Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 191-05George Stem Stephen Pahl, Pahl & Gosselin Denis Johnston Chris Kron Vera Shadle Kathleen Dal Bon Ninnal Iyengar Mary Navarro Edward Barry Glenda Bennett Terence Billings Corrine Shelly Arlis Kathy Bilbow CMR:191:05 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 hnpacts 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 of the year, the project would cast a shadow over all or a portion of three of the rear property's private open spaces between 9:00 AM and 1:00 PM. By three o'clock in the afternoon, the project 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 adjacent . 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 IR 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 sight into a neighboring window. The applicant has offered to install landscaping to help mitigate any perc;:eived 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 A.P.N. 127-35-135 127-35-134 127-35-133 127-35-132 127-35-153 127-35-154 127-35-155 127-35-156 127-35-170 127-35-157 127-35-163 127~35-161 127-35-158 Average Lot Size: All properties: R-(properties only: Average F .A.R.: All properties: R-1 properties only: Ellsworth Place Allowed F .A.R. Summary Street Address 705 Ellsworth Place 717 Ellsworth Place 731 Ellsworth Place 741 Ellsworth Place 706 Ellsworth Place 712 Ellsworth Place 718 Ellsworth Place 724 Ellsworth Place 730 Ellsworth Place 732 Ellsworth Place 736 Ellsworth Place 740 Ellsworth Place 742 Ellsworth Place 4,309 sf. 4,256 sf. 1,867sf. 1,914 sf. Lot Size 5,117 sf. 4,596 sf. 4,596 sf. 4,596 sf. 3,472 sf. 4,054 sf. 3,897 sf. 3,862 sf. 4,007 sf. 4,149 sf. 4,433 sf. 4,488 sf. 4,746 sf. "" ~ Allowed F .A.R. 2,285 sf. (.45) 1,699 sf. (.35) 1,609 sf (.35) 2,068 sf. (.45) 1,562 sf (.45) 1,824 sf. (.45) 1,754 sf. (.45) 1,738 sf. (.45) . 1,803 sf. (.45) 1,867 sf. (.45) 1,995 sf. (.45) 2,020 sf. (.45) 2,136 sf. (.45) i • ',i" -.,.'" . ";"'.'''' ..... 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 A Ito ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE 70S Ellsworth Place EXISTING PROPOSED CONDITIONS PROJECT S,117 s.f. S,117 s.f. Not available 1,S04 s.f. Not available 2,28S·s.f. 10' 10' -Variance 2'.,11" S ' -6" -Variance 11' -6" 6' 63'-3" 39' -3" One-story 23' -2" Confonns Rear encroachment -Variance 2-car garage I-car garage, 1 uncovered Attachment F R-1 ZONE DISTRICT STANDARD 6,000 s.f. 1,791 s.f. 2,28S 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 not 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-110ts 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-110ts 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 affe.ct 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 proj ect site requires a Variance in order to build the permitted second story. The project site is subjt;lct 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-l neighborhood . . , . (3) The grantingofthe application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehe.nsive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning). The proposed proj ect 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 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. !e (1!)1!W1a 511t: :£C110N #~ -eXI511NCi CQNt:lI110N5 STOECKER AND NORTHWAY I ~ffHnL 511t: :£C110N ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED 437 LYTl'ON AVENUE PALO ALTO CA. 94301 650-327-7070 PROJECT (»694 -51t:RN -10r; E:L.L.5WORfH PL.Pa I SCALE 1/8"-11-0" Ie I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .t .716 ~ H'r. ~~L1 (~~"'Ll \ L(I!) 6' HI'iII'M:e e(l!) I!W1a IS eMIl! a!!IiI! ~l.te These pions are copyighted and are subject to copyight protection as an ·orchitectural worlt under sec. 102 of the Cop)fight Act. 17 u.s.o. as amended December 1990 and known as I Architectural Works Cop)fight Protection Act of 1990. DAlE I SHEET 12/21/04 6 DRAWN BY A'X, 2901 MII/I/L..efIElL..1/ ,APr. #11 . ') () bY" o ~ r\ #112 <e) HOUse 70rf; 1 I I surrel< AveNuJ ,APfS. #114 I #116 I ~ ~ J11~ ""'"--'" T ---l·:~>~ .. rf1-,. . ::::: nn T< e) MONref<eY ij \ PINe Jj .~~~ I .~ <e) CtN!.Me • #118 ........... ( ~ I-"==),J --' -'?o-d L....t STOECKER AND NORTHWAY ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED 437 LY'l"l'ON AVENUE PALO ALTO CA. 94301 650-327-7070 eL..L..5WORfH pL.-Pee SHEET TITLE '3rWJON 5rut?Y: eXI511NCi f.AJ...L.. me SUMMeR 5OL..11a NOON PROJECT ~694 -51eRN -707 eL..L5WORrH PI"PQ: I SCALE 1/ 1611 -II -011 These pions ore DATE I SHEET copyrighted and ore ,"bjecl.lo cOP)f;9hl 12/21/ I""I.A. protection as on v-r ·orchitectural work-1 O' under sec. 102 of the Cop)f;ght Act, 17 U.S.O. DRA IJN BY as amended December 1990 and known as Architectural Works I ACor Cop)"ight Protection Act r\.Jl., of 1990. 2901 MII?I?L.~fl~t.1? ,APf. #11 I-- ____ ') I) b:D Ie "'" lJ\ o STOECKER AND NORTHWAY ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED 437 LYTTON AVENUE PALO ALTO CA. 94301 650-327-7070 PROJECT ~694 -S1e1eN -{Of? E:L.-L.5WORfH PL.-PeE: 1 SUf1'eR A~Nud ,APfS, 1 #112 #114 I #116 #118 I ~ 111[\ --.....- (E:) HOUSE: {Of? • ~( E:) MON11::~Yi{~:}~{:~lli\::::.. PINE: ............. . .............. ............... ~L.L.SWOR1H PL.,AC~ SHEET TITLE 9rWJOW 511..11?Y: E:XI511Na ffJ...L.--na::E: 5UMME:1e 5OL.11CE: ~PM SCALE 1/1611 -11-011 nn ~ • ~ These pions ore DATE copyrighted and are subject. to cop)';ght 12/21/ I"'\A protectIon as on v-I ·orchitectural work" under sec. 102 of the Cop)';ght Act, 17 U.S.D. DRA \IN BY as amended December 1990 and known as Architectural Works I At::.r Cop)fight Protection Act r\."Jl..,; of 1990. / """C I, ""( I. SHEET 11 ~.. ...... ......... 1 1 [ I 1----jIfl~~fltJ t~l~lI~l~l~l~l~fl~l~fffltII\ - - - . .. _. -------I 8:::::::::::::}~:=}~~~~tt~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ttt~: ± ----1 2901 MII?I?L.~flftL.1? ,APf. #11 • v' o ~ 1\ STOECKER AND NORTHWAY ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED 437 LYTl'ON AVENUE PALO ALTO CA. 94301 650-327-7070 PROJECT ~694 -SreteN -70~ E:L.-L.5WORrH PL.-PeE: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.. 0 , ......................................... . ~::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::¢::~ .. :.:. A \ ~N A~""'C ':':':':':':':':':':':':_.:':':':':':':':':':':':':':':~~:::: .. :. r\VL--rT I.",. - #112 Il1'lfillfilllllt : #116 : #118 1 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::."::::.0::::::::: . ......... ................................ . ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . . ::::::::::::::: ;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~. ~::}~:~:~:~ :~:~:~:}~~~~H~ flll\ -- • i.1r'1 \( E:) MONre~Yj , \ PINE: ~ ~ (E:)~ 1 (I:::) House 70~ ~L.L.SWORfH PL.PC~ SHEET TITLE 9rWJON 51U?Y: E:XI511Nu f,ALL. ~e eOUINOX9AM SCALE 1/16"-1'-0" • These plans ore DATE copyighted and ere S1Jbject. to copjright 12/· 21/1"\A. protection as an ~ ·orchitectural wont under sec. 102 of the Cop)fight Act, 17 U.S.O. DRA 1JN BY as amended December 1990 and known as Architectural Works I A&J- Copyight Protection Act r\.,A.., of 1990. --........- ( ~ 1 I· SHEET 12 2901 MII?I?L.efl~L.1? ,APf. #11 • ') I) bV Ie o lr\ #112 I ( 1::) HOUSE: 10r;, ~ I I I 5LIf1eR AveNLie ,APf5. #114 I #116 I I I I #118 __ m~~y'~if~2f'i~~I~ Q~. i---L----..Jr1~jj PiNe fir~· . ~ -......... ~ (I::) ~ • t---~----~-------;;' ...... ,"""",--*,,-_ ~ -.J -, STOECKER AND NORTHWAY ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED 437 LYTl'ON AVENUE PALO ALTO CA. 94301.650-327-7070 PRDJECT ~694 -51t:RN -10r;, I::L..L..5WORfH PL..J.a eL.L.5WORfH PL.,Aa -1 SHEET TITLE '3rWJON 51'1J?Y: 1::X1511NU fPJ...L.. ~I:: eQUINOX NOON SCALE 1/ 161-1'~0" These pions ore DATE cop)fighted and ore .ubje". to co,)fight 12/21/ I"\A protection as on \..Ii" ·orchitectural worlt under sec. 102 of the Cop)fight Act, 17 U.S.D. DRAWN BY as amended Oeeember 1990 and known as Architectural Works At::.r Copyight Protection Act ~ of 1990. SHEET 13 I ,I III ;j'";iEii'j'@'ilEi"iii'{:1 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-'::::::: . ......................................... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. T . ~~t~~ttttttt~~~~t~~~~~I~~~~I~~~~~t~~tff -1 1------ -Ii:':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':::::':':':':':':':::::-:':':':':':'::::'3-::':':" -1---- -- -------i 2901 MIt?t?L.l:::fIEiL.t? N'f. #11 1 ~ J\ o STOECKER AND NORTHWAY ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED 437 LYTl'ON AVENUE PALO ALTO CA. 94301 650-327-7070 PROJECT ~694 -51eRN -10rf? ~L..L..5WORfH PL..,ACE: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:: ~:::::::::::::::::::::::~rtB~Ar::::.::::· N'fS. 1[::::::::::::::::::::::#/714/:::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1 #116 1 #118 ItfIIIIIlIIItIItIIItItIIIItIttI~f 1 1 #112 ......... .:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::; .......................................... ......................................... , .......................................... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ......................................... , ~:(::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::; ... -..---- (~)~ (~) HOUse 10rf? 1 1:::L.L.SWORrH PL.,ACI::: SHEET TITLE 9rW}OW 511.J1?Y: eXI511NU fAL.L.. 'T1Ef~ WlNre~ SOL.11Ge 9AM SCALE 1/1611 _11-011 • These plans are DATE cop)righted and ore subject. to cop. )f;ght 121 211 riA protection os an \..I""T -architectural worlt under sec. 102 of the Cop)f;ght Act. 17 U.S.O. DRA IofN BY as omended Oecember 1990 and known os Architectural Works I A~ Capyight Protection Act r\..A....I of 1990. -- SHEET 15 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 more ofthe 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 ofthelarger 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 43 internal patio of the current house. This compact structure prevents the removal 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, which is 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 at 23 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 ona portion of714 Sutter and smaller portions of712 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 of the 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 maybe 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 of the windows ofthe 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 parrow 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 design 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 of the year. A one story design would also require the removal of several mature but 44 nort-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 point. 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 becallse 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 comer 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 of time anyway. 18 19 Chair Cassel: You have one minute. 20 21 Commissioner Lippert: Can you pass the model around, John? 22 23 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 to Zariah, 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 Dal Bon, 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 of the 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 I with 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 cleanedup 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 unique 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 Pahl and the person after 28 thatis Nirmal Iyengar. I am sorry in pronounced that wrong. 29 30 Mr. Stephen Pahl, 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 Staffs 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 ofthe 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. Nirmal 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 oftime and the 40 community feels that we can improve that area by repaving the road. One ofthe 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 of the things that we can do 43 is if you allow two story houses to be built it will allow the cars to be taken offthe 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 Districtwhere 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 of the new 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 may·or 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 neighborhood 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 of the 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 A venue 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 we met. 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 of the 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 o'clock in the morning to one o'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 halfthe 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 g<;> 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 it to be nice for 34 them. Yard is important for all of us but I think it could be reconfigured. I also 35 suggested instead of taking 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 lcan 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 place? 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 that lot, 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 ofthis 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 ofthe 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 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 Chair Cassel: Thank you. The last person to speak is Corrine Shelly and you will help me with the last part of your name please. Come on up and speak into the mike and state your name and your address please. Ms. Corrine Shelly Arlis, 720-7738 Sutter Avenue, Palo Alto: I wanted to hear some of the other comments before I spoke. We have the property at 720 to 738 Sutter so we are behind Ellsworth. You see on there it says 718 Sutter so we are a little bit to the east of that. Chair Cassel: When you say 'we' who do you mean? Ms. Arlis: My husband and I have the properties on Sutter. Chair Cassel: Where do you live? Ms. Arlis: The properties. that we have are 720 to 738 Sutter. Chair Cassel: Pardon me, those are the properties you own but as part of the record we need to know where you actually live. Ms. Arlis: Okay, I'm sorry. 648 Maybell in Palo Alto. I think the idea ofthe renovation and improvement of that home and that property on Ellsworth would be really desirable . , for our neighborhood. My concern is the height. I went and looked at the street on Ellsworth and I looked at it from several angles and I see that it is a very long lot. There is a large yard or garden area. I am concerned about the height because it does in fact overlook into people's private patios. As far as I know they have glass patio doors there. In regard to someone saying that they were apartments behind that were tall it is about 100 feet from the property line and there are no windows that face toward Ellsworth on the properties that are on Sutter. Say 720 to probably 750 Sutter there are no windows facing that way although there are some two-story buildings. I feel that having suddenly on that little small street if you have been there and you look at the lot there is plenty of room to have a different configuration where you are not so close to the property line. That would be my concern. I am opposed to having the second story so close to the property line. In fact I really don't like the second story there. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Could you come forward and tell us your name and your address. I don't know how I could have missed your card but we can just fill out another one. Ms. Vera M. Shadle, 2901 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto: I live in apartment 11, I lived there since July of 1997. Commissioner Griffin: Would you please speak more directly into the microphone, please? 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 ofthe 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 of living 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 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 Ms. Shadle: Yes, there are two bedroom windows in my very small bedroom and one of them looks out directly onto the side yard at 705 Ell~worth. That has been abig problem because people have, various tenants of that house at various times have not only partied well into the morning hours usually 2:00 AM at least sometimes later and other times during the summertime people have chosen to take cell phone conversations out into the side yard and wake me up or disrupt my sleep, hammering late at night, you name it, anything goes. Chair Cassel: I have one more card from Kathy Bilbow. Would you please come forward and speak? Ms. Kathy Bilbow, 2901 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto: I used to occupy the space that Terry now occupies at 2901 Middlefield Road, the apartment sits kitty-corner to the property. Chair Cassel: For the record could you please tell us where you now live please? Ms. Bilbow: I now live in apartment four just across the hall. I initially rented this apartment because ofthe uniqueness and because ofthe privacy. I lived there with my daughter who was able to utilize the deck area that overlooks that property that would now if a two-story structure was built would invade some of the privacy. She was able to . have private birthday parties, bring her friends over. We were able to have nice barbeques out there. I do believe that this second story would impact that privacy. I was aware of this house on Ellsworth because of the noise and since moved because of the banging and some of the loud screaming and things that took place over there. So we since moved from that area to across the hall to get a little bit more privacy. I think with the second structure it would impact the niceness and the privacy of the deck area. Thanks. Chair Cassel: Thank you. That is the last card I have so I will bring this back to the Commissioners. Commissioner Griffin: I have a question for the applicant. Chair Cassel: Fine and then he gets three minutes to make comments ifhe wishes to. We have a question for the applicant. Which person would you like to speak to Mr. Stern? . Commissioner Griffin: I really don't care whether George or his architect responds. I am wondering if you could perhaps reiterate the rationale for not going with the alternative of building on all one level. You did make reference to that previously but you might want 1 to elaborate a little bit more on why you elected not to choose the all on one floor 2 alternative. 3 4 Mr. Northway: The all on one floor alternative was looked at the problem with it is that 5 it became a very long kind of homogenous building, 17 feet high and it basically severely 6 diminished this really nice 40 foot wide pocket of open space that the community of 7 Ellsworth Place enjoys and is very critical to the gardening activity that Gary needs and 8 enJoys. 9 10 I don't know if you want to see it or not but we actually in part of the shadow studies we 11 did a study of what a single story 17 foot high building that fills up most ofthe building 12 envelop which it would, what kind of shadow it casts. We found essentially it casts a 13 much bigger shadow over the backyards of the Sutter apartments on December 21 st which 14 is of course the worst day of the year and in most cases there is no sun. We kind of 15 laughed at, didn't show it and we kind of in the office called it the "be careful what you 16 wish for drawing," because it really had a worse shadow pattern than the two story house. 17 18 Chair Cassel: Lee had a question for you. 19 20 Commissioner Lippert: I have a couple of questions actually. Have you done any 21 [helidon 1 studies? 22 23 Mr. Northway: Any what? 24 25 Commissioner Lippert: [Helidon] type studies. 26 27 Mr. Northway: I don't know what those are, Lee, enlighten me. 28 29 Commissioner Lippert: Put the light on the table at the PG&E energy center and you sort 30 of crank it up to the right date, December 21, and then you do the summer solstice as 31 well. 32 33 Mr. Northway: No, we didn't do those. The photos you have in the packet Alena can 34 explain the ,data were taken and we actually did orient them properly. 35 36 Commissioner Lippert: So those aren't just pictures of the model those were solar 37 studies. 38 39 Mr. Northway: That's right. 40 41 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, I got it. Then the second question I had is did you look at 42 shorting the plate line along the backside of the house? . 43 44 Mr. Northway: The plate line is only eight feet high so we didn't want to make it any 45 shorter. 46 • 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 dorrnorizing 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 ofthe applicant? Karen. 14 15 Commissioner Holman: I can hear where you 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 ofthe 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 of the applicant? Pat. 28 29 Commissioner Burt: J ohn,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 of those 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 of the 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 -1 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 pennits 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 if this lot weren't so screwy if the 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 -1 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 of the 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 bathroom 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 of the stair. It is not a place anyone is going to stand and look but 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 1 0 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 if landscaping used to obscure the view 27 of the 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 ofthe 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 of the Variance, it goes up 15 and then at a 60- 44 degree angle. 45 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 Commissioner Holman: I see it now. I was looking at the plan drawings. I have it now. Thanks for the clarification on that. Then the other question is in considering this all being a single story house was there consideration given to, I don't want to design it for you but at the same time I did have when I was reviewing this if you will there was some space that could be eliminated in the main portion of the house like the family room. There is a family room and a living room for instance and the courtyard could be the open space could them be to the side and there could bea connector so that the caregivers unit could still be nearby with open space in between and that would break up the mass of· a single story house too. Was that a consideration? Mr. Northway: The general different layouts that we did and again looking at the function and it was really to give a private place for the caregiver and a private place for Gary and to preserve quite frankly the aim was preserve and enlarge the open space that serve both the house and the street. It just didn't work very well with a single story scheme. Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Chair Cassel: Okay, the applicant has three minutes to summarize and answerany comments that have been made or respond to any comments that have been made. Do you wish to use that? Mr. Northway: No. Chair Cassel: OkaY,they don't wish to do that so let me close the public hearing and bring the item back to us. Do you have any other questions of Staff? Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I want to clarify exactly what we are deciding tonight. I assume in that regard we should be looking at the December 7 letter and the Variances that are set forth there, the three items, and our discussion should be to that. Is that correct? Ms. Grote: That is correct. Commissioner Bialson: Any assistance other than bringing our attention to that as to how we should formulate our discussion or narrow our discussion? Chair Cassel: I have a couple,ofthings I think we need to think about. One is that we cannot make a decision here either for or against the applicant based upon the situation in which the members of the household ofthe applicant find themselves. Discrimination either for or against would be very bad either way. You can say something to that if want Dan but we are not making this decision based on the particular tenants that are in it but rather upon the plans that are presented before us. Mr. Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys: I just want to point out that this 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 adjacent properties. As the applicant's architect mentioned tonight 37 two of those windows are in areas that are less used in a 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'sbackyard 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 ap 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 aswell. 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 ofthe 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 as approved 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, if! 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 th.ere 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 of the 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 that talks 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 ofthe 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 fall within the setback Variance are they not then within the aspects that are properly 2 within our purview tonight? 3 4 Mr. Sodergren: Yes I think they would be if they do relate to those Variance 5 considerations. 6 7 Commissioner Holman: I was curious about what the rear daylight plane would look like 8 for this project. There was not one included in our packet and I had submitted that 9 previously. Does Staff have anything to show us as to what the rear daylight plane would 10 look like? 11 12 Chair Cassel: Do you want the rear daylight plane, as it would be ifthis were a 20 13 setback? 14 15 Commissioner Holman: Correct. 16 17 Chair Cassel: So you would take the property line 20 feet back from the rear line to 18 almost the middle of the property and then do it. 19 20 Commissioner Holman: Correct. 21 22 Ms. Grote: We did not prepare that. I believe the applicant did .. 23 24 Chair Cassel: Is it okay if we have the applicant demonstrate this for us? 25 26 Mr. Northway:' This may be a little dim but I will trace it with my finger. This is the 27 house through Gary's room on the bottom and a stairwell. This line running along here is 28 . 20 feet and going up and over is the normal rear daylight plane. That is for the wider part 29 of the second floor. This is the sitting room and you can see the daylight plane goes right 30 up the wall and over. So essentially this part of the second floor, the narrower part. Yes, 3 1 pretty close. 32 33 Chair Cassel: I need to hear what you are saying. 34 35 Commissioner Holman: I was asking the architect, John, if what I had drawn was 36 accurate and he said, yes, essentially. So I was asking ifhe could put that up it might be 37 a little clearer. 38 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 of the 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 turn 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 of the 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 talkabout 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. I 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-l 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 wilInot 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 oftheir 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 ofthe front setback and 40 rear setback encroachment Variances is sort of a non-issue. I feel completely 41 comfortable making those findings. With ~egard to the rear daylight plane encroachment 42 I have no problem making the findings 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 V ariance 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 ifthis 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 tome 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 on the next property based on the orientation of those 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 suppo~ing 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'tsay 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 of that setback. I think thatis 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 of those 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 heIp protect some ofthe 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 subj ect. 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-1 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 horne. I 36 think if this 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 o'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 about 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. 23 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: Y esI just want to say one other thing about obscuring windows. 30 I have had todeal 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 in the 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 amendmeht 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 correct me if! 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 f:lllY of the protections that those people are concerned with. 20 So I think it needs to be some installed obscuring of the 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 ofthe 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 Planning Division February 24, 2005 Alena Campagna Stoecker & Northway Architects, Inc. 437 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attachment J Ci~of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Subject: 705 Ellsworth Place, Single F'amilylJi~i:Yl.qI.J,t.lI:tleView, .'. (04-IR-44), Director's Hearing Decisiop.. ..... . On February 24,2005, the Dir~ci9r:oiPlam1ing and Co~unityE~~irol)lliei1t conditionally approved Sin,glbFanuJy'Irla~viqual Re,Yi~w(IR)~pptl'catiob. 04-IR- . 44 for a new two-story resIdence. This approv.a:l \v~s granted:aft¢;::theDirector' s Hearing of February 3,2005 ,and is pursllant to thePalo'Ai£o Mun1cip~f Code . (P AMC) Chapter 18.:14.' Tll~.¥ndingwas 1uade by the Dit~ctor that the project .. ' meets all nine oftheP~lo:tAlto SingI(~;Family Individual Riyiew Guidelines. 'd ~ ...... 'ike;;"~. .' ,,~';f,; .' At the February 3L,Director'sHearing, several residents~#~,~e property owner of the abutting apa,rtment;;builclingsraised issues rega:rd::ggg;:;tll~ project's consistency with privacy g1l1deIines related to window pl~~~inent. Their concerns focused on thre~rear~faci1J,g windows and one side-faci~g~''¥Wdow. Additionally, a concern about\yas ntised. about:the shadow impactsrp(th~:'project. ',-.. ' ,.; '-'''''' -.," "'-', ", :::~.:,...: ":-. ~." ,. <:.:-, , : ';-,; ~ ",' <'~:':'.{). '::,,: .;;':".,;~., .. ',' Privacy Guidelines ..,c";>':'·-"'f·: ,; Principle: The home des,ign.wlll be sensitive to priya,c.yfbt/p,iJtP :t.h'eproposed house and adjacehtneigilb'Ors. The,placement of se~Q~dtstg&~~~dpws and balconies are pariic;ularly important aspects of pri~dcY:~.bhSid~r:~tions . . ,. . ,. . ". , .' .", _.... . -:'. -. '. .'" ;'" ';' -~, . . .. ,.:::<", . . ,,",:, .: .. ,:~;~:-: .. !; .. :: .. , . The project addresses the privacyconce11,1sby placing the·Miindows at an appropriate distance frolU,the neighboril1gbuildingsand ltsbJ.g clerestory windows. The distance between the side-facing window of the proposed second floor and the adjacent building is 57·feet. The three windows proposed for the rear of the house facing the apartmentbuilding are located in'the bl;lthroom, staircase landing, and a sitting room. Both thebl:lthroom and stair landing are \ " ".'. . 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 fax . ~,. "." 705 Ellsworth J>lace 04-IR-44 Director's Hearing Decision . Page 2 of4 approximately 24 feet from the apartment building and the sitting room window is approximately 35 feet away from that building. The proposed project does not include balconies~ Mass and Scale Guidelines Principle: The overall massing of new homes and second-story additions should be compatible with the 'adjacent houses and the predominant neighborhood scale. On streets where single story houses ot small two story houses are the predominant block pattern, a new two-story house or second-story addition may require some special attention to reduce the massing and perceived sense of bulk. The mass of the proposed two-story house fits with the scale of the immediate one-story R.,l neighborhood. The proposed height is approximately 23 feet with each floor having eight foot ceilings. The second floor mass has been articulated and is setback on the firststory. The use of second floor donners also visually reduces the size of the home. Streetscape Guidelines Principle: Neighborhood patterns are defined by existing setbacks, heights, entry ways and porches, garages, roofs, and fields ofvi'ew. The Guidelines expect a neighborhood pattern based on the community desire to preserve a sense of massing, scale, 'and spatial openness within neighborhoods. The' placement of the new house follows the setback pattern of the street and has a simple architecture that blends with the other homes on the street,. The entry way has been integrated into the building design and is at a pedestrian scale. The garage placement is subordinate to the main house and emphasized as such by having a single-car garage door. Shadow Impacts The issues raised regarding shadows, which is not part of the IR guidelines, are related to the rear apartment building that 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. 705 Ellsworth Place 04-IR-44 Director's Hearing Decision Page 3 of4 The applicant provided a shadow study that illustrates that there would be minimal impact on the adjacent apartment to the rear. The worst-case scenario is during the Winter Solstice when the sun is at its lowest angle. At this time of the year, the project would cast a shadow over all or a portion of three of the rear property's private open spaces between 9:00 AM and 1:00 PM. By three o'clock in the afternoon, the proje·ct would cast a shadow over a portion ofthe 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. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The approval is subject to the following conditions: .. 1. The project sh~ll be constructed in substantial compliance with . development plans received August 27, 2004, on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California 2. A copy of this approval letter shall be printed on the first page of the plans submitted for building perrilit. The Director's decision shall be final ten calendar days from the postmark date of this letter. Prior to the expiration of said ten-day period, the project applicant or an owner or occupant of any of the adj acent properties may appeal the decision and request review by the City Council as provided in Chapter 18.14.100 of the P AMC~ The appeal shall be made in writing and filed with appropriate fees with the Planning Department within ten· calendar days after the postmark date of this letter. In the event that there is a request for a City Council hearing, the City Council shall determine whether to hear the appeal within thirty days of the hearing request. If the City Council declines the request to review the decision, this approval shall become effective upon their decision. If the City Council consents to hear the appeal, an additional letter will be mailed with information regarding the scheduled bearing date before the City Council. 705 Ellsworth Place 04-JR-44 Director!s Hearing Decision Page 4 of4 Should you have any questions regarding this approval, please do not hesitate to call Clare Campbell, Associate Planner, at (650) 617-3191. Sincerely, -;1 ~tc C'····~/ /1-• .' . b/~1 \....krL-- Lisa Grote Chief Planning Official Project Man~ger: Clare Campbell cc: Neighbor notification list Stephen Pahl . Vera Shadle Kathy Bilbro Joy Ogawa Bhanu Iyengar CORRESPONDANCE 705 Ellsworth Place Attachment K There were several communications received 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 E!lsworth Place 04-VAR-11 Hello Clare, My name 'is Kathy Bilbro and I am a resident in the Sutter Anns 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 an unuasually 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) corning 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 that 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' 2/812005 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 addre$s to the Commission, I again stated my position, not against the redevelopment of the site, I believe the construction of a new home in keeping with the character of Ellsworth Place will benefit all of us in the n·eighborhood. 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 built. 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 secona 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 of the current and future residents of the apartments. Sincerely, Edward D. Barry 2/812005 Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Subject: FYI. zariah, x2440 Betten, Zariah Tuesday, February 01,20057:15 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: 70S Ellsworth Ln T To whom it Concerns, This e-mail is in· response to the Planning Departments approve the 70S 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 70S Ellsworth nor is there any sign of gardening taking place at 70S 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 replacemehthome 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 2/812005 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: l. 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 of Commissioners stated that they have visited 705 Ellsworth Place but at no time did I hear anyone state 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 l6 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 l)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 ~tory 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 ~istance 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, riurses, 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 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 benefiting 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 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, Page 1 of 1, 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 ofa sidewalk, four to five feet. We are more overly concerned with the possibility ofa 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 cl:Ioose 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 112012005 · . 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 ymshadle@earthlink.net 112012005 Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Subject: To: Clare Campbell: Denis Johnston [kauaifoods@yahoo.com] Monday, December 13, 2004 9:19 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 &I 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 liv~ 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 new 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 · '0 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 1:47PM 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 particular 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 (Le., 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 and I 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 1120/2005 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 · . Page 1 of 1 Campbell, Clare From: Vera Shadle [vmshadle@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 1 :27 PM To: Campbell, Clare Subject: VARIANCE FOR 705 ELLSWORTH PLACE Dear Project Planner Campbell: Late last week, I received a postcard entitled "Notice of Proposed Development Project" for 705 Ellsworth Place. Not only did I qualify for receiving !?aid postcard because I live within 600 feet of said property, but my bedroom window overlooks the property approximately 30-35 feet away from the existing structure (my windows face east- southeast: my bedroom is to the left of the house as you face it from the front). Could you answer a few questions for me? (1) Is the current owner or a new owner requesting the variance? (2) Have I translated the information on the postcard properly when I infer that the variance calls for (a) demolition of the existing one-story house and replacement with a two-story house; and (b) a request to build right out to the left and rear property lines? (3) What is the English translation for "rear daylight plane encroachment?" My concerns include the following: (1) I don't see any other two-story homes on Ellsworth Place. This would mean a significant break. from the current neighborhood appearance, not to mention a LARGE loss of daylight into my small corner apartment. (2) How am I to know that this new monster home won't include windows looking directly into my bedroom window and depriving me of what little privacy I gain in an overgrown studio apartment by being on the second floor? I raise the issue because this phenomenon has been a large point of contention for several other Palo Altans during the recent conversion of scrapers to built-out monster homes that steal light and space from immediate neighbors. (3) I want to know who owns the property because in my seven years in this apartment, I have already summoned the police *innumerClble* times to deal with party noise complaints and other late-nightlearly-morning disruptions of my sleep emanating from the tenants of this property. Whatever goodwill the tenants of this property possessed was exhausted early and often many years ago. To say that I am less than thrilled by this development is an understatement. I eagerly await your response, Sincerely, Vera M. Shadle, MHA, MHS vmshadle@earthlink.net 1120/2005