Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-28 City Council (9)FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:JULY 28, 2003 CMR: 328:03 , SUBJECT:346 COLORADO AVENUE [03-AP-03]: APPEAL BY OMER GOKCEK OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S APPROVAL OF A HOME IMPROVEMENT EXCEPTION APPLICATION(02-HIE-23) REQUESTED BY DEAN AND CINDY SAMOS TOALLOW A REAR DAYLIGHT PLANE ENCROACHMENT AND REAR SETBACK ENCROACHMENT TO ACCOMMODATE A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE-STORYRESIDENCE. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: EXEMPTFROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PER SECTION 15301. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s original approval. BACKGROUND This appeal was heard by the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) on May 28, 2003. A full project description is included in the attached Commission staff report (Attachment C), and excerpt verbatim minutes of the meeting are also attached (Attachment D). The appellant, who was granted a previous request to continue the June 23, 2003 City Council hearing of this item due to a conflicting business trip, has stated he cannot attend the continued public hearing and he has not received written notice. However, written notice of the Council hearing is not required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Attachment J sets forth code requirements for noticing Home Improvement Exception appeals, and describes the notice given for the Council hearings of this item. The appellant was advised to submit written comments and send a representative to the City Council meeting on July 28, 2003. CMR:328:03 Page 1 of 3 COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Planning and Transportation Commission The Commission reviewed this project and all present (one commissioner absent) voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s original approval of the Home Improvement Exception (HIE). The Commission noted that the project is well below the allowable FAR and stays within the existing building footprint. The Commission found that the proposed project was an appropriate use of the HIE, that this is an example of a discretionary review that results in a better project. The Commission stated that the Individual Review and HIE process should be complementary and that the HIE process could be used to accomplish the community-wide goals established by the Individual Review process. Other than the applicants, there were nine speakers who spoke in favor of the project, two of whom are neighbors. Other than the appellants, there were no speakers who spoke against the project. Notice cards were mailed for the Commission hearing. COURTESY COPIES Dean & Cindy Samos Omer Gokcek ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Attachment I: Attachment J: Record of Land Use Action (Approval and approved elevations attached) Appellant’s letter and email Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report (no attachments) Planning & Transportation Commission excerpt verbatim minutes Letters of support June 23, 2003 Memorandum and Excerpt of Council Action Agenda Director’s Hearing excerpt verbatim minutes Photos of appellant’s home, and original elevations for 346 Colorado Copies of approved plans for 02-HIE-23 (Council packet only) Code requirements and noticing for 03-AP-03 PREPARED BY: Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ALAN RIORDAN.,,"~) ST Director of Planning and Community Environment CMR:328:03 Page 2 of 3 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMILY Assistant City Manager CMR:.~_8:0~Page 3 of 3 ATTACHM~NTA APPROVAL NO. 2003-3 RECORD OF TKE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 346 COLORADO AVENUE: HOME IMPROVEMENT EXCEPTION 03-AP-03 (DEAN & CINDY SAMOS, APPLICANT) At its meeting of July 28, 2003, the Council the March 7, 2003, Director Of Planning and Community Environment’s approval for a request for a Home Improvement Exception for a rear daylight plane and rear yard encroachment, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION i. Background. The Director of Planning and Community Environment (~Director") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On December 20, 2002, Dean and Cindy Samos applied for a Home Improvement Exception (HIE) to request relief from the setback and daylight plane regulations for the R-I district as part of a project to build a 749 square foot second-story addition to an existing single-story house ("The Project"). An Individual Review for the second-story addition was approved on April 9, 2003 and was not appealed. That decision is final, but it is conditioned on approval of this HIE. B. The first exception allows a horizontal rear daylight plane intrusion of 15 feet, where the maximum length of a single protrusion should be no longer than 7.5 feet, with a maximum of 15 feet on any one side-. C. The second exception allows an encroachment of 2 feet i0 inches into the required 20 foot rear yard setback for the second story addition D. Following staff review, the Director reviewed and approved the project on March 7, 2003. E. The Planning and Transportation held a public hearing on May 28, 2003 and unanimously recommended that the Director’s decision be upheld and the appeal denied. SECTION 2.Environmental Review. This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Enviro.n_menta! Quality Act per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. 000302 syn 0091213 SECTION 3.Home Improvement Exception Findings i. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that: The existing location of the house created an exceptional circumstance. The house is located on a corner lot and has two street frontages that must be addressed when adding a second story. The existing first floor of the house encroaches into the required 20 foot rear yard setback a distance of two feet for its entire width. 2. The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character, or a protected tree as defined in Chapter 8.10 or other significant tree, which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of the regulations in that: The neighborhood is a mix of single-story and two-story houses, the closest ones being directly behind the project site off of South Court and the two adjacent neighbors to the right of the project site on Colorado Avenue. The addition of the second story, as approved, is sensitive to the surrounding properties and maintains the character of the mixed neighborhood. The approved design reduces the bulk and mass of the second floor and results in an overall design which preserves the existing architectural style. The addition maintains the existing small, uniform encroachment into the rear yard of the first floor, instead of creating a permitted] but more intrusive, partial encroachment. 3. 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 in that: There will not be a privacy impact to the neighboring property. The three windows positioned on the rear encroaching wall are set wel! above the line of sight at six feet above finished floor. The rear of the house faces the driveway and front yard of the neighboring property and does not overlook the main residence. The structure, with the addition, is significantly smaller than the maximum permitted Floor Area Ratio for the site, and the volume of the encroachment into the rear-yard does not exceed that permitted by the R-I Single Family district development standards. SECTION 4.Home Improvement Exception Granted. Home Improvement Exception No. 02-HIE-23 is granted for a horizontal rear daylight plane intrusion of 15 feet and a second-story 000302 syn 0091213 encroachment of 2 feet i0 inches into the required 20 foot rear yard setback. SECTION 5.Plan Approval. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Harrison Design titled Second Floor Addition and Interior Alterations at the Samos Residence, consisting of 6 pages, dated September 2, 2002, revised November 7, 2002, and received January 30, 2003, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development. The conditions of approval in Section 6 shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. SECTION Conditions of Approval. Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division A complete copy of this Record of Land Use Action shall be printed on the plans submitted with Building Permit application. SECTION 7.Term of Approval. i. Home Improvement Exception. If the Home Improvement Exception granted is not used within one year of the date of council approval, it. shal! become null and void, pursuant to by Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.90.080(c). PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment 000302 s>~n 0091213 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: i. Those plans prepared by Harrison Design titled "Second Floor Addition and Interior Alterations at the Samos Residence", consisting of 6 pages, dated September 2, 2002, (revised November 7, 2002), and received January 30, 2003. 000302 syn 0091213 Attachment A 346 Colorado Avenue (02-1:ffE-23) City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division Home Improvement Exception for 346 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, California, application number 02-HIE-23, is hereby approved to grant relief from the site development regulations set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.!2.050 (e) and (j) (2). The first exception allows a horizontal rear daylight plane intrusion of 15 feet, where the maximum length of a single protrusion should be no longer than 7.5 feet, with a maximum of 15 feet on any one side. The second exception will allow an encroachment of 2 feet 10 inches into the required 20 foot rear yard setback for the second story addition. The property involved is an existing single-family residence (Zone District R- 1). Approval is based on findings and subject to the conditions listed below. FINDINGS There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district. The existing house, located on a comer lot, is a legal non-complying structure, which encroaches 2 feet 10 inches into the required 20 foot rear yard setback The g~,anting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character, which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of code. The encroachment into the rear daylight plane creates a design that will minimize the massing of the second story addition which is visible from both the front and street side yard. The encroachment into the rear yard setback allows the second floor addition to be constructed along the existing first floor rear wall plane and helps minimizethe massing away from the front of the house. The g-ranting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property o1" improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. There will not be a privacy impact to the neighboring property. The three windows positioned on the rear encroaching wall are set well above the line of sight at six feet above finished floor. The rear of the house faces the driveway and front yard of the neighboring property and does not overlook the main residence. CONDITIONS A copy of this approval shall be printed on the blueprints and submitted with all permit applications related to this project. 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 fax 346 Colorado Avenu,~ Page 2 of 2 The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with plans received January 30, 2003, submitted in conjunction with Home Improvement Application 02-HIE-23. Plans are on file with the Planning Division of the Department of Planning and Community Environment at the City of Palo Alto Development Center. This approval is contingent upon the approval of the Individual Review Application 02-IR-96 and shall be void if 02-IR-96 is not approved. Amy French Manager of Current Planning March 7, 2003 NOTE This Home Improvement Exception is ganted in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.90 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. This permit will become effective ten days subsequent to the date of this letter, unless an appeal is filed as provided by Chapter 18.92 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. A copy of this letter shall accompany all future requests for City permits relating to this approval. In the event that this approval is appealed, an additional letter will be mailed with information regarding the scheduled hearing dates before the Planning Commission and the City Council. A Home Improvement Exception that has not been used within one year of the date issued becomes void: The Zoning Administrator may, without a hearing, extend the time for an additional year if an application to this effect is filed prior to the expiration date. O-,,vner: CC: Dean & Cindy Samos 346 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 Kirsten Harrison 43 Homer Lane Menlo Park, CA 94025 Omer Gokcek 2606 South Court Palo Alto, CA 94306 /! / i INSPECTION SERVICES Ms. Clare Campbell City of Palo Alto Development Center 285 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attachment B 2606 South Court Palo Alto, CA 94306 March ~a, 2003 Dear Ms. Campbell: I am writing with regards to 346 Colorado Avenue Home Improvement Exception application to consider allowing rear daylight plane encroachment and rear setback encroachment to accommodate a second floor addition to existing single-story residence. I am a next-door neighbor and the only resident who will be uniquely affected in the neighborhood as a result of the rear setback encroachment and rear daylight plane encroachment of 346 Colorado Avenue home improvement plan. The proposed HIE application should be rejected for the following reasons: The existing single story residence at 346 Colorado Avenue violates Zoning Ordinace Section 18.12.050 (e) (Rear Yard). The minimum rear yard setback shall be twenty feet. The existing rear yard setback is less than twenty feet. Section 21.04.080 (Noncompliance - Permit issuance prohibited) states that ’~o permit or approval of any type necessary- for the development of such property shall be issued by the city, whether the applicant was the owner of record at the time of such violation.., until such time as a fmal or parcel map or certificate of compliance for the property is approved and recorded. The enforcement of the provisions of this section shall be in addition to any other remedy or penalty. provided by law for violation of this title or the Subdivision Map Act." In short, HIE applications cannot be granted for sm~ctures with existing building code violations. There are no exceptional or extraordinaD, circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district. Applicants have not provided any evidence to show why their property is, in any way, unique compared to other property in the district. No special circumstances exist to grant a HIE. The granting of the application is not desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character. The existing single story residence at 346 Colorado Avenue maintains the existing architectural style and character of the neighborhood. Applicants have not shown how an addition of a second story - when a majori~" of neighborhood homes are single story - would enhance the existing residentia! design or neighborhood characteristics. The granting of the application will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. As stated above, the existing one story- home on 346 Colorado Avenue violates the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The proposed two- story addition would amount to a continuing Code violation and a more significant invasion of privacy of my home. The City should not permit applicants to "build out" where the existing property violates the setback rules. Moreover, the HIE application requests two exceptions, not one. The rear daylight plane encroachment would block existing height requirements and impact neighboring views to Colorado and South Court Avenues. The proposed HIE application should be rejected for the reasons stated above. Applicants’ vague references to aesthetic features should not be permitted to overrule invasions of privacy, interference with views, and noncompliance with existing building code violations. I hope your decision will be based on enforcing existing Code regulations, specifically City of Palo Alto daylight and setback regulations. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely yours, Omer Gokcek RECEIVED I~;!~R 0 3 INSPECTION SERVICEs From: Sent: To: Subject: Omer Gokcek [ogokcek@mail.arc.nasa.gov] Monday, June 16, 2003 5:59 PM clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org Unable to Attend City Consul Meeting Dear Ms. Campbell, I wil! not be able to present my case at City Consu! meeting on June 23, 2003 due to my government business trave! from June 22, 2003 through June 27, 2003. This trip has been arranged severa! weeks ago..~ny time after June 27, wil! be OK. i definitely want my City Consul to hear my points. Sincerely, Omer Gokcek Attachment C PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Clare Campbell Associate Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: May 28, 2003 346 Colorado Avenue [03-AP-03]: Appeal by Omer Gokcek of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of a Home Improvement Exception application (02-HIE-23) requested by Dean and Cindy Samos to allow a rear daylight plane encroachment and rear setback encroachment to accommodate a second floor addition to existing single-story residence. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15301. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s original approval. BACKGROUND Project History Dean and Cindy Samos, the property owners of a single story residence at 346 Colorado Avenue, filed an Individual Review (IR) application to allow a second story addition with the City on November 11, 2002. In the process of reviewing the IR application (02-IR- 96), staff and the consulting architect made the recommendation to the applicant to redesign the second floor addition in an effort to reduce the massing of the addition and meet the IR design guidelines. The redesign created small rear yard and rear yard daylight plane encroachments which can only be allowed with the approval of a Home Improvement Exception (HIE). The HIE application was submitted December 20, 2002. City of Palo Alto Page 1 As part of the HIE process, a request for a Director’s Hearing can be made by the applicant, the neighbors, or the general public. The purpose of this meeting is to provide a forum for neighbors and the property owners to voice their support or concerns directly to the Planning Director, who can then make a well-informed decision on the project. In anticipation of an appeal by his neighbor and to avoid further time delays, the applicant requested a Director’s Hearing and it was held on February 20, 2003. At the hearing, aside from the applicant and architect, there were no other speakers present for this item and staff had not received any public comments. The HIE (02-HIE-23) for 346 Colorado Avenue was approved on March 7, 2003, to grant the small rear yard and rear daylight plane encroachments as set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.90. The first exception allows a horizontal rear daylight plane intrusion of 15 feet, where the maximum length of a single protrusion should be no longer than 7.5 feet, with a maximum of 15 feet on any one side. The second exception allows an encroachment of 2 feet 10 inches into the required 20 foot rear yard setback for the second story addition. A Home Improvement Exception is an exception process that allows relief from the strict provisions of the zoning ordinance for such site development regulations as setbacks, daylight plane, height, lot coverage and incidental amounts of floor area. This process was created for situations where relief from the zoning regulations is desirable for sustaining the integrity of an existing design concept or neighborhood character. The following required findings were made in order to approve the HIE: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the properO, involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district. The existing house, located on a corner lot, is a legal non-complying structure, which encroaches 2 feet 10 inches into the required 20 foot rear yard setback. 2.The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural s&le or neighborhood character, which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of code. The second story rear yard and rear daylight plane encroachments create a design that will minimize the massing of the second story addition which is visible from both the front and street side yards. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The original proposal for the second story addition had two 7.5 feet rear daylight plane protrusions and was in compliance with the R-1 zoning regulations. The addition, although meeting the zoning regulations, did not comply well with the Single Family Individual Review guidelines. The addition was bulky andincreased the massing of the addition rather than visually reducing the second story mass (see Attachment C). The approved plans combine the two rear daylight plane protrusions into one 15 foot protrusion which extends to the existing rear wall of the first floor. The addition no longer runs the full width of the structure and is notched back on both sides, reducing the mass. The second story encroachment into the rear yard setback allows the addition to be constructed along the existing first floor rear wall plane and helps minimize the massing away from the front of the house. The approved design reduces the bulk and mass of the second floor and results in an overall design which preserves the existing architectural style. 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. There will not be a privacy impact on the neighboring property. The three windows positioned on the rear encroaching wall are set well above the line of sight at six feet above finished floor. The rear of the house faces the driveway and front yard of the neighboring property and does not overlook the main residence on the neighboring site. DISCUSSION Appeal The appellant, Omer Gokcek, filed an appeal within the prescribed timeline on March 17, 2003. Mr. Gokcek owns and resides at 2606 South Court, a newly constructed two-story residence located directly behind 346 Colorado Avenue. The following is an excerpt of his appeal letter and is the basis of his appeal: "The existing single sto~y residence at 346 Colorado Avenue violates Zoning Ordinance Section 18.12.050 (e) (Rear Yard). Tile minimum rear yard setback shall be twenO, feet. The existing rear yard setback is less than twenty feet. Section 21.04.080 (Noncompliance - Permit issuance prohibited) states that "No permit or approval of any type necessary for tile development of such properO~ shall be issued by the ciO,, whether the applicant was the owner of record at the time of such violation ... until such time as a final or parcel map or certificate of compliance for the properO, is approved and recorded. The enforcement of the provisions of this section shall be in addition to any other remedy or penal~, provided by law for violation of this title or City of Palo Alto Page 3 the Subdivision Map Act. "In short, HIE applications cannot be granted for structures with existing building code violations. " As stated previously, the existing house is a legal non-complying structure. The existing structure encroaches 2 feet 10 inches into the required 20 foot rear yard setback. The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) section that is referenced, 21.04.080, refers to Title 21 Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land, Chapter 21.04 General Provisions, Section 21.04.080 Noncompliance - Permit issuance prohibited. This PAMC section is not applicable to HIE’s. It addresses division of land and is not intended to prevent small encroachments into yards or daylight planes. "There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district. Applicants have not provided any evidence to show why their property is, in any way, unique compared to other property in the district. No special circumstances exist to grant a HIE. " The existing location of the house created an exceptional circumstance. The house is located on a comer lot and has two street frontages that must be addressed when adding a second story. The existing first floor of the house encroaches into the required 20 foot rear yard setback. 3. "The granting of the application is not desirable for the prese~wation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character. The existing single story residence at 346 Colorado Avenue maintains the existing architectural style and character of the neighborhood. Applicants have not shown how an addition of a second story - when a majority of neighborhood hotnes are single story - would enhance the existing residential design or neighborhood characteristics. " The neighborhood is a mix of single-story and two-story houses, the closest ones being directly behind the project site (the appellant’s) off of South Court and the two adjacent neighbors to the right of the project site on Colorado Avenue. The addition of the second story, as approved, is sensitive to the surrounding properties and maintains the character of the mixed neighborhood. The approved desig-n reduces the bulk and mass of the second floor and results in an overall design which preserves the existing architectural style. "The granting of the application will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. As stated above, the existing one story home on 346 Colorado Avenue violates the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The proposed two-story addition would amount to a continuing Code violation and a more significant invasion City of Palo Alto Page 4 of privacy of my home. The City should not permit applicants to "build out" where the existing property violates the setback rules. Moreover, the HIE application requests two exceptions, not one. The rear daylight plane encroachment would block existing height requirements and impact neighboring views to Colorado and South Court Avenues. " There will not be a privacy impact on the Mr. Gokcek’s two-story property. The windows positioned on the rear encroaching wall are set well above the line of sight at six feet above finished floor and the rear of the house faces the driveway and front yard of Mr. Gokcek’s property. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This project does not represent any change to existing city policies and is consistent with its Comprehensive Plan designation of Single Family Residential. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment A:Home Improvement Exception Approval Letter B:Omer Gokcek’s AppealLetter C:Original and approved second floor proposal D:Director’s Hearing excerpt verbatim minutes, February 20, 2003 E:Letters of Support F:Photos G:Copies of approved plans for 02-HIE-23 (Commissioner’s only) COURTESY COPIES: Dean & Cindy Samos, 346 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Omer Gokcek, 2606 South Court, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Prepared by: Reviewed by: Department/Division Head Approval: Clare Campbell, Associate Planner Amy French, Current Planning Manager Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Page 5 Attachment D 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 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 Planning and Transportation Commission May 28, 2003 Verbatim Minutes DRAFT EXCERPT NEW BUSINESS Public Hearings: 2o 346 Colorado Avenue*: [02-HIE-23] Appeal by Omer Gokcek of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of a request by Dean and CindySamos for a Home Improvement Exception application to allow a rear daylight plane encroachment and rear setback encroachment to accommodate a second floor addition to existing single-story residence. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301. Staff Report Weblink: http://www.~itv~fpa~a~t~rg/citvagenda/l~ub~ish/p~anning-trans~rtati~n-meetings/2~ Zpdl~ Ms. Amy French. Current Plannin~ Manager: Thank you Chairman Bialson, Commissioners. The project before you is an appeal of an approval that was granted by the Director of Planning and Community Environment for a encroachment into the rear setback. It is a continuation of an existing first floor encroachment up to the second floor. The existing one stow home is on a comer !ot. It was built in 1947 with legal permits with this nonconforming rear setback. The individual review process included discussion about the placement of the second floor and about reducing the massing as seen from the two streets. We looked at the revision, which extended the existing nonconforming rear wall but used clerestory windows to minimize privacy issues. We thought that it was a better architectural solution that was achieved by reducing the massing as seen from these two streets. You have the pictures in your packet showing the before and after that came through the process of individual review. However, this change did require a request for an HIE, which then was processed. The total area of the encroachment at the second floor is 45 square feet and this is represented by a bathroom, master bath area and a bedroom area, which is appropriately at the rear of the home. The zoning code allows horizontal extensions of nonconforming walls but we require an HIE or variance request for vertical extensions of existing nonconforming walls. As noted in the Staff Report, the HIE process was created for situations where relief from the zoning regulations is desirable for sustaining the integrity of an existing design concept or neighborhood character. We have several letters of support from the neighborhood and Staff was able to make all three findings for the HIE. The appellant, I believe, is here tonight and did not attend the Director’s Hearing. He lives in the adjacent two-story home to the rear of the site. That concludes my presentation. 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 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Bialson: Thank you. We can have questions now or we can hear from the appellant. Yes? Commissioner Cassel: I have a question and I believe it is for Wyrme. In the ordinance it indicates that legal nonconforming uses for business cannot add any square feet to their building. It was a little less clear about residences. Could you please explain? Ms. Furth: I can offer a partial explanation and then the Chief Planning Official who is much more conversant with the code than I am can amplify that. First I think it should be clear from the Staff Report that the code section referred to by the appellant about nonconformities refers to subdivision processes and is not relevant here. The general rule here is that we do allow these horizontal continuations of intrusions into the setback. What they are proposing to do here is build a structure that doesn’t comply with the zoning if the zoning is literally applied. That is what the Home Improvement Exception is for so if you can make the findings that are necessary to grant a Home Improvement Exception you can do that with respect to any of the lot development standards that would otherwise be applicable. So even though there is an existing legal nonconforming structure on the lot that doesn’t limit your ability to grant a Home Improvement Exception. In fact, I think it is fair to say that the Home Improvement Exception was instituted because many of the homes in Palo Alto were built under different zoning codes so they were perfectly legal adequately permitted at the time they were designed. Subsequently the City adopted building standards that may have created different height limits, different setbacks or other requirements. The City values its existing structures, it wants to encourage their retention and it acknowledges that it is a quite eclectic collection of both lot configurations and building styles. So the HIE was designed to let you modify our zoning standards for a particular lot when you can make the findings for the HIE so you are free to do so here. HIEs only apply to residential uses. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Why don’t we have the appellant speak now? That would be 15 minutes. And you are? Mr. A.J. Gokcek, 2606 South Court, Palo Alto: My name is A.J. Gokcek and I am the son of Omer Gokcek. I used to live in fact on South Court on the neighboring lot but I moved out about four months ago. I am A.J. Gokcek and I am here to represent my father, Omer Gokcek. I am a graduate of Palo Alto High School and I lived in Palo Alto for most of my life. My father came into the Palo Alto area in 1963 to study at Stanford. He received his Masters at Stanford and then came back later on in the 1970s to work on and complete his Ph.D. So he has lived in Palo Alto permanently for at least 15 to 20 years. So we know the Palo Alto area really well and we like it here a lot. I want to make it clear that we are not against our neighbors developing their property from adding a second story. We are not here to do that at all. We are here to protect our interests, to protect our rights and to uphold the law and the Municipa! Code of Palo Alto. Commissioners, earlier you alluded to the section that deals with noncompliance permit issuance prohibited. Without doubt right now the home is a non-complying residence. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 !0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 4I 42 43 44 45 46 Section 21.04.080 Noncompliance Permit Issuance Prohibited states that no permit or approval of any type necessary for the development of such property shall be issued by the City whether the applicant was the owner of record at the time of such violation until such time as a final or parcel map or certificate of compliance for the property is approved and recorded. The enforcement of this provision of this section shall be in addition to any other remedy or penalty provided by law for violation of this title. Even in Title 18, Section 18.01.05 which deals with conflicts says that if a conflict occurs between this title and the provisions of any other title, law, regulation including Title 16 the more restrictive provision shall govern, shall apply. So when I heard that Section 21 deals with subdivisions and we are here now dealing with Title 18 well, HIEs, Home Improvement Exceptions involve subdivisions and subdivisions involve restrictions on use. To say that one is exclusive and one section cannot apply that is not true at all. You will notice that in Title 18 there are many references to other sections and other titles including Title 21. You will see the same in Title 21. Title 21 references many other sections. So these are all very relevant. In fact, in Title 18 where the HIE exception is excluded it says so right there. If you talk about multi family uses for example it will say that in certain districts or in certain R-1 type homes there will not be multi family uses except where an HIE applicant is granted or a variance. So I think that if the City really wanted to make an exception under Title 21 under the provision that I cited it could have very well done so but it did not. Even Section 18.01.05 does say quite clearly that the more restrictive provision shall apply and that is not limited to Section 18. So even assuming, just for the sake of argument, that the section on subdivisions does not apply, that Section 18.01.05 does apply here, we still believe that on the merits of the three factors for the HIE that our neighbors should not receive an HIE exception. First of all there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property. There really is no evidence other than the argument that well this is a corner lot. I don’t know how the rules of evidence apply here but we do have a rough sketch of what our lot looks like which is a zigzag lot which we complied with, we complied with all the provisions, we went through the process, we are not in violation versus their property. If you like I can bring this up if you would like to take a look. Chair Bialson: Do you have multiple copies of that? Okay, we will look at these as we go down but why don’t you continue speaking at the microphone. Mr. Gokcek: As you will notice on the picture even though it is a corner lot it looks like a perfect lot to build. There doesn’t seem to be any hardships, any egregious design to the property. They have plenty of space. The argument that it is a corner lot and they should be entitled to an HIE exception well there are hundreds and hundreds of corner lots in Palo Alto. Even the former Mayor Ojakian said that the HIE is supposed to be used very, very sparingly, it is supposed to be a rare exception. So if we are going to say that is a corner lot and that is a perfect comer lot if you look at it. It is much better, much nicer than our lot and we complied with all the regulations of Palo Alto. Second, the granting of the application we believe is not desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood. The argument here in this case is that 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 somehow or another the new second story would preserve the aesthetics and it would make it more resemble the other homes in the area. Well, it is not sensitive to our property and it violates the code and there are plenty single story and two-story homes .in the area. So this argument that it is going to preserve the existing architectural style again there is no evidence of that. Fourth the granting of the application will be detrimental or injurious to property in the vicinity. The proposed two-story addition would amount to a continuing violation because right now the home is in noncompliance in the rear yard setback. Now they are going to add a second story so that is going to be even a greater rear yard setback. And third the daylight plane protrusions, the law right now is that you have to have 7.5 and 7.5 well they are going to have theirs at 15 feet. That is the old law so you are really talking about three violations. So again on al! three factors we believe we win on the argannent of whether they should have this HIE excepted. What it comes down to is we are not against our neighbors redeveloping or redesigning their property but we want them to comply with the code like we did. And we want to protect our privacy, We did the same. Our lot is a zigzag lot. They have a perfect comer lot. We believe that it is not difficult for them to comply. We are only talking about 2.5 feet. If all they did was move their first story on the rear back just about 2.5 or 2.8 feet, they move that in a little bit that would give us more privacy and we wouldn’t have a problem. Once they did that they would be in compliance. They would be in compliance with Section 21 that I cited earlier and then they can come back and apply for an HIE exception if they so choose. We believe that the better rule is that we should encourage people to abide by the provisions of the Municipal Code. Will I have a chance for a rebuttal? Chair Bialson: You will have an opportunity and have some more time. Why don’t you stay up there because we will probably have questions? You have time left from this initial presentation. I think any questions by Commissioners? I see Michael does. Go ahead Michael. Commissioner Griffin: I am interested if you would share with us a little bit an elaboration on your comment that you felt that the new remodeled structure was not sensitive to your father’s property. Maybe you could tell us a little bit more about that. Mr. Gokcek: Yes, well the Director or the Planning Staff noted that the rear yard faces our front yard and I believe they said the front yard and the side somehow but they did not mention that the rear yard actually faces two bedrooms, it will face two upstairs bedrooms, a living and a dining room including the entrance into the house. All they said was that the rear yard faces the front yard and it faces part of the front yard but actually it faces more closely to the bedrooms and the living room and the dining room. So I hope that answers your question. We don’t believe it would be hard to do. Chair Bialson: Karen. 4 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 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Holman: Yes, I have a couple of questions. Did you go through the individual review process? I take it your family built the house on lot on South Court? Mr. Gokcek: Yes. Commissioner Holman: Did you go through the individual review process for that? Mr. Gokcek: I would have to defer that. Mr. Omer Gokcek: It was not required. Commissioner Holman: Okay. Then what is the distance between the fence and the side of your house? Mr. Gokcek: My father can comment. Chair Bialson: We need to have you at the microphone. Mr. Omer Gokcek: We meet all the requirements. Minimum six feet from fence to the house and we have also a daylight requirement which is we put the second floor at that time the exception was 15 feet. After 15 feet you have to put the second floor in so that you can meet this daylight requirement and the height requirement was 27 feet, we meet that one. The FAR is much smaller than the requirement and we meet all the requirements. We went through the review. Otherwise they would not allow you even a single inch if you go build a new one. They would not allow a single inch to violate this zoning requirement. Chair Bialson: I appreciate that. Commissioner Holman: Thank you very much. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Pat? We have no further questions at this time. Thank you. Mr. A.J. Gokcek: Maybe we can reserve the balance of our time? Chair Bialson: Yes, that would be fine. Are there questions of Staff at this time before we go on to public comments? Do we have any questions of Staff?. No, okay. We will reserve that for later. Now I need speaker request cards. Why don’t we have the applicant speak and you will have 15 minutes as well. Ms. Cindy Samos. 346 Colorado Avenue. Palo Alto: I just wanted to mention that this is not actually correct. The lot size is about 7,000 square feet it is 7,781 by 90. Chair Bialson: Could you introduce yourself, please? 5 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 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Samos: I am Cindy Samos. My husband Dean and I live at 346 Colorado. We are asking for the HIE. As you know we are here tonight because our neighbor, Omer Gokcek, has appealed City Planner’s acceptance of our Home Improvement Exception or HIE. An HIE that allows us to add a second story to our home that protrudes into the daylight plane and rear setback two feet, ten inches for a length of 15 feet. We moved into our home, built in 1947, and situated on the comer of Colorado and South Court in 1991. We now have an eight-year-old son plus twin boys who are nearly five. We have completely outgrown our 1,230 square foot two bedroom one bath home and finally four years after their birth we started our remodeling project one year ago. In keeping with individual review guidelines Kirsten Harrison designed a second story addition setback from the front of the house consistent with our two adjacent neighbors on Colorado Avenue. This design added approximately 728 square feet to our house and left its footprint exactly the same. Even though this resulted in a house approximately 500 square feet less than our allowable FAR it will be an unbelievably huge improvement for our family and for our quality of life. In November 2002 we submitted plans for individual review that conformed to all IR guidelines and legally allowed setback and daylight plane requirements. None of our neighbors commented on our plan during that ten-day comment period. However, when we attended a fin!l meeting with the Planning Department for approval a suggestion that was made that with an HIE we could significantly improve our design to simplify and minimize the massing of the second story. We then submitted new plans containing these modifications and applied for an HIE for the two exceptions that we have already mentioned. We then wrote a letter explaining the changes to 14 of our immediate neighbors and also spoke directly with nearly all of them. Every single neighbor we spoke with preferred our new design. A Director’s Hearing for the HIE took place February 20th, only our designer and Dean and I were there but Mr. Gokcek, who lives behind us at 2606 South Court, submitted a letter to City Planners 11 days later on March 3 stating that he didn’t want the City to accept our HIE. City Planners reviewed Mr. Gokcek’s letter and addressed his concerns in their approval letter for our HIE on March 7 stating that there are exceptional circumstances about our property that warrant the HIE and that there would be no privacy impact to Mr. Gokcek’s property. After receiving the approval letter from the City Mr. Gokcek appealed our HIE without responding in any way to the City’s acceptance letter for HIE. I will now address the concerns of Mr. Gokcek in his pre-appeal letter. He states that HIE applications cannot be granted for structures with existing building code violations. Our home built in 1947 before the 20-foot rear setback rule existed has a two-foot, ten- inch protrusion into the currently zoned 20-foot rear setback. Even so there is no reason an HIE could not be used in our case. An HIE by definition is an exception to the zoning rules that exist. We are asking for an encroachment that Mr. Gokcek’s own newly constructed home has. The southeast sidewall of his home encroaches the daylight plane for a 15-foot span, an encroachment that was allowed until the last year when the 6 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 individual review ordinance was enacted. However, we are asking for a 15-foot daylight plane encroachment for the specific purpose of simplifying and minimizing the second story massing, not for the purpose of building the maximum allowable sized home. Mr. Gokcek states, "Applicants have not provided any evidence to show why their property is, in any way, unique compared to other property in the district. No special circumstances exist to grant the HIE." We have several unusual circumstances on our property. Colorado Avenue has we have a single six-foot side setback, the street side setback is 16 feet. The rear wall of our L-shaped house is clearly visible from South Court so we have to design a second story with a streetscape for three exposed sides. Finally, we have an existing two-foot, ten-inch protrusion into the rear setback, which most homes do not have. Mr. Gokcek states, "Applicants have not shown how an addition of a second story - when a majority of neighborhood homes are single story- would enhance the existing residential design or neighborhood characteristics." We have made an effort to design a second story, which enhances the neighborhood character. We maintain the current front streetscape to make it consistent with the other two-story homes next to us and we designed a home, which minimizes the effect of second story massing. We wonder why Mr. Gokcek is even bringing up the issue of a second story. His own newly built home is maximum FAR, two stories and at 28 feet tall is six feet higher than our proposed addition. Twelve homes on our block are two-story and the two adjacent houses on either side of us are two-story. Moreover, he had no issue with the individual review process for our home and thus had no comment about us building a second story addition so it is quite confusing to us that he would even bring up an objection to a second story in general during the HIE process and why this would even be considered a justifiable complaint in the appeal process. Mr. Gokcek states, "Appl!cants vague references to aesthetic features should not be permitted to overrule invasions of privacy and interference with views." Both of our pre- HIE and HIE plans were designed to be respectful of Mr. Gokcek’s privacy. In both plans the windows facing Mr. Gokcek’s property are all located six feet above floor height and overlook his garage and driveway. He had no issue with privacy in our pre- HIE plan and made no comments or appeal during the IR process, therefore, with all due respect to Mr. Gokcek we don’t understand why he even brought this up in his complaint letter for our HIE. Additionally, when Mr. Gokcek built his two-story home two years ago we asked him if he could possibly place two of his front bedroom windows higher so that we could maintain our backyard privacy. He stated that this was not possible. When we asked him if he might be able to plant some screening vegetation he told us there was no room. So we planted four trees on our property and our own expense instead. This will have the mutual benefit of both helping us with our privacy and blocking Mr. Gokcek’s view of our second story, a view that he also would have had with our original unappealed plan. If anything the six by seven foot notch that we removed on the southeast comer, the comer facing South Court, will be beneficial to his views over the original plan because 7 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 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 this notch adds an additional four feet of viewing in this direction. I also want to add here in response to what I heard about the upstairs windows there is a very large octagonal front window in Mr. Gokcek’s house facing South Court. This is non-see- through glass. You can’t see in and I am assuming that you can’t out. Finally, we have made an effort to make our proposed design not only sensitive to Mr. Gokcek in terms of privacy but also sensitive to all of our other neighbors in terms of massing and views as well. In conclusion in the 12 years that we have lived in this neighborhood we have established strong ties to the families that live here. We plan on staying in this home for many years to come and raising our children here. I have lived in this area my entire life, my husband has lived in Palo Alto for nearly 20 years and our family is very embedded in this particular community. We also have strong ties to our neighborhood elementary school and our involvement there will continue for years to come. We want to have a positive impact on our neighborhood. We are convinced that with the out pouring of support by our neighbors for our project including 14 letters written to the City on our behalf, our current design is the best one for us and the entire neighborhood. We sincerely hope that you uphold your decision to allow us to build our currently proposed design as it stands. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Could you wait a second? We may have some questions of you. Do any of the Commissioners have any questions? Karen. Commissioner Holman: You mentioned that the FAR that you are proposing is 500 square feet under the allowed. What about the lot coverage? Ms. Samos: We are not changing the footprint at all. So we are way under except that we are limited because of setbacks. We can’t really expand on the first floor. We have a couple of feet on the street side and a couple of feet on the front. I know that we can go another three feet back on the first floor because you can go six feet into the setback but that is pretty much it without obliterating our little yard. Commissioner Holman: Okay, thank you. Ms. Samos: We are 500 feet under our FAR. Chair Biatson: Phyllis do you have a question? No, okay. Thank you very much. Why don’t we go on now to comments by the public. Mr. Omer Gokcek: I have a question. Chair Bialson: Do you want to speak now or wait until you have an opportunity later? Mr. Omer Gokcek: The diagram that I submitted is correct but now I see that from this diagram there is another ten feet. I saw 80 by 7,781, which is not actually 90 by 77. That means their lot is much bigger. They could build any kind of house without violating any of this. 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 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Bialson: Thank you. Mr. Dean Samos: I will just point out the issue is we are not building a new house. Chair Bialson: I realize that. The first speaker is Ronni Kerrins to be followed by Annette Ashton and you will have three minutes per speaker. Ms. Ronni Kerrins. 3280 Clifton Court, Palo Alto: I just want to say that Cindy and Dean are friends of ours and we have been involved in their plans and we know the frustration and the anguish that they have gone through trying to get these plans submitted. To tell you the math I had a million things that I wanted to say tonight well over three minutes but actually everything has been said. The points that need to be made are that an HIE is an exception by definition and that is what we are here for. There are extenuating circumstances not only are they on a comer lot with greater setbacks than the normal lot but they are on Colorado which is listed as one of I think it is ten or 12 streets within Palo Alto that have greater than normal setbacks on the front. I just want to say that I have seen the plans, I have seen both the original plans and the new plans and the new plans are just beautiful and I think they add to the neighborhood, that the massing and the streetscape are better and as was pointed out the new plans actually increase the views from the South Court house, the appellant’s house. I believe that the new plans actually benefit the appellant over the old plans. I have been in the backyard there are trees that are 30 feet tall and other trees that were planted a couple of years ago that are over the fence line that within another year or two the houses are not even going to be able to see each other. That is all for now. I just want to say that I am in support of the house. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Annette Ashton to be followed by Steve Joynes. Ms. Annette Ashton, 2747 Bryant. Palo Alto: I live a block away from the Samos and I am Speaking for myself as a neighbor. I am in support of this modest 750 approximately square foot addition and ask you to ignore what I consider a frivolous and inappropriate appeal and grant the HIE. The facts are clear; the original application that went through the individual review process was appropriate for current zoning. During the individual review the architect suggested an HIE. The Samos’s complied with the HIE and produced an improved design. All surrounding neighbors but one support this new plan. Ironically, as stated before, the appellant has a new home which was a teardown that occurred right before the individual review process. This home would not pass any of the three guidelines for an individual review, mass, streetscape is totally inappropriate and the privacy element with three large windows overlooking the Samos’s backyard certainly would not have gone through appropriately. The Samos’s revised plans are a better plans architecturally. They are very sensitive. I was especially impressed to their attention to detail for the windows on the south side of the house. I feel the Staff Report was very, very good and all three findings to grant the HIE were met. The HIE is discretionary. It is valid and permitted by law. I ask you to approve this HIE as well as the Staff recommendations. 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 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Steve Joynes to be followed by Bret Kerrins. Mr. Steve Joynes, 2621 South Court, Palo Alto: Hello. I am Dean and Cindy’s neighbor. I think they, among anybody, should be allowed this. They are a vital part of the neighborhood. They have been there a long time. They have raised a family as I have and they should be granted this consideration. HIEs happen all the time. I am a general contractor, I know, I deal with them. They are not as rare as you are lead to believe. It is only 45 square feet. You ought to give it to them. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Bret Kerrins to be followed by Lucy Tompkin. Mr. Bret Kerrins, 3280 Clifton Court, Palo Alto: Hi I am a long time Palo Alto resident. I just wanted to say that I am here in support of Cindy and Dean. One of the things that was brought up by the appellants is that Section 21 is in place so that no automatic permitted issue and that is exactly why we are here. We are here for an HIE which is the whole purpose of that. We are looking for some exception and that is exactly what this supposed to do and we are following those guidelines precisely. I have looked at the new designs and I have looked at the old designs and I can’t understand why anybody is appealing this. This new plan is more beneficial to the appellant and I just don’t understand his reasoning. Again, I am here in support of the Samos’s and hope you will grant the exception. Thanks. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Lucy Tompkin to be followed by Carol Harryman. Ms. Lucy Tompkin, 354 Colorado Avenue, Pa!o Alto: Good evening. I am neighbor of the Samos family and also the Gokcek family. My house at 354 Colorado is on the other comer of Colorado and South Court. So the side of my house and my lot faces the side of Cindy and Dean’s house and the front of the Gokcek property. I am speaking in support of the Samos family application for the exception. Obviously I would hope Palo Alto wants to allow residents who maybe don’t have the huge amount of funds required to completely raise a property and reconstruct one thus complying with all ordinances but to allow the modest remodelings that allow families to live a comfortable life with their children here. I would hope Palo Alto doesn’t want every single structure to look like something that should be in Bakersfield or Cupertino. The remodeling proposed by the Samos’s is certainly sensitive to neighborhood design and to the Midtown architectural ambiance. I am sorry actually that this has even come to a meeting and review process like this. I think it is disappointing that the appeal was made. Two feet, that is about that much and it is a significant distance from the fence. It doesn’t seem like an insurmountable or unpleasant obstacle to me. It is unfortunate perhaps when the Gokcek family designed their design they chose to put the front of the lot up against the side yard. It is what I have read is called a snout house where the garage and driveway is what protrudes out the front. If you want to even see the front door you have to go into the side yard up against the fence. It is perhaps not the design which could have best utilized 10 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 that unusual sort of wedge shaped lot. It is, as Ms. Ashton said, it is certainly not a plan that would have passed muster today with all of its front windows overlooking the Samos front yard but what is done is done. The trees are providing excellent privacy. This design with its very highly set windows provides privacy. I hope the Gokcek’s will be " happy with your decision, as the rest of our neighborhood will too. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Carol Harryman to be followed by Don Harryman. Ms. Carol Harryrn_ an. 26987 Elena Road, Los Altos Hills: My name is Carol Harryman and we live in Los Altos Hills. Although we live there we have a lot of connections to Palo Alto. Cindy went from kindergarten at Fremont Hills School through Gunn High School and graduated from there. So she has had a long time connection to Palo Alto. I wil! let my husband speak for himself but he was also in business for many years in Palo Alto. I am also the grandmother of she and her husband’s three boys, as you heard, ages eight and twins four years old. When Cindy and Dean first purchased their home they had no children and the space was sufficient, it wasn’t excessive, but it was sufficient. Twelve years later, I thought it was ten but it is twelve, and with three fast-growing boys more space is needed. Cindy and Dean conscientiously hired an architect and made plans to expand their home in keeping with the neighborhood surroundings. The Planning Department recommended a revision to their plans, which they have willingly done. The revised plans do not envision a monster home with more bedrooms, bathrooms and other amenities than they need but the plan will accommodate their growing boys and lead to a more comfortable standard of living. It is a plan I also believe that will not infringe upon the rights of any other property owners. The Samos family likes the neighborhood. The children have made good friends, they are happy with the school. They are involved in sports programs and are contributing members of the community. I believe for the above stated reasons that they should be allowed to proceed with the addition to their home as soon as possible as the planning has already taken up very much precious time. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Don Harryman to be followed by Kamran and I am sorry I cannot read the last name. Mr. Don Harrvman, 26987 Elena Road. Los Altos Hills: I am the husband of Carol and the father of Cindy. My wife took a lot of my thunder but our pedigree for Palo Alto goes clear back to 1949 when my family operated a business for 23 years on California Avenue. So we are quite familiar with Palo Alto. This evening before I came down here I took a walk down Colorado Avenue and South Court just to see how those three bedroom windows were impacted. You can’t see them, even without the trees. It bewilders me why Mr. Gokcek has any objections whatsoever. You talk about daylight plane, all the minutia, all the regulations and etcetera and it doesn’t mean anything. This addition is not going to affect him from what I could see. Thank you. 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 Bialson: Thank you. I know who the next speaker is if he could again announce his name to be followed by Faith Brigel and that would be the last speaker request card I have. Mr. Kamran Naimabadi, 875 Elbridge Wag, Palo Alto: Hi. I am friend of Cindy and Dean. The only thing I want to say here is I haven’t seen so many cases that have so much support for this plan. This is really wonderful. Also I would like to thank the Planning Department for producing such a comprehensive document explaining what the situation is. One thing I would like to mention is as has been noted Palo Alto lots are not really huge. We don’t have one acre lots her no matter what you have some intrusion to other lots with the privacy and all that. We just need to really minimize it. Based on what they have done going through the IR process it is a very difficult process, it is not that easy. They have really cut the mustard. They have passed this process. I think they have a great plan and I am totally in support of this. In fact, I appeal to the Gokcek’s to drop this appeal because this is really costly. In this budget crisis I think this is really costly for us. So again, let’s all be neighbors and look at the majority of the neighbors and see what is good for the neighborhood. So hopefully you all will accept the plan by the Planning Department. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Faith Brigel and that would be the last speaker I have. Ms. Faith Brizel, 2733 Bryant, Palo Alto: I live approximately one block away from Cindy and Dean and I am here to speak in favor of the project. It is actually difficult for me to come because I have my two little kids here and I want to apologize if they have been a little bit rowdy but I thought it was important to be here. I have known Cindy and Dean for approximately three and one-half years. I am a parent at E1 Carmello School so I know them from a little bit of a different slant in that they are also parents there and they really helped orient me and I sure other parents into the E1 Carmello School which was really helpful. A couple of years ago or I guess a year ago they started to tell me how excited they were about this project and they seemed incredibly conscientious about all the regulations that you have already heard about. There are a few points that I want to make. One is that I, no insult, but their house is very modest and they want to make it a little bit larger, not a lot targer just a little bit larger to house their family. I think what they are going through actually is the worst nightmare that I can think of which is a neighbor builds a two-story home and then tells you that you can’t. I don’t know if they will be upset at me for saying this but at one point, please forgive me but no one has mentioned it, I believe that the neighbors are doing this just for a little bit of revenge. I hope you are okay with me saying that. I am not sure that I understand the reasons but I do know that the way they built their house in the first place faces the Samos’s backyard. So whether they build up or they stay where they are there still is their front yard facing thebackyard of the Samos’s house. They had a choice. They could have changed that to have the front in the front, which I think would have made it easier. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The final point that I want to make is that I live on Bryant and on Bryant, on South Court, on Colorado many, many of those houses are going from one story to two story. So I am hoping very much that you will allow them to build their house just a little bit bigger. And to move it whether it was one foot is not realistic at all because it is a remodel. They are not tearing it down and building a new house. So to just move it a foot is not realistic. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. At this time we can hear for final wrap up any comments by appellant and the applicant. Why don’t we have the appellant first speak? Mr. A.J. Gokcek: Thank you for this forum this evening and for giving us the opportunity to appeal. I see a lot of their friends and neighbors here tonight supporting them and that’s great but I think the time really could have been better spent if all these neighbors had gotten together and helped them redesign their property rather than start this letter writing campaign. Sort of like the Habitat for Humanity they could have brought their property into compliance and helped them redesign it than all these letters but this is democracy and they do have that right. It seems like this has turned into a little bit of a personal dispute and about our property but the fact of the matter is our property is in compliance and we did go by the rules and the regulations of Palo Alto and we are the only neighbors who are uniquely affected. We are not telling them or trying to impose our values on them. We are not trying to tell them that they cannot redesign their property. All we are asking for is that they bring their property into compliance by bringing the rear setback three feet or I believe it was 2.9 or 2.10 that is all we are saying and then they can apply if they want for the HIE. So we are willing to compromise. We are not against them developing their land we just want to uphold the law. That is the only reason we are here this evening. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Would the applicant care to speak again? Fine. Why don’t you have a few minutes here? Ms. Kirsten Harrison. Harrison Desigm. 43 Homer Lane, Menlo Park: I designed both versions of this plan for Cindy and Dean’s house. I think it is interesting. Tonight we are seeing two City processes working. One is the individual review and the other is the HIE process. Our original design would have made the HIE unnecessary it met all current ordinances of the City, daylight plane, seven and one-half foot penetration, five foot separations but it did create a rather contorted rear elevation in order to stay under the daylight plane. Now the IR process, individual review process, brings in outside architects to help people with their designs. In this process the outside architect suggested that we could have a better rear elevation, which was also visible from South Court because it is a comer lot if we asked for relief from the daylight plane. It would allow us to merge our two penetrations into one and greatly simplify the rear elevation. He also asked that we push the rear wall of the second floor so it sits directly on top of the rear wall of the first floor, which eliminated that little rough of roof that you see if you have an offset second floor wall. I think we have come up with a plan that is aesthetically far superior to our original one which was in compliance and didn’t require 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 an HIE. So I am in favor of the HIE. I think it is a better plan and I think we owe a lot to the advice of Arnold and Alexander from Origin’s, Palo Alto’s outside architectural consultants. So I think the process really works. The other thing I wanted to mention, there has been a lot of discussion about the rear wall of their house being illegal or non-complying or something. I just want to remind people Palo Alto actually allows a six-foot encroachment of the rear wall anytime providing it is only 50% of the width of the house. So their rear wall encroaches two feet plus for a couple feet more than 50% of width of their house but in fact without asking anyone they could add almost four feet to half of their house and take that full six feet out of the rear yard setback that is allowed by current zoning. So I think the discussion of the illegality of the first floor encroachment is a little spurious. I think it really doesn’t quite capture the spirit of it. So that is all ihave to say. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. I think we will close the public hearing at this time and bring this matter back to the Commissioners. The first matter will be disclosure of any contacts. Phyllis do you have a disclosure? Commissioner Cassel: I walked by the house yesterday and around the neighborhood. When doing so the Samos’s came out of their house and greeted me. Chair Bialson: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I had the same experience this afternoon. Commissioner Burt: I visited the site but did not have any contact with anyone. Chair Bialson: Michael. Commissioner Griffin: I drove around the block a few times and got out of the car and stood on the sidewalk and looked at the project. Chair Bialson: Joe. Commissioner Bellomo: I did the same. I drove by and took a look. Chair Bialson: I drove by and I did have a short elevator conversation as I came up today with Annette Ashton. I will disclose that. It was only for I believe a floor and a half or two floors, something like that. Any questions by Commissioners at this time? Yes, Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have two for Staff. Could Staff comment, clarify or confirm the comments of the last speaker? Could Staff also indicate if Origin’s with their designer considered any other alternatives to satisfy the needs of the applicant without requiring an HIE? 14 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 Ms. French: I will answer that. Kirsten Harrison the architect mentioned the code section that allows up to a six foot encroachment that indeed is a part of our code that would be allowed without getting an HIE or variance or anything. So that is true. The second question that you had was did Origin’s look at the placement of the second story and yes they did. The house as it stands now, the existing one story residence, has as the applicant had mentioned quite a substantial setback on Colorado so their attempt to push it back from that was to respect that broad setback along Colorado. It also was to respect their existing improvements that they had done on the first floor, the kitchen and dining room areas, they had a vaulted ceiling or an arrangement that they recently had worked on and put a lot of money into and putting above on that side of the house wouldn’t have been as consistent with the other houses on Colorado which is where the home faces. Putting it on this side their main concern is that it does indeed it does face two streets, it is a comer lot, and by arranging the massing differently it would improve the massing as seen from South Court by the revised design. So Origin’s did look at a number of possibilities and queried the applicants about other locations for that addition. Chair Bialson: Any other questions? Pat, go ahead. Commissioner Burt: Could Staff, maybe Wynne, clarify again for us the legal issue on this code citation that is in the appellant’s point number one? Ms. Furth: Yes. A lot of the discussion was about what the applicable roles are and I can give you the City Attorney’s Office’s opinion on this. The appellants quoted a section from Title 21, which talks about not permitting illegal development on illegally created lots. Title 21 regulates subdivisions. That is the division of parcels into smaller parcels for sale and it is not relevant to this discussion. This is a legal lot and furthermore 346 Colorado is a legal structure. It is not an illegal structure. It isn’t a code violation. It was built to the applicable standards and the standards changed while it remained the same. In the City we call those n0n-complying facilities. They are legal. They have limits in some cases but particularly with respect to housing the ability to continue to maintain them is almost unlimited. So we are not dealing with a case of a property that has a code violation. We are dealing with a case of a property that was developed under another set of rules. So following from that you come to the situation that Home Improvement Exceptions, which are only available for homes, are intended to modify the zoning regulations. So if and when the City gants a Home Improvement Exception by definition you are authorizing a project that doesn’t meet each of today’s current zoning standards that would otherwise be applicable. When you gant a Home Improvement Exception the result is not a code violation or an illega! structure. What you are doing is using a permitted process to modify the code because there are circumstances that are applicable to the property. Now the circumstance to be applicable to the property, not to its owners, not to their longevity or any other characteristic but looking at the property you have to decide that there is something exceptional or extraordinary about it that makes its 15 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 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 circumstances different from those of properties in the zone generally. The City has a long tradition of viewing existing nonconforming facilities as that kind of circumstance. Then because this is a Home Improvement Exception and not a variance you don’t have fred that 346 would be subject to hardship if you applied our normal rules. You only have to find that it is desirable for preserving an existing architectural style or a neighborhood character. You do also have to make a finding that is the same as for a variance that this particular deviation isn’t injurious or detrimental to 346 Colorado or to its neighbors or to the City generally. You also are told to consider design guidelines that the City may have adopted from time to time. Of course since the time that the HIE process was established the City has established the individual review guidelines which do apply in this situation and you are entitled to consider the fact that the City analyzed this project under its individual review guidelines and found that this property was appropriate as to mass and scale and street frontage and privacy protection. In fact it was in an effort to achieve those goals that this change was recommended. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Ms. Furth: One final thing. The Gokcek’s are entitled to the protections of this ordinance whatever the nature of their house. Of course when you are thinking about protection of privacy or massing you look at the two structures but the fact that their structure may also now be legal nonconforming does not mean that they are not entitled to the protection of this ordinance. Chair Bialson: Karen, you have another question? Commissioner Holman: No. I was ready make a motion given there didn’t seem to be any other questions by Commissioners. Chair Bialson: If you care to go ahead. MOTION Commissioner Holman: I would move that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s original approval. SECOND Commissioner Griffin: Second. Chair Bialson: I heard a second from Michael. So would you care to speak to the motion, Karen? Commissioner Holman: I would. The applicant’s are apparently long time residents of the neighborhood and the purpose of an HIE is to promote adoptive reuse. One of the 16 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 4O 41 42 43 44 45 things that I think it is important for this community to do is respect that people who are living in the community now have rights as well and to try to promote the retention of those community members. Also a total rebuild to a maximum FAR would have potentially greater impacts on both the neighborhood and the appellant’s property. The applicant seems to be designing for their needs and not for excessive space and they are staying within the existing footprint and they are considerably under the maximum FAR allowed. The support from the neighborhood is compelling and I hope that my neighbors would speak so well of me. Chair Bialson: Michael, would you care to speak to your second? Commissioner Griffin: When I visited the site I was struck by the fact that the Gokcek property had a terrific view of the back elevation of the subject property. I am pretty empathetic to the folks next door from the standpoint of if I were in their position I probably would not want to look out my front door and have this view in front of me. Nevertheless, I am going to say that I support the motion before us. I think that there are probably mitigations that can be effectuated with landscaping for example that will help diminish the impact of that view of the rear elevation. I also think that the privacy aspects of this project have been pretty well taken care o£ I am particularly thinking of the last page of the Staff Report does in fact show the ridgeline of the subject property and it seems to me that the tree growing there is going to get bigger and I think that your situation will improve over time. Chair Bialson: Any other comments by Commissioners? Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: My principle concern with this was the legality of adding on to a legal nonconforming use to make sure that that is in fact okay. I agree, not that I have a right to agree but, I do agree with everything Wyrme has been saying about this. In the discussions about developing the HIE process back in I believe it was in 1993 when we did this, if we didn’t we d{d a really in depth discussion of it. This is exactly the situation where we intended an HIE to be used. We have no the first level a house that is two and one-half feet approximately into the setback. It is a legal use. It is legally there. We are allowed to add extra square feet to that house and we are allowed to develop that house. That was my basic concern. Everything else has been met. We have a daylight plane situation but in fact it is where the shadows fall that give us a serious problem. The back of this house is facing approximately south, the front of Mr. Gokcek’s house is facing west, his front door apparently is facing north but the second story from his house will cast shadows onto the property on question and not the other way around because of the actual angles of those homes. I am afraid that everyone who lives in the City of Palo Alto must presume that the house next door to them can go to two stories. That is why we did an individual review process. We didn’t ban second story homes. So if you buy a house in Palo Alto and your next-door neighbor is a first story home you may hope that it is going to stay that way for the rest of your life but there is no legal binding that will keep you there. If you have a corner lot next to you, you probably will have to have a second story if they wish to use all of the square footage. It is very hard to do on corner 17 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 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 lots. Hopefully more people will stay on the first floor now that we changed the rules. Nothing says you can’t go to the second story. Chair Bialson: Joe. Commissioner Bellomo: Very briefly. I am in support of the motion. I find that this individual review and the HIE in this is compelling for me to look at. These actually work in tandem. I believe that the design is a better one than the original design applied for. I think the general direction and the visibility is not as impactful if this design went into compliance. So I believe that this is why the HIE was designed and I think it is working and I am in support of this. Chair Bialson: Pat. Commissioner Burt: First I would like to concur with what Joe just said. I think it is important that if we are going to now have the individual design and that that may in fact prompt even greater use of the HIE that we acknowledge that and that we say that that is for a greater good, that the two work in tandem and I am sorry that the applicant’s had to go through such a gruesome process to get done something that is for the overall benefit of design compatibility of the neighborhood. I think it is a good project and that they have done a very good job and deserve our support. I would like to make a couple of other points. One to make sure that we are focusing on the findings, that this does have an exceptional circumstance in that it is a comer lot. The comer lot does not entitle them to an HIE in and of itself but it is a valid consideration in looking at the HIE as a discretionary process. Second, that the application will result in a more desirable preservation of the neighborhood character. I think that the individual review process affirmed that and from reviewing the applicant’s drawings it certainly seems to be the case. In my mind it seems to be one of the more desirable remodels that would occur in that neighborhood in recent times. Finally that the privacy impact when the points have been made that a compliant structure could be within half of the rear setback, if a compliant structure could be six feet from the fence line, this minor intrusion is really insignificant. So I think that these are very strong reasons for support. I think we also should acknowledge that this project is well below the allowable FAR and once again it is a perfect example of where discretionary review results in a better project. Chair Bialson: I concur completely with the comments of my fellow Commissioners especially those of Joe and Pat. I am hopeful that our review of this particular case while it is not to be any form of precedent setting will be helpful to Staff and to the community in indicating that we believe the individual review and HIE process should go hand-in- hand and there should be some liberal interpretation of the HIE process to accomplish the community-wide goals that I think we have all expressed here. So given that I would like to have the motion voted on. MOTION PASSED 1 2 3 4 5 Will all those in favor of the motion please indicate that by saying aye? (ayes) All those opposed? That motion passes unanimously with all in attendance voting for it and Commissioner Packer not in attendance. Thank you very much. 19 April 4, 303 Dear Claire Campbell, Attachment E We’ve been neiglabors (2621 South Court) to Cindy and Dean Samos (2606 South Court) for eleven years. We wanted to let you know that we think their remodel proposal is an attractive and much needed improvement and will only effect property values in a positive way. We don~t agree with Mr. Gokcek’s objections for several reasons: 1. We much prefer the aesthetics of the Samos’ revised plan. My husband is a remodeling contractor and I am a designer and we agree the new plan has several details that improve the overall view of the house for the neighborhood. 2. The Samos’ current home, while imbued with their personal charm, is dated in style and starting to show it’s age. 3. With three small boys, the Samos’ have great need of the added space. They are just the type of family Palo Alto should cultivate. 4. Though I don’t wish to get in a personal argument with Mr. Gokcek, I’d like to point out: a.He is relatively new to the neighborhood. b.His objection to the Samos remodel based on the claim that most houses in the neighborhood are single-story makes little sense, as his own house is 2-story. In fact there are already nine 2-story houses just on our block and the four houses closest to the Samos’are all 2-story. c.Several neio~hbors agree with us that the design of Mr. Gokcek’s newly-constructed home is poor for a number of reasons--dominated by the garage, entire front yard paved over, no front door, etc. d. He apparently cares so little for aesthetics, he has yet to remove the Milgaard new window sticker from one street-facing window. e. Instead of young children, his grown son and daughter-in-law live with him. 5. Lest you think we are just against new people or houses in general, we heartily approve of the brand new home on our block,, a Craftsman style, very pretty and well-built. In short, we sincerely hope you will speedily approve the Samos’ building plans as the3’ have already been so delayed. Sincerely, Kathleen and Stephen Joynes ,~/~ 1 .S. In the int,~r,~st oz peace in th,~ neighborhoc~:t, please keep the contents of this letter confidential. Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Subject: SinnottJF@aol.com Thursday, April 10, 2003 10:04 AM clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org Home Improvement Exception 346 Colorado Ms.Campbell: My wife and I live at 2612 South Court, which is two houses down South Court from 346 Colorado. We support the HIE for this property as approved by the planning commission on March 7, 2003. We don’t see any reason why this project should not proceed immediately.The HIE design is a significant improvement over the origina! design. Regards, Joseph F. Sinnott, Jr Mary Sinnott 2612 South Court Paio Alto, CA 94306 Jeffrey Koseff and Thalia Anagnos 2631 South Court Palo Alto, CA 94306 kose_if@stanford, edu 324-9038 April t3, 2002 Ms. Clare Campbell City of Palo Alto Development Center 285 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re:Application for a Home Improvement Exception for Cindy and Dean Samos at 346 Colorado Avenue Dear Ms. Campbell: We are writing to you to express our very strong support for the application for a Home Improvement Exception by our neighbors Cindy and Dean Samos. We have lived at 2631 South Court since 1979 and have witnessed the gradual evolution of the dwellings on our street from single-story to two-story houses. When Dean and Cindy first showed us their plans for remodeling their house we were most supportive because we thought that the proposed changes were tasteful and sensitive to potential impact on the neighborhood. We were also most supportive because with 3 children in the family now Dean and Cindy need the additional space! It is our understanding that it was the city planning department that first suggested to Dean and Cindy that they apply for an HIE because that would allow a significant improvement to the proposed design. They have shared this with us and while we were certainly happy with the orig-inal proposal we feel that the new desig-n is in fact much nicer and more aesthetic. We encourage you to bring closure to this matter in the favor of Cindy and Dean so that they can get on ~dth the remodel, with raising their family, and with their lives. They have done what the city has asked and suggested and they now have a house plan that will add to the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood. We would be happy to discuss this in person with you should you so desire. Sincerely, Jeffrey Koseff and Thalia Ana~os. April 19, 2003 Dear Zoning Administrator, Our home is adjacent to the Samos residence and we will be able to see the proposed second story addition from our property.. We looked at the plans and feel they conform to the ne~borhood both practically and aesthetically. We approve of the second story addition submitted by 0indy and Dean Samos~ Sincerely, Albert B. Klay Api121,2003 Dear Ms. Campbell, My neighbor Dean and Cindy Samos of 346 Colorado Ave have informed me that they are experiencing delay in their remodeling project due to some zoning issues pointed out by Mr. Gokcek. After thoroughly understanding what the issues are, I fee!-compel to share with you my perspective since I also live next to the Samos. Please excuse my ignorance to the zoning laws but from all the documents that I’ve read (provided by the Samos), personally; I coul&~’t find a~?, issue with the HIE applied by t~he Samos, especia!ly when they only applied after they were asked by the City Planners. From a layman’s perspective, I think the look of this later plan is much more pleasing to the eyes and probably better for keeping our neighborhood’s real estate values. As their other next-door neighbor, I just want to state as a matter of public record that t personally don’t have a problem with their plans and that t wish the Samos speedy resolution on these issues so that they can move into their newly remodeled house soon. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this letter. My email address is drfan(~i’aol.com. SincereIy, Susan Fan 336 Colorado Ave. April 21, 2003 Mr. and Mrs. C.J. Sanchez 2626 South Court Palo Alto, CA 94306 Ms.Clare Campbell City of Palo Alto Development Center 285 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Ms. Campbell, We are writing in support of the Home Improvement Exception (HIE) application submitted by Dean and Cindy Samos of 346 Colorado Avenue. We have reviewed this plan for a second story addition with the architectural renderings of the current (original) plan and the proposed plan with improvements, and find it very reasonable and keeping with the prevailing design and character of the nei~mhborhood. We also feel the design allows for expansion without undue encroachment on any neighbor’s privacy or existing views. The upper story windows in the new plan are set high to admit light without looking on to anyone’s living quarters. In sum, please know that we feel this is a carefully considered plan for home improvement that meets the needs of its owners and befits the style of our neighborhood. The new design is both reasonable and in keeping with the planning commission parameters. We urge you to approve this HIE as submitted. Rosemary Gill 2783 South Court Palo Alto, CA 94306 April 23, 2003 Clare Campbell City of Palo Alto Development Center 285 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 D~PAR’I ~r..,~ OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Dear Ms. Campbell, I am writing to support the HIE for the property at 346 Colorado, the home of Dean and Cindy Samos. I have read the appiication for exception, the appeal from the neighbor at 2606 south Court and the March 7tu approval notice from the Manager of Current Planning. I have also reviewed the two sets of drawings for the property at 346 Colorado. As a South Court resident, I have a direct stake in the type of construction that takes place in this neighborhood since surrounding property values are affected. Clearly, the new plan for the property at 346 Colorado is preferable to the original plan. Aesthetically, it improves the neighborhood. It is unclear to me why the residents of 2606 South Court object to this remodel. The Samos’ would have to climb on furniture to reach windows 6 feet up to be able to peer into their neighbor’s driveway. This does not seem to be much of a privacy issue. Are they appealing this project simply because they can? Common sense and aesthetics should prevail here. To deny the Samos’ the right to remodel their home, which they have lived in for over t0 years, with the reasonable plan they have submitted would be petty. I don’t think that is the intent of the Planning Division. Sincerely, Rosemary Gill From: Sent: To: Subject: kate kanaske [kkanaske@yahoo.com] Friday, May 02, 2003 2:58 PM clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org HIE for 346 Colorado Avenue Dear Ms. Campbel!: I am writing to support the HIE applied for by Dean and Cindy Samos at 346 Co!orado Ave. The new plan requiring the HIE is much more attractive from the South Court street view and the violation of the daylight plane limit seems very minor, and certainly would not create any more hardship on the neighbors than the origina! plan. Since the new plan was suggested by the city and their outside architect, i fee! it only fair to le~ it receive the exemption. Sincerely, Kate Kanaske 320 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto 322-0855 Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com May 3, 2003 Dear Ms. Campbell: I tive directly across the street from the Samos’, at 2570 South Court. I have reviewed their plans, and I want to say that I fully support the plans they submitted with their Home Improvement Exception. This design is clearly an improvement over the origin!l design, and I don’t see how this project can have any negative impact to any neighbors. Sincerely, Fred Adam 2570 South Court Palo Alto, CA 94301 Campbell, Clare From: Sent: To: Subject: Anne Firth Murray [afmurray@igc.org] Tuesday, May 13, 2003 12:38 AM clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org Mr. and Mrs. Samos at 346 Colorado Avenue Dear Ms. Campbell, l am a neighbor of Cindy and Dean Samos, and i write to support their plans for expansion of their home. (My address is 329 Co!orado Avenue; i live across the street from Cindy and Dean.) Cindy and Dean are a delightful young couple, very thoughtful and caring. When they decided to add space to their home for their growing family, they visited neighbors and explained what they had in mind. They have been extremely thoughtfu! about not wanting to add to their house in a way that would offend the neighborhood. The firs: plan they produced was OK, but the latest plan, which I understand has already been approved by the Planning Commission, goes further in trying to have additiona! space without making it an eye sore. The latest plan, which i guess involves some sort of HIE (which i understand has been approved by the Planning Co~mission) would result in a nice !ooking house, from whatever angle one were viewing iT. i understand from Dean that a neigbJ3or, Omer Gokcek, is objecting ro Cindy and Dean’s m!an. (i have seen his letter of March 3rd.) i do not know Omer Gokcek personally, a!zhough i do know his house, which is a very big imposing structure, built very close to the Samos’s fence. !n any case, i disagree with his arguments, especially given the house he is living in. i cannot imagine why he is objecting :o a house that will be much more a:tractive and less "in your face" than :he one he occupies. My sense is that he is the only person in the immediate neighborhood who would not want to support Cindy and Dean, who are lovely people and delightful neighbors. __7{~vou would like to discuss my_ v4ew<_ _ further, p:~===n=--- .===~ .......~== :o emai! me or ~=~=.~ = me 650-328-7~72 Thank ,,o~, very much for your helm to Cindy and Dean. #_nne Firth Murray 329 Colorado Avenue Pa!o Alto, California 94306 Phone: 650-328-7572 Emaii: afmurray@igc.org P.S. i would ammreciate receiving an acknowledgement of receim: of 2636 South Court Palo Alto, CA 94306 May 12, 2003 Ms. Clare Campbell City of Palo Alto Development Center 285 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Ms. Campbell, I am writing in support of the HIE for the property at 346 Colorado Ave. My husband and I have lived on South Court for almost 15 years and have seen many changes to the neighborhood. We welcome any projects that will improve the neighborhood and believe that the above project, as revised, does that. The original plan, while meeting all requirements, was a much less attractive project. I believe the new plan provides a much better design with minimal impact on the adjacent property. It is obvious that the Samoses have done all they can to avoid any privacy issues with regard to their neighbor at 2606 South Court. It should also be noted that our street is almost evenly divided between two story and one story construction, with many new second story additions. This new addition would be perfectly in keeping with the eclectic character of our neighborhood. Sincerely, Vir a Nagao May15,2003 Ms. Clare Campbell City of Palo Alto Development Center 285 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Subject: 346 Colorado Avenue Home Improvement Exception Dear Ms. Campbell, I am a neighbor of Dean and Cindy Samos, the owners of 346 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto. My understanding is that the Samos’s have applied to the City of Palo Alto for a Home Improvement Exception (HIE) as part of their application for a remodeling permit. I am writing in support of this HIE. I believe that the new design will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general convenience, and will significantly enhance the architectural design of the remodeled house. I also understand that a neighbor has requested that the proposed HIE be rejected for a number of reasons that are identified in a letter of March 3, 2003. I have reviewed this letter, as well as the response of the City to the concerns of this neighbor, and agree with the City that issuance of the HIE is appropriate. I do not believe that this neighbor has raised significant privacy issues, and believe that the improvements to the design of the house outweigh any other concerns that have been raised. I urge you to approve this HIE and allow the remodel to move forward. Thank you for your consideration of my thoughts on this matter. Very truly yours, Anne Williams 310 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, California 94306 z~g h~m~lf0w A ¢~. 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lucy Tompkin [lucytompkin@sbcglobal.net] Friday, May 23, 2003 3:30 PM clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org Scott Thomas 346 Colorado Avenue, HIE and Public Hearing Importance:High Dear Ms. Campbell: i am writing to support the planned remodeling project at 346 Colorado Avenue, as proposed by our neighbors Dean and Cindy Samos. My husband and i have lived in our home at 354 Colorado Avenue for over 13 years. Before that time, the house was owned by his family since it was built in about 1937. Thus, we are very familiar with the character of the neighborhood and its architec:ura! styles. Our house, at 354 Colorado, has the greatest visual exposure to the Samos property, as it is !ocated directly across South Court from 346 Colorado Avenue. !<ny changes to that house wil! be starkly visible not only to our front yard and our living room windows, but also to our back yard and driveway. We see the full length of the house. When Mr. and Mrs. Samos moved in some nine or ten years ago, they promptly began to improve the appearance of their property by modifying :he landscaping, painting the house, adding a new front walkway, e~c. Their modifications have never been to exDioi: :he mossib!e market value of :heir home, but only to make iz more useful, attractive and livable for :heir family. Let me note :ha: Mr. and Hrs. Samos have always been cooperative and com~.unicative neighbors. Even with an active family of 3 young children, they try hard :o be considerate of noise and parking impacts. They try to be "good neighbors" and their proposed design, modest and sensible, reflects :his. The current encroachment into the rear daylight plane certainly has no de:rimen:ai effect on our house nor upon any o:her in this neighborhood. The s:a:ement by our neighbors at 2606 South Court that :he granting of :he appiica:ion wi!! be "detrimental or injurious :o property or improvements in the vicinity" is sheer nonsense. indeed, that entire iet:er from :he owner of :he property a: 2606 South Court is rather surprising and peculiar. That oar:icuiar structure, recently constructed before municipal design review was legally required, is :he most egregious exception to "neighborhood character" of any recent cons:ruction in our mid<own neighborhood. if :h~s commlain:, might~ oossib!v, be motivated bv_ ~h=~.~ fact ~hat Mr. and Mrs. Samos had the unfortunate duty of fre~uent!y notifying :he g=n=ra~ contractor and/or :he ~romertv owners a: 2606 South Court of municipal viola<ions or simple mroblems during :he cons:ruction process, and reques:ing that :he viola:ions be corrected, i remember :hat :hese included such problems as :he builders draining concrete ~u~v into g~:=~ and ~hus the bay; ~he workers throwing garbage, food and toilet paper into the s:ree:; illegal parking; work being done on Sundavs and holidays and a: non-reguiazion hours, and so on. This was a most unfortunate si:uation, and i: was painful no: only for the Samos family but for many o~ +h= homeowners ~n ~e~ahbc.~n~ houses in closing, oiease let me repeat :ha: our family suppor<s :he Home 1 Improvement Exception for 3<~ Colorado Avenue, application n~..Jer 02-HIE-23. This exception will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, ’and should not affect privacy of the neighbor on South Court, as the windows are well above rhe line of sight at six feet above the finished f!oor. Thank you for your careful attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Lucy Tompkin 354 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306-2411 Attachment F CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum 21 June 23, 2003 TO: SUBJECT: City Council Members 346 Colorado Avenue: Appeal by Omer Gokcek of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Approval of a Home Improvement Exception Application Requested by Dean and Cindy Samos To Allow a Rear Daylight Plan Encroachment and Rear Setback Encroachment to Accommodate a Second Floor Addition to an Existing Single-story Residence In the attached e-mail, the appellant, Omer Gokcek, has requested continuance of this item due to his government business travel. Staff therefore recommends continuance of this item to the City Council meeting of July 28, 2003. Respectfully sub " S’~FEVE F~SLIE Director of Planning and Community Environment Assistant City Manager Attachment: 6/16/03 e-mail from Omer Goksek City of Palo Alto Director’s Hearing 02/20/03 Attachment G Speakers:Amy French - Current Planning Manager, Zoning Administrator Clare Campbell - Associate Planner Questionable words/phrases in [brackets] DIRECTOR’S HEARING AGENDA - February 20, 2003 New Business: Amy French, Current Planning Manager: This is the Director’s Hearing of February 20, 2003. We have three items on the agenda. We will be changing the order of the agenda items due to an unforeseen conflict. First item, 375 University Avenue will be heard after 4291 Wilkie Way. That is at least the plan for now and we’ll see when we can get a hearing officer for that item. [Item #1 discussed] Item #3. 346 Colorado Avenue [02-HIE-23]: Request by Dean and Cindy Samos for a Home Improvement Exception application to allow a rear daylight plane encroachment and rear setback encroachment to accommodate a second floor addition to existing single-story residence. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301. Amy French. Current Planning Manager: We’re now on Item #3. 346 Colorado Avenue, which is 02-HIE-23. Request by Dean and Cindy Samos for a Home Improvement Exception application to allow a rear daylight plane encroachment and rear setback encroachment to accommodate a second floor addition to existing single-story residence. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Now I have a question about the application on today’s agenda. It says HIE. Now the second floor addition, is this also an Individual Review project? Clare Campbell: It is also going through the Individual Review process. So part of the Individual Review, we had comments on the design and in order to address those comments for Individual Review, this is why we’re going through the HIE process now. Amy French: Okay. Now, so we didn’t have the file number on here so I would know that it was an Individual Review. I see it is a second floor addition. Now I have a question about noticing of this hearing. Did we post on this site as it’s required for Individual Review hearing? Clare Campbell: This isn’t for the Individual Review approval, this is strictly for the HIE. Amy French: Somebody has not come in - I just want to be clear about this - somebody has not come in to question an Individual Review, it’s just simply to discuss and hear from the applicant on the HIE? Clare Campbell: Correct. City of Palo Alto Director’s Hearing 02/20/03 2 Amy French: Okay, I just want to be clear on that.. Thank you. Well, I have briefly seen your project. Can you describe for me what the HIE is for? Kirsten Harrison: This is the design. This is what we’ve initially submitted to be approved. Amy French: And these initial plans did not have an HIE component? Kirsten Harrison: No, right. And then it was brought up that this would create a better design, overall design so that the streetscape would be improved. This is what they wanted to reduce. Cindy Samos: This is a comer lot Kirsten Harrison: It’s a comer lot so there’s already an additional setback. Ms. Samos: And our only concem was that the rear elevation was very visible from the street, from South Court street side. And that he wanted us to ask for relief on the rear daylight plane and the rear yard setback so that the house, the second floor could come up directly off the first floor wall on the back which requires the rear yard setback relief. We could project into the daylight plane for approximately 15 feet rather than doing the 7 foot contortionist sort of roofline that we were trying to keep below the daylight plane. The house is located very far back from the street and Colorado also has a larger street side setback. Amy French: It looks like it balances there. It looks like they’re working on the good premise that the windows on the second floor are limited in size and they’re high. [talkover] Clare Campbell: They’re high up. [OVERLAPPING CONVERSATION] And it overlooks the front driveway. Kirsten Harrison: Basically, Arnold has already seen - this second iteration has been through the I.R process. [talkover] Ms. Samos: He’s actually, we’ve faxed it over to him. He’s taken a brief look at it. So nothing’s happening with the Individual Review, of course, until we get the approval for the Amy French: Okay, and then at that point, Individual Review can be determined. Ms. Samos: Right. Amy French: And then at that point, a process whereby we notify the neighbors and any neighbor if they had an issue with the approval of the IR at that point could go ahead and ask for a Director’s Hearing? Ms. Samos: Correct. City of Palo Alto Director’s Hearing 02/20/03 Amy French: At that point, the site would be postext if that should occur? Ms. Samos: Right. Amy French: Okay, so we can be clear. Kirsten Harrison: We’ve already posted once. [OVERLAPPING CONVERSATION] Amy French: And that’s what our requirement is here - to post when you first get your date and post for that period of time which is specified in the ordinance, so, great! And you’ve had your files, your plans on file at the development center? Kirsten Hamson: Uh-hum. Amy French: Okay. Dean Samos: And we’ve shown it all to our neighbors, too. Amy French: Oh, great. Ms. Samos: Yeah, they all like this. Mr. Samos: We’ve talked to most of them. Ms. Samos: We’ve talked to some about 12 to 15, because some of them are around the comer on Bryant, they can’t even see .our house but they like it. They all liked this one more and especially the neighbor right across the street really liked that one. Amy French: As I understand it, there’s a two-story house right next door to yours on this side. Ms. Samos: Yeah. And it’ll be - and when you think about the height difference, this currently is at 15 feet. This will be at 20 feet. And it’s still - our neighbors have a 29-foot height on there so it’s still going to be significantly less. Am5, French: Okay. Well, with that, I think I understand the project. I would like to open the public hearing. Are there any members of the public here wishing to speak to this item, which is Item #3,346 Colorado Avenue? [silence] Okay. Hearing and seeing no interested speakers, I will close the public hearing and ask if you have anything to add or Staff? Any comments? Clare Campbell: No. Amy French: All right. Thank you for coming. Attachment ATTACHMENT J CODE REQUIREMENTS AND NOTICING FOR 03-AP-03 Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.92 regulates appeals of home improvement exceptions. The only mailed notice that is required for HIE appeal public hearings under the code is for the hearing at the Commission, pursuant to section 18.92.040. Section 18.92.060, Action by city council states, "Upon receipt of the recommendation of the planning commission, the city council shall consider the appeal within thirty days of receipt of the recommendation by the City Clerk. The Council may, at its option, conduct a public hearing on the matter." The June 23, 2003 City Council public hearing for this appeal was advertised in the Palo Alto Weekly, and the appellant and applicant were informed of the hearing date. The appellant requested a continuance of the item until after June 27, 2003 (see Attachment B). The staff memorandum in the City Council’s packet recommended continuing the item to the July 28, 2003 City Council meeting. On June 23, 2003, the City Council granted the appellant’s request to continue the item, to the date recommended by staff. The memorandum and an excerpt of the Council action agenda for June 23, 2003 are attached to this report (Attachment F). Although not required by code, as a courtesy and to assure due process, City sends mailed notices to property owners within 300 feet of the site 12 days before the hearing. This was not done in this case. However, the applicant and appellant received actual notice, bY telephone, of the July 28, 2003 hearing date at least 12 days prior to July 28. A courtesy, written notice of the hearing was hand delivered to occupants and owners of property within 300 feet of the subject property on July 22, 2003. The office of the City Attorney has advised planning staff that this meets constitutional due process standards in this case.