The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-04-19 City Council (7)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 7 FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT APRIL 19, 2004 CMR:236:04 800 SYCAMORE DRIVE [04-AP-01]: RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF TO DENY REQUEST FOR HEARING OF APPEAL BY ANDREW CHIANG OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S APPROVAL OF THE INDIVIDUAL REVIEW APPLICATION (03-IR-69) FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OWNED BY FILIBERTO ALVAREZ. ZONE DISTRICT: R-1. FILE NO.: 03-IR- 69. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council decline to hear the appeal of Single Family Individual Review application 03-IR-69, thereby upholding the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s (Director) approval. Four or more affirmative votes by Council Members are needed to set the matter for hearing. If Council chooses to hear this appeal, it will be agendized for a date to be determined. BACKGROUND An appeal was filed by the adjacent property owner at 872 Sycamore Drive, in reference to the decision following the March 5, 2004 Director’s Hearing, which was to uphold the original approval of the Single Family Individual Review (IR) application. Attachment A is a copy of the letter that was submitted with the appeal. Initially, the project application was approved by the Director on January 8, 2004 (Attachment B). Shortly after the letter was mailed to the adjacent property owners and residents, staff was contacted by email from the adjacent owners of 872 Sycamore Drive, who requested the project be discussed at a Director’s Hearing (Attachment C). Following review of the project at the hearing and after all public comments were received, the hearing officer rendered a decision (Attachment D). CMR:236:04 Page 1 of 3 The project would involve the complete demolition of the existing single-story building and the construction of a new two-story residence, slightly over 3,000 square feet in size. The lot size is 7,715 square feet. The new residence is proposed at a height of approximately 24.5 feet, under the imposed 30-foot height limit. The neighborhood consists of a cul-de-sac street, containing a variety of housing styles and a mix of single and two-story houses. The application was originally submitted on July 8, 2003 and underwent numerous revisions until the Director’s approval was achieved on January 8, 2004. Since that time, the plans have not been modified. DISCUSSION Staff believes that the project meets all applicable zoning regulations and IR guidelines. Following the Director’s hearing and given there was concern from the appellant, staff employed the City’s IR consultant to develop a solar study, in order to delineate the amount of shadow effect that would occur onto the adjacent property-created by the proposed residence. A copy of the study has been provided as Attachment E and indicates that only a minor portion of the adjacent residence would experience shadows beyond what an allowed 7’0" fence would create. Staff believes the hours of the day and time of year used to develop this study are an appropriate average of shadow effects, as the summer or winter times of the year would merely produce, exaggerated results to one extreme or other. IR guideline No. 6 is to "respect the solar orientation of the adjacent neighbor’s houses and yards," not eliminate all shadows on site. Staff’s position is that the design of the house, as shown in the provided plan set (Attachment F) and resulting shadows delineated in the solar study, achieves the intent of this guideline. Further justification of staff’s support for this project, in relation to the contested IR guidelines (Nos. 1, 5, and 6) by the appellant, is detailed in Director’s Hearing Decision Letter (Attachment D). RESOURCE IMPACT The project application and the appeal fees are not cost-recovery and do not cover the costs associated with the continued review of this application. Continued review of this application through appeal affects various staff resources, such as an increase in workload and the creation of new costs to prepare for and carry out public hearings. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The appeal of staff’s decision and the scope of this project are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Sections 15270 and 15301. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Letter of Appeal CMR:236:04 Page 2 of 3 Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Director’s Approval Letter Director’s Hearing Request Letters Director’s Heating Decision Letter Solar Study from City’s Consultant Project Plan Set (Council Members only) ¯ COURTESY COPIES Filiberto Alvarez, Property Owner Louis Bobrowsky, Project Architect Andrew Chiang, Resident Catherine Ballantyne, Resident Lynn Chiapella, Resident PREPARED BY: Chris Magi,., Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ~" StO¢~ Emsfie Director of Planning and Community Environment Assistant City Manager CMR:236:04 Page 3 of 3 872 Sycamore Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 814-0228 Attachment A March 19, 2004 City of Palo Alto Office of the City Clerk Subject: Appeal from the decision of the Director of Planning & Community Environment regarding 800 Sycamore Drive (03-1R-69) Dear Council Member: This letter is to request a formal review by the City Council of the decision dated March 5,.2004, regarding 800 Sycamore Drive (03-IR-69). It appears that this house design is meant to maximize square footage rather than fit the characteristics of this tot and neighborhood. Although it meets the 35% square footage ratio rule, with only 40 sq. ft. of margin, it is not very close to the spirit of that rule..Within.the review guidelines, this size, height and . placement would appear to violate guidelines 3(a), 4, and 8(b). The following are the points that we would like to raise to the City Council. Guideline No. i: Place second-sto~. .. windows to respect privacy between properties. We expressed concern regarding the location of the second-story bathroom window. We had originally requested that the window be removed....The solution provided by the planning manager was to "obscure the window glazing": By doing this alone, it does not solve the privacy issue raised, especially with a window directly above the master bathtub since the window can still be opened. We would like to see this window be removed; however if this is impossible, we. request that the solution include in addition to the obscuring of the window glazing the requirement that the window become fixed (permanently shut). There appears to be no consideration of window placement with respect to the rear properties. The rear of the.planned house is a tall rectangle with windows throughout. Guideline No. 6: Respect the solar orientation of the adjacent neighbors houses and yards. We expressed concern that the location of the buildirig footprint and second story design directly impacted our lot’s southern exposure, thereby adversely andpermanently affecting (a) the use of solar panels on our single story ~ ¯- (b)~ous~,Lh~ ,=b~ky for our u)tl~Lllq9 frul, trees to u ~, ~v=, ,=~ ~u (c) ~m~dn~’: :" - ,~y--" "~uLu~ ~’ "- use of that side of our property to grow fruits and vegetables. The existing design of the building puts the majority of the second story mass on our southern exposure, with no second story mass on the other side of the building. We.would like to work with the applicant to shift the second story over away from our southern exposure and more it toward the other adjacent neighbor’s northern exposure, which will have no solar impact on that side. In this way our southern exposure is preserved with no adverse effects to any of the other neighbors. Guidelines No. 3!i/I0: The mass and scale of the building is too large for the neighborhood - at >3000 sq: ft., it is twice the size of nearby homes. Recognizing that, and keeping guideline #3 in mind, the designer should take advantage of the existing example of a detached garage in the rear setback to divide up the mass. This is allowable on a deep lot (! 12ft) like this one, as it could easily be done and meet the 75ft. setback rule from the front properb,/line. This detached garage would also enhance the privacy (guideline #1) of the north and northwest neighbors. A detached garage also respects guideline #10 ("garage and driveway located to mitigate their visual impact on the street....). Finally, the detached garage would allow the designer to get a similar square footage of living space with a building shape that is less boxy, allowing the mass to be more centered (away from both front and back), which should allow more transition space from the low heights of adjacent single-story homes to the peak height of the proposed 2-stob, home. Page 2 March 1 £, 2004 We appreciate you giving us the opportunity to have this reviewed by the City Council and your efforts on our behalf in continuing to work with the applicant to try to resolve our differences. If you have any. questions, please feel free to call me anytime at 650-814-0228. Thanks. Sincerely, Andrew Chiang Attachment B Palo Alto Department qf Planning and Community Environment January 8, 2004 Planning Division Eiliberto Alvarez 4410 Fair Oaks Menlo Park, CA 94024 Subject: 800 Sycamore Drive; Single Family Individual Review; 03-IR-69 Dear Mr, Alvarez: On Thursday, January 8, 2004, the Director of Planning and Community Enviromnent conditionally approved Single Family Individual Review application No. 03-IR-69 for a new two- story single-familyresidence at 800 Sycamore Drive. This approval was ganted pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.14. The project meets all ten of the Palo Alto Single Family 7ndividual Review Guidelines and complies with the R-.1 Zone District regulations for development, as conditioned. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Division The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the plans submitted and received on September 17, 2003 that are on file with the City of Pal0 Alto Planning Division, modified to meet conditions of this approval. 2.A copy of this approval letter shall be printed on ff~e cover s1~eet of the plans submitted for all building permits. A Street WorkPe~vnit f~om the Public Works Engineering Division is required for the new driveway approach and other work proposed within the public right-of-way. Please contact an Engineering Technician at the Development Center (285 Hamilton Avenue) for application processes and issuance. Any proposed construction within the City right-of-way, easements, or other property under the City’s jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. CONDITIONS. OF BUILDING PEKNTr ISSUANCE Building Inspections Division 1. Building permit(s) and demolition permit(s) are required for all proposed constmchon. Public Works Engineering Division A Grading & Drainage Plan, prepared by a qualified licensed engineer, surveyor, or architect and wetrstamped and signed by the same, must be submitted for the project site. This plan must show existing and proposed drainage of the site, including spot elevations of existing and proposed 250 Hamflto~ Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.~29.2441 650.329.2154 ~ax 800 Sycamore Drive 03-IR.69 January 8, 2004 Page 2. of 2 grades, and arrows that show how the proposed drainage will work. The site shall be fi~e ~aded to prm!ide a minimum of 2% slope away from the building perimeter and adjacent property lines. Existing drainage coming from adjacent properties shall be maintained. In no case shall the final grading increase the sheet flow onto adjacent properties [-PAMC 16.28.270(c)]. 3.The plan set must include the sheet: "Pollution Prevention--It’ [ Part of the Plan". This sheet contains the "Best Management Practices" for this construction activity. Public Works Department--Managing Arborist The existing Street Tree (Red Horse-Chestnut) is allowed to be removed. The replacement tree shall be an American Ash (Fraxinus Americana [Autumn Purple]), and its size shall be 24-inch box. The new tree shall be installed in the approximate location indicated on the approved plans, no closer than five (5) feet from any under~ound utility, such as water, gas, sewer, or power lines, and to the standards and satisfaction of the Managing Arborist in the Public Works Department. This approval is based on plans submitted and received on September 17, 2003. Interested parties may wish to review the final plans on file at the City of Palo Alto Development Center--285 Hamilton Avenue--prior to the end of the !0-day hearing request period. This approval will become effective 10 calendar days from the postmark date of this letter, unless the Planning Department receives a written request for a Director’s Hearing prior to the end of the last business day of the effective hearing-request period (PAMC 18.14.090). A copy of this letter shall accompany all future requests for City permits relating to this approval. In the event that there is a request for a Director’s Hearing, an additional letter will be mailed with information regarding the scheduled hearing date before the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Should you have any questions concerning this approval, please contact the Project Planner, Chris Magnusson, at (650) 329-2189. Sincerely, Am), French, AICP Manager of Current Planning cc:Louis Bobrowsky, Project Architect Neighbor Notification List FILE (Chris Magnusson, Project Planner) Attachment C Magnusson, Chris From: Sent: To: Subject: Andrew Chiang [andrew_chiang @ earthlink.net] Friday,.January 09, 2004 9:18 PM Magnusson, Chris cballantyne @ absolutemor~gage.com :800,SycamorePlan Appro~/al ~ Appeal Chris, We received a letter from Amy French regarding the approval of the plans for 800 Sycamore. But we did not receive any notification regarding how our feedback was taken into account. Could you please let us know what changes were made to the original-plans based on our feedback? iHaving seen no feedbadk, we formally appealthe approval decision madeby Amy French for the.800 :Sycamore~property. Is this .email sufficientfor such .an appeal? Thanks. ~Andrew (814-0228) ~son, Chris From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachment C Catherine Ballantyne [cballantyne @ absolutemortgage.com] Friday, January 09, 2004 12:11 PM Magnusson, Chris andrew_chiang @ earthlin k.n et RE:Issues with 800 Sycamore Drive I write to appeal the decision issued by Amy French regarding the new build proposed by Filiber[o Alvarez for 800 Sycamore Dr. Contrary to your assurance that we would hear a response from Filiberto regardng .our written concerns.submitted during the public comment perod, we have heard NOTHING from him regarding our concerns. Cheers, ccb March 5, 2004 ¯Attachment DCity,, Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Filiberto Alvarez 4410 Fair Oaks Menlo Park, CA 94024 Planning-Division Subject: 800 Sycamore Drive; Single Family Individual Review; 03-IR-69 Dear Mr. Alvarez: On Thursday, February 19, 2004, a requested Director’s Hearing was held to discuss the Director of Plamaing mad Commtmity Environment’s decision on this project This letter is to infm-m you that I~ as thehearing officer, have decided to uphold the Director’s original decision rendered on January 8, 2004, which was to conditionally approve Single Family Individual Review application No.. 03-IR-69 for a new two-story sing!e-family residence at 800 Sycamore Drive. My determination is based on all information contained within the project file including a recent!y-prepared solar study, .review of the proposal in comparison to all applicable zoning and mmaicipal code requirements, and the presentations, public cormnents, and discussion of this project in a public forum at the Dfl’ector’ s Hearing on February 19, 2004. After reviewing all this information, I have conciuded that the oriNnal findings for approval remain applicable as stated and pursuant to the Palo Alto Mtmicipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.14; the project conforms with all ten of the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines m~d compiles with the R-1 Zone District regulations for development, as conditioned. As you are aware, the co-owners of the adjacent property, who originally requested the Director’s Hearing, have indicated concerns with your project. Specifically, these concerns are related to Single Family Individual Review. Guidelines Nos. 1 (second-story window piacement), 5 (front facades); and 6 (sunlight orientation), tn response to the concerns submitted prior to and voiced at the punic hearing, the following comments apply: Guideline No. 1: _Place second-stoT~y windows to respect privacy between properties. The expressed concern was withthe location of the second-story master bathroom window. At the public hearing, yon indicated your willingness to obscure the window glazing, and I have accepted your solution to mitigate this issue. As a result, a new condition of approvalhas been added (No. 4 below) to document this modification to the previously approved building elevations. Guideline No. 5’ (a) _Provide a fi’ont fa,cade with visual interest, a sense of human scale, and visual focal points that complement the overall design and enhance the residential 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.3v9.2154 fax 800 Sycamore Drive 03-IR-69 March 5, 2004 Page 2 of 5 scale; and (b) Carefully compose Window locations, patterns, proportions, and shape when planning a second-sto~3., addition. The expressed concern was that the_house style, including the four proposed second-story windows at the stairwell, was not in keeping with most of the houses on the street. I have re-evaluated the project in terms ofthis guideline and still find the project consistent with GuideLine 5. The desigaa incorporates Pedestrian-level elements on the first floor (such as the recessed entry, large living room window, and staggered and divided garage doors), as well as varied materials choices on both stories. As you are aware, colors, material choices, and a building’s precise architectural style are not designated or regulated by the Sing!e Family Individual Review process. GuideLine No. 6: Respect the solar orientation of the adjacent neighbor’s houses and yards. The expressed concern was with the location of the building footprint and design of the ftoorplan in terms of impacting (a) all of the adjacent lot’s southern exposure; (b) the use of the adjacent site’s solar panels; and (c).the ability to grow fruit and/or Limiting the growth of the existing citrus grove within the adjacent site’s yard area. Subsequent to the Director’s hearing, the City’s Single Family Individual Review desig-n consultant prepared additional analysis to assess the impacts resulting from any shadows created by the proposed house on the adjacent property. The attached solar study shows the shadow effects caused during the fall/spring time of year (i.el, recognizable as a sufficient mean indicator). The study shows the quantifiable amount of shadow effect a proposed second story would create on the neighboring lot. This study reveals a number of facts: .(a) only a minor portion of the existing adjacent building would be shaded beyond what an allowable fence height (at 7 feet) would create; (b) this same shadow would occur only within a limited area on site; and (c) this same shadow would occur for brief period during morning hours. After reviewing the information in the record and the additional solar study, I find the proposal consistent with Guideline 6. The intent of this guideline was not to completely eliminate shadows from being cast onto an adjacent neighbor’s yard but calls for minimizing sunlight obstructions and shadowing on adjacent properties. The adjacent property will be ensured solar access through the enforcement of the daylight plane regulation within the zoning ordinance and the minimizing of shadowing onto its adjacent building and yard through the project’s design. The solar study has reaffirmed the Director’s original determination that the project meets the intent of this guideline. 800 Sycaxnore Drive 03-IR-69 March 5, 2004 Page 3 of 5 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Division The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the plans submitted and received on September 17, 2003 that are on file with the City of Palo Alto Planning Division, modified to meet conditions of this approval. 2.A copy.of this approval letter shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plans submitted for all building permits. A Street Work Permit from the Public Works Engineering Division is required for the new driveway approach and other work proposed within the public right-of-way. Please contact an EnNneering Technician at the Development Center (285 Hamilton Avenue) for application processes and issuance. Any proposed construction within the City right-of-way, easements, Or other property under the City’s jurisdictior~ shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. 4.The second-story master bathroom window, facing the adjacent residence to the northwest, shall be set with obscured window glazing. CONDITIONS OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE Prior to Submittal of Building Permit: The following information must be shown on the Building Elevations (Sheet4), included in the plan set: 1.Add note to plans: The second-story master bathroom window, facing the adjacent residence to the northwest, shall be set with obscured window glazing. Building Inspections Division 2.Building permit(s) and demolition permit(s) are required for all proposed construction. Public Works Engineering Division 3. A Grading & Drainage PZan, prepared by a qualified licensed en~neer, surveyor, or 800 Sycamore Drive 03:12R-69 March 5, 2004 Page 4 of 5 arc!~itect and wet-stamped and signed by the same, must be submitted for the project site. This plan must show existing and proposed drainage of the site, including spot elevations of existing and proposed grades~ and arrows that show how the proposed drainage will work. The site shall be fine graded to pro~cide a minimum of 2% slope away from the building perimeter and adjacent property lines. Existing drainage coming from adjacent properties shall be maintained. In no case shall the final Fading increase the sheet flow onto adjacent properties [PAMC 16.28.270(c)]. 4. The plan set must include the sheet: "Pollution Prevention--It’s Part of the Plan". This sheet contains the "Best Management Practices" for this construction activity. Publi6 Works Department~Managing Arborist o The existing Street Tree (Red.Horse-Chestnut) is allowed to be removed. The replacement tree shall be an American Ash (Fraxinus Americana [Autumn Pu77)Ie]), and its size shall be 24-inch box. The new tree shall be installed in the approximate location indicated on the approved plans, no closer than five (5) feet from any underground utility, such as water, gas., sewer, or power lines,, and to the standards and satisfaction of the ManaNng Arb0rist in the Public Works Department. This approval is based on plans submitted and received on September 17, 2003. A copy of this letter shall accompany all future requests for City permits relating.to this approval. This approval will become effective ten (10) calendar days from the postmark date of this letter, unless an owner or occupant of any of the adjacent properties requests review by the City Council, as provided in PAMC Section 18.14.100. Should you have any questions concerning this approval, please contact the Project .Planner, Chris Magnusson, at (650) 329-2189. Sin~ Julie Capor~o Advanced Planning Manager Attachment 800 Sycamo}e Drive 03-1~R-69 March 5, 2004 Page 5 of 5 Bobrowsky & Cook - Architects, Project Architect Catherine Ballantyne and Andrew Chiang, Adjacent Residents Lynn Chiapella, Resident Neighbor Notification List FILE (Chris Magnusson, Project Planner) Attachment E " \