
long time property owners (and tax payers) of 712-718 Sutter, the Barry
family. The Barry family very conscientiously maintain, improve and manage their
Midtown apartment business as evidenced by their long time tenants loyal support
in attending your hearing despite the evening. time on a work night and their
active membership in the Tri-County Apartment Association. They and their
residents are an asset to the Midtown neighborhood.
The 712 to 718 Sutter Ave one bedroom studio style rental homes are unique
and highly desirable affordable housing with a great deal of privacy and full
1
glass wall windows facing really nice patios and outdoor fireplaces. Normally
there would be 10 to 20 feet setback to the yard line allowing more light and
privacy but Ellsworth Place has such small lot lines and are often a just few
feet to the lot line.
As we are parents of 2 severely disabled adult children, we fully understand
the need for onsite caregivers. since the much needed Ellsworth remodel needs
to add a second private access unit for the caretaker at this time, why can't
the design be consistent with that block and separate into 2 side by side
single story homes running the length of the double lot instead of upward?
My husband, who has been a Palo Alto Realtor for 40 years, believes the
resale value for the 705 owner would be much higher with 2 separable units·
consistent with the other homes on that block rather than a more than twice larger
sized 2 story home in a modestly sized and priced neighborhood thus potentially
allowing for the purchase of a larger home with a bigger much bigger yard if in
the future it is considered more desirable for the present tenants. .
As the owners of 720-728 and 730-738 Sutter Ave. (which is behind and to the
left side of 705 Ellsworth) we are not directly personally impacted by this
particular remodel because our townhouses are set back nearly 100 feet from the
lot line and have no windows facing Ellsworth. We do care deeply about the
quality of life in the Midtown neighborhood with it's desirable mix of single
family homes and multifamily rentals with convenient nearby shops and stores.
However, we have had years of excessive noise from 705 Ellsworth at all hours of
the night from domestic violence, lot's of loud fights and yelling apparently
due to drug and/or alcohol abuse causing frequent police visits.
We have walked all along Ellsworth observing the 705 site, comparing the
drawings and the rest of the homes there and we went directly behind 705 Ellsworth
where the 712-718 Sutter units are on it's back lot line and stood in the
patios using the TV antennae as a guideline for height to evaluate the effects.
We read and studied all of the materials and listened to all of the input at
the 1/26/2005 public meeting.
We do support a single story remodel which there is room for on the extra
long lot and fits in with the rest of homes on the street. The proposed design is
very attractive and I'm sure the talented architects can redesign a better
single story plan as attractive for this unique small street.
Thank you,
Corrine and Bob Aulgur
2
Campbell. Clare
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
To: Clare Campbell:
Glenda Bennett [gbennett@emso.com]
Wednesday, December 15, 2004 10:06 AM
Campbell, Clare
ebarry@inreach.com
705 Ellsworth Place
This correspondence pertains to the proposed development of a new two story home to be
built at 705 Ellsworth Place, and the City's "Approval With Conditions". that allows
encroachment into the left and rear setbacks, along with encroachment into the rear
daylight plane.
I live at 714 Sutter Avenue. My yard is separated from 705's rear property line by the
width of a sidewalk, four to five feet. I am more than deeply concerned with the
possibility of a two story house looming not only over my yard, but also my apartment. I
cannot stress enough the negative impact and invasion of privacy this house will have. I
enjoy a wonderful patio with a built in outdoor fireplace along with a garden where I very
much enjoy planting flowers and visiting with friends. I have no doubt that the.
obstruction of sunlight would do harm to my plants. A very significant reason I chose to
live here is the cheerfully sunny, private yard.
I understand the project for 705 Ellsworth Place has been "Approved With Conditions",
meaning the existing single. story house is to be replaced with a new two story building.
There is no question I will be negatively affected. With 705 being located within such
close proximity, I will suffer the effects of diminished sunlight, encroachment on my .
privacy, increased noise, and in general, interference on the quiet enjoyment of my
currently peaceful environment. The owners of 705 Ellsworth are the only ones b~nefiting
from this project, and I will suffer the negative effects.
This correspondence serves as my complete objection to the development as approved, and
will be followed by a request for a hearing in front of the Planning and Transportation
Department.
Please acknowledge receipt of this correspondence to the address above.
Sincerely, Glenda Bennett
1
Page 1 of 1
Campbell, Clare
From: Chris Kron [CKron@xeroxagents.com]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 2:04 PM
To: Campbell, Clare
Subject: 705 Ellsworth Place
Hello Clare,
We hope this finds you well. This correspondence pertains to the proposed development of a new two
story home to be built at 705 Ellsworth Place, and the City's "Approval With Conditions". that allows
encroachment into the left and rear setbacks, along with encroachment into the rear daylight plane.
Paige and I live at 712 Sutter Avenue and our yard is separated from 705's rear property line by the
width of a sidewalk, four to five feet. We are more overly concerned with the possibility of a two story
house looming not only over our yard, but also our apartment. We cannot stress enough the negative
impact and invasion of privacy this house will have. We enjoy a wonderful patio with a built in outdoor
fireplace along with a garden. A very significant reason we choose to live here is the sunny, private
yard.
We understand the project for 705 Ellsworth Place has been "Approved With Conditions", meaning the
existing single story house is to be replaced with a new two story building. There is no question we will
be negatively affected. With 705 being located within such close proximity, we will suffer the effects of
diminished sunlight, encroachment on our privacy, increased noise, and in general, interference on the
quiet enjoyment of our home. The owners of 705 Ellsworth are the only ones benefiting from this
project, and we will suffer the negative effects.
This correspondence serves as our complete objection to the development as approved, and will be
followed by a request for a hearing in front of the Planning and Transportation Department.
Please acknowledge receipt of this correspondence to my address: ckron@xeroxagents.com.
Sincerely,
Chris and Paige Kron
1120/2005
Page 1 of 1
Campbell, Clare
From: Vera Shadle [vmshadle@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 10:13 AM
To: Campbell, Clare
Cc: Ed Barry
Subject: REQUEST FOR HEARING RE: 705 ELLSWORTH PLACE
Dear Project Planner Campbell:
I understand that the proposed new two-story home for 705 Ellsworth Place has been provisionally approved by
the City Planning Department. I hereby join with my landlord, Edward D. Barry, and other concerned neighbors
and request that this project be the subject of a public hearing.
I am reiterating once again my concerns that (1) a two-story home is out of proportion with every single other
home on Ellsworth Place; and (2) a two-story addition looking into the bedroom window of my very small
apartment will irretrievably compromise my privacy, safety, and fair share of daylight. We are not insisting that the
project not be built: we are insisting that the same square footage be contained within a single story.
We thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Vera M. Shadle
2901 Middlefield Road, Apt. #11
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2526
vmshadle@earthlink.net
1120/2005
Campbell, Clare
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To: Clare Campbell:
Denis Johnston [kauaifoods@yahoo.com]
Monday, December 13, 20049:19 AM
Campbell, Clare
705 Ellsworth
City of Palo Alto Planning Department
This correspondence pertains to the proposed
development of a new two story home to be built at 705
Ellsworth Place, and the City's "Approval With
Conditions", that allows encroachment into the left
and rear setbacks, along with'encroachment into the
rear daylight plane.
My wife &1 live at 716 Sutter Avenue. My patio is
separated from the rear of 705 Ellsworth property line
by the width of a sidewalk, between four to five feet.
We are more than deeply concerned with the
possibility of a two story house looming not only over
our yard, but also our apartment. We cannot stress
enough the negative impact and invasion of privacy
this house will have on ourselves. We currently enjoy
a wonderful patio with a built in outdoor fireplace
along with a garden that is in constant use during the
dried months of the year. 'A very noteworthy reason we
choose to live here is the cheerful, sunlit, very
private yard. This will certainly disappear with the
addition of a two-story house; being built solely for
rental purposes I am certain. Currently the present
owners son lives in the garage adjacent to my
apartment, and I can strongly state that loud music,
T.V. noise and very loud voices currently extend
beyond the boundaries of a fence line. What will
happen when these said noises are elevated to the
second story level and broadcast is just one of my
concerns. I leave for work at 3:45 a.m. and not once
in the 15 months that I have lived here have I noticed
the lights at 705 Ellsworth turned off at that time of
the morning and there is always TV noise coming from
the walls of the garage.
We understand the project for 705 Ellsworth Place has
been "Approved With Conditions", meaning the existing
single story house is to be replaced with a new
two-story building. There is no question that we will
be negatively impacted with this ne,w house being
located within such close proximity of our living
space. We will suffer the effects of diminished
sunlight, encroachment on our privacy, increased
noise, and in general interference of the quiet
pleasure of our home. The owners of 705 Ellsworth are
the only ones benefiting from this project, and we
will suffer the negative effects.
Please be advised that this e-mail serves as my
complete opposition to the development as approved,
and will be followed by a request for a hearing in
front of the Planning and Transportation Department.
Kind regards,
1
Denis & Dawn Johnston
716 Sutter Ave
Palo Alto, Ca 94303
Do you Yahoo!?
Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
2
Page 1 of 1
Campbell, Clare
From: Vera Shadle [vmshadle@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 03,2004 1 :47 PM
To: Campbell, Clare
Cc: Ed Barry
Subject: VARIANCE FOR 705 ELLSWORTH PLACE
Dear Ms. Campbell:
I am formally reiterating my concerns regarding the application and proposed development at
705Ellsworth Place, and in parti~ular the requested variance to allow encroachments into the
left and rear setbacks and a rear daylight plane encroachment.
Although I live at 2901 Middlefield Road, my bedroom window overlooks the side yard and left
side of the house at 705. All the homes on Ellsworth, including 705, are single story. I am
deeply concerned by the prospect of a two-story house looming over my apartment. Given the
small size of my apartment (i.e., there is literally nowhere to go to get away from the windows),
I greatly fear the loss of sunlight, privacy, security, and quiet enjoyment of my home that a two-
story house would impose upon me.
If the application is approved with the variances, and the existing single story house is
replaced with a new two story building, there is no question I will be negatively affected. I join
with my landlord, Edward D. Barry, in asking that the proposed square footage be
reapportioned into a single-story floorplan
Mr. Barry andl respectfully ask that the Planning Department consider our concerns in
depth. Please do not grant the proposed variance to allow encroachments into the left and
rear setbacks and a rear daylight plane encroachment.
Sincerely,
Vera M. Shadle, MHA, MHS,
2901 Middlefield Road, Apartment #11, Palo Alto, CA 94306
650-328-7531
112012005
Campbell, Clare
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Clare,
Vadim Akselrod [vadim@vadim.com]
Sunday, August 29, 2004 3:07 PM
Campbell, Clare
705 Ellsworth Place
I'm Vadim Akselrod, the owner of 742 Ellsworth Place. I received notice of the
development at 705 Ellsworth, and wanted to express my support for allowing substandard
lots to develop further, and of the development at 705! It is hard to get sufficient
living space given the old city codes, and the new ones make a lot of sense with the
current housing crunch.
Please keep me in the loop about the development at 705 Ellsworth, .and I hope the
development goes forward well!
Thanks,
-Vadim
1