Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-07 City Council (6)City of Palo Alto HONORABLE CITY COUN ty Manager’s Report FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: OCTOBER 7, 2003 CMR: 456:03 4291 WILKIE WAY [03-AP-04]: APPEAL BY ROGER KOHLER OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S DENIAL OF A HOME IMPROVEMENT EXCEPTION APPLICATION (02-HIE-21) REQUESTED BY ROGER KOHLER TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA (26.5 SQUARE FEET) AND LOT COVERAGE (106.3 SQUARE FEET) BEYOND WHAT IS ALLOWED IN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT.ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:EXEMPT " FROM 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 decision to deny the Home Improvement Exception (HIE) request. 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 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Planning and Transportation Commission The Commission recommended that the City Council deny the appeal request and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s original decision to deny the Home Improvement Exception (5-1-0-1, Commissioner Burt opposed, Commissioner Packer absent). The subject property is affected by a watercourse easement at the rear of the property that reduces the maximum allowed floor area by approximately 68 feet. Approval of the exception would result in a precedent that would allow all property owners with watercourse easements to obtain additional floor area through the exception process. Although watercourse easements are restrictive and reduce development potential, it is a specific requirement of the municipal code (PAMC 18.88.070) to deduct the area contained within the easement from floor area calculations. This requirement should not be considered as a hardship on its own. This reasoning is consistent with other requirements for lots within the R-1 district, such as setbacks and height. Minimum setbacks and maximum height requirements have not been considered as hardships when establishing findings for HIEs or variances. The Commission indicated that there were other methods to achieve the applicant’s desired home improvement objectives. The need for a floor area exception could be avoided by the removal of a 120 square foot accessory structure that is used as a tool storage shed. In addition, the Commission did not see that this exception would preserve a neighborhood style. Although the neighborhood contains an eclectic mix of styles with one-story, two-story and multi-family residential properties, the adjacent properties are developed with single story residential structures. A one-story addition is not explicitly needed to preserve a predominate architectural style or neighborhood character. The minority opinion voted to support the request for an appeal to City Council. The Commissioner felt that there were compelling extraordinary circumstances that exist on the property. He stated that the watercourse easement should be considered as an extraordinary circumstance, in the way that comer lots have been considered extraordinary. In addition, he noted that other site conditions that are unique to this property include the presence of an accessory building, an irregularly shaped lot and the location of mature oak tree on the adjacent property, which limits where home additions may be located. He indicated thaty an eclectic neighborhood with many different architectural styles and housing densities shouldn’t limit or reduce the need to preserve the style of an existing single-family building within what is essentially a single-story neighborhood. During Oral Communications, the Commission heard from a neighboring property owner who supported the exception request. The neighbor stated that staff had taken a very narrow interpretation of extraordinary conditions on the subject property. The neighbor supported the addition, which would be compatible with other houses in the area and would make the home more livable for the owners. The neighbor noted that this exception request was very minor and that it should be supported. COURTESY COPIES Roger & Debbie Kohler Bob Crane ATTACHMENTS Attachment A:Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report May 28, 2003, without attachments CMR:XXX:XX Page 2 of 3 Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Planning & Transportation Commission excerpt verbatim minutes, May 28, 2003 Record of Land Use Action Applicant’s Letter Copies of plans for 02-HIE-21 (Council packet only) PREPARED BY: STEVEN TURNER DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: , ing and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~ F~ BENt~ST City Manager CMR:XXX:XX Page 3 of 3 Attachment A PLANNING DMSION 3 STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Clare Campbell Associate Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: May 28, 2003 SUBJECT:4291 Wilkie Way [03-AP-04]: Appeal by Roger Kohler of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s denial of a Home Improvement Exception application (02-HIE-21) requested by Roger Kohler to allow additional floor area (26.5 square feet) and lot coverage (106.3 square feet) beyond what is allowed in the R-1 Single Family Residential zone district. 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 denial. BACKGROUND Project History_ Roger and Debbie Kohler, the property owners of a two-story residence at 4291 Wilkie Way, submitted a Home Improvement Exception (HIE) application (02-HIE-21) on December 2, 2002. After reviewing the application, staff informed the applicant that the necessary findings for an HIE approval could not be met to support his project. The project proposed was a ground floor addition of 335 square feet to accommodate a more private living space within the existing house. The HIE submittal was for two exceptions, one to allow 26.5 square feet of additional floor area and one for 106.3 square feet of lot coverage beyond what is allowed in the R-1 Single Family Residential zone City of Palo Alto Page 1 district. In addition to the main residence, the site also has a 120 square foot accessory structure in the rear yard. In reviewing the plans, it was determined that the project objective could be accomplished without requiring an exception to the Zoning Code. According to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, definitions sections 18.04.030 (65)(C) & (86)(A), accessory structures 120 square feet or less do not count as floor area but do count toward lot coverage. Staff recommended the removal of the 120 square foot accessory structure, which eliminates the need for a lot coverage exception, and the reduction of 26.5 square feet on the addition, which eliminates the need for a floor area exception. These two minor modifications to the proposed project would eliminate the need to obtain an exception from the zoning regulations. 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. The Director’s Hearing was requested by Mr. Kohler and was held on February 20, 2003. At the hearing, aside from the applicant, there was one speaker who was representing another agenda item and happened to be a neighbor who voiced support for the project. There were no other public comments received on this item. As a general policy, public hearings are always held when staff is recommending a denial of a project that has a public hearing option as part of the review process. HIE Findings 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 HIE was denied on March 7, 2003. The request was denied because the three required findings for a Home Improvement Exception approval set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.90.055(a) could not be made. This determination was based on the review of all information contained within the project file, all public comments received, the review of the proposal in comparison to all applicable zoning and municipal code requirements, existing written policies, and the presentation and discussion of this project in a public forum at the Director’s Hearing on February 20, 2003. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The following responses pertain to the lack of substantiation of the required findings regarding the proposed project: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district. No exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property were evident as it relates to the exception request. This site has a slightly irregular shape, however, it is larger than most of the properties in the immediate area west of Adobe Creek. The project site is well over 9,000 square feet while the typical R-1 lots in this area are about 7,000 square feet. At the rear side yard of the property, there is a portion of the Adobe Creek easement which covers approximately 179 square feet of the property. There are the other properties adjacent to Adobe Creek which are also restricted by this same watercourse easement. The site has mature trees in the rear yard, however, they do not impact the placement of the proposed addition in any way since it is to the right side of the house and conforms with the required side yard setback. The granting 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 immediate neighborhood is a mix of single story and multiple story structures. Directly across the street from the project site are several apartment complexes that are zoned RM-15 Low Density Residential. The properties adjacent to the project site are single-story and it would be preferable for any addition to be placed at the ground floor. The proposed addition is on the ~round floor, however, the floor area in excess of the allowed FAR is not needed for the preservation of the existing architectural style. The granting of the application will not be injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience. The proposed additional floor area and lot coverage would have minimal impacts to the surrounding neighbors and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience. City of Palo Alto Page 3 DISCUSSION Appeal The appellant, Roger Kohler, filed an appeal within the prescribed timeline on March 17, 2003. The following is an excerpt of his appeal letter and is the basis of his appeal: "Our lot is adjacent the creek This reduces the zoning lot area from the taxable lot area. It also creates setbacks from the easement line, not the true ptvperty line. Only a small percentage of homes in our neighborhood have to deal with the creek situation. 2.As previous!y mentioned, we co~dd expand the exisc&g small loft area, but that would be out of character with the imnm.diate adjacent neighboring homes. By permitting this HIE, we can re’prowl on the first floor wittunct disrupting the neighborhood character We have reviewed the plcms with both adjacent ~qghbors and have received their approval. Our bnmediate neighbor to the south walked the site with me on Sunday. She was satisfied that we were doing everything to protect and improve her privacy." All the comments made by Mr. Kohler are addressed in the HIE findings section of this report, listed on page 3. Staff believes that a viable addition can be accomplished without an exception to the zoning regulations. The required findings to support his exceptions cannot be met and therefore the HIE should be denied. Mr. Kohler has informed staff that he plans to move forward with a building permit application for an addition that meets the zoning requirements per staff’s original recommendation. He wants to use the appeal process to have a public discussion of Home Improvement Exceptions. 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: Attachrnent A: Home Improvement Exception Denial Letter Attachment B: Roger Kohler’s Appeal Letter Attachment C: HIE Project Description Letter City of Palo Alto Page 4 Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Director’s Hearing Excerpt Verbatim Minutes, February 20, 2003 Zone Map of Site 2001 Aerial Photo of Site Copies of Plans for 02-HIE-21 (Commissioner’s only) COURTESY COPIES: Roger & Debbie Kohler, 4291 Wilkie Way, 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 March 7, 2003 Cityof Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Attachment A Planning Division Roger Kohler 4291 Wilkie Way Palo Alto, CA 94306 Subject: 4291 Wilkie Way; Application No. 02-HIE-21 Dear Mr. Kohler: I am writing to inform you of my decision on behaKofthe Director of Plauning and Community Environment regarding your request for a Home Improvement Exception approval, application No. 02-HIE-21. Your request is hereby denied because the three required findings for a Home Improvement Exception approval set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.90.055(a) could not be made. This determination is based on the review of all information contained within the project file, all public comments received, the review of the proposal in comparison to all applicable zoning and municipal code requirements, existing written policies, and the presentation and discussion of this project in a public forum at the Director’s Hearing on February, 20, 2003. Staff is aware that the proposed 335 square foot addition is to accommodate a more private living space for your college-aged son. In reviewing your proposal, it can be determined that your objective can be accomplished without an exception to the Zoning Code. According to the Zoning Code, accessory structures 120 square feet or less do not count as floor area but do count toward lot coverage. Staff suggests the removal of the 120 square foot accessory structure and the reduction of the addition by 26.5 square feet. In so doing, your project will no longer require an exception from the zoning regulations. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request by Roger Kohler for a Home Improvement Exception permit to allow additional first-floor floor area (26.5 square feet) and lot coverage (106.3 square feet) beyond what is allowed to an existing two-story house in the R-1 Single Family Residential zone district. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15303. 250 Hamilton Avenue EO. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 fax 4291 Wilkie Way Page 2 of 3 FINDINGS All three findings (under PAMC Section 18.90.055(a)) are required in order for an approval of a Home Improvement Exception to be granted. The following responses pertain to the lack of substantiation of these findings, regarding the proposed project: 1.There are exceptional or extraordina~, circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same distv-ict. No exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions apphcable to the subject property were evident as it relates to the exception request. This sire has a slightly irregular shape, however, it is larger than most of the properties in the immediate area west of Adobe Creek. The propert3~ has an extended easement due to its adjacency to Adobe Creek, however, the other adjacent properties are also restricted by this same easement. The site has mature trees in the rear yard, however, they do not impact the placement of the proposed addition in any way since it is to the right side of the house and conforms with the required side yard setback. The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character, which would nor otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of code. In this predominantly single-story neigJaborhood, it would be preferable for any addition to be placed at the ground floor. The proposed addition is on the ground floor, however, the floor area in excess of the allowed FAR is not needed for the preservation of the existing architectural style. The granting of the application will not be injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience. Staff rec%maizes that the proposed additional floor area and lot coverage would have minimal impacts to the surrounding neighbors and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience. 4291 Willde Way Page 3 of 3 Inaccordance with the provisions of PAMC Chapter 18.92, any appeal of this decision must be submitted prior to the close of the business day on March 17, 2003. Should you have any questions regarding the Director’ s Hearing determination, please do not hesitate to contact the Project Planner, Clare Campbell, at (650) 617-3191. Sincerely, Manager of Current Planning ¯ 82/18/2883 18:14 6583212868 KI3HL.E’~ ,~S~I3CIATF_.~P,~,GE 82 Attachment B KOHLB.R ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS Fe~ ~4, 2003 St~ l~n ~lie Plamfl~ Director city of B do Alto 250 Ha~ flton Avenue Palo Alto Ca 94301 RE: HI~ - Director’s Hearing, 4291 Wilkie Way. Dear Mr.i Emslie, I a~ requesting a Director’s hearing for our application for a Home Improvetnent Exception for our home at 4291 Wilkie Way. One ll~n did I did not make very clear in our original HIE request was the imI~tC~ t the creek easement has on the floor area and lot coverage calctflallAns. The gross area of our lot is 9867 square feet. Because of the creek ea.~ment, we are not permitted to include 288 square feet of taxable propert~ aera in the zoning calculations. If we were able to include this area in t~le floor area ratio formula, we could add 86 square feet beyond the cur~nt maximum and 101 square feet of lot coverage beyond the current fillowable. The majority of lots in the neighborhood are permitted to use all of their taxable square feet area in their lot calculations. We are being ~ because of our adjacency to Adobe Creek. I am/tt a loss as to why staff has denied our HIE application. The HIE process came about for exa~y the exceptions to the zoning ordinance we are requbsting. Our request for 26 extra square feet in a!lowable floor area and one or two percent* extra in allowable lot coverage represent minor e~eptions, but results in major returns for our fatally. The I~ome Improvement Exception process was created by the City Couz~cJi iin the late 1980’s. Prior to the creation of HIE’s, homeowners lnundate~l the city with variance requests for relatively minor exceptions to the zoning ordinance. As you know, a variance can only be granted if there is "Anusual or odd circumstance with the homeowner’s property that 721 COLORADO AVEqUE, SUITI~ 102 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Ti!L (650) 3?-8 1086 FAX (650) 321 2860 0211812803 18:14 6583212868 KZY-L~R ~t~K]CI~TES P~3£ 83 KOHLI~R ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS page doesn’t ~ with neighboring propertles. The HIE was created to respond to unust~ or difficult architectm-al situations relating to the house on the property, not the property itself. On page 3 of the HIE guidebook it says the HIE ~ created for "sustaining the integrity of an existing design coocept ¢r ae~borhood character.~ Whed I met with you to discuss our application and I-IIE’s in general, you made th~ comment that your review of HIE applications had shown a decline ih approvals over the last few years. I said there was a general feellrtg ~ the design community that the planning department seemed to have a goal to make life difficult for the homeowner. The lack of HIE appr~ is just one of many setbacks for the homeowner. That is a sub~ct t~r mother time. In su.~hary these are the following reasons why we think this HIE. Our lot is adjacent the creek. This reduces the zoning lot area from the taxable lot area. It also creates setbacks from the easement llne, not the true property line. Only a small percentage of homes in our neighborhood have to deal with the creek situation. As previously mentioned, we could expand the existing small loft area, but that would be out of character with the immediate adjacent neighboring homes. By permitting this HIE, we can expand on the first floor without disrupting the neighborhood character Finding c. We have reviewed the plans with both adjacent neighbors aud have received their approval. Our tramediate neighbor to the south walked the site with me on Sunday. She was satisfied that we were doing everything to protect and improve her privacy. 82/18/2883 18:14 &503212860 KDHLER ~SSDCI~TES P~E 84 KOHLEIR ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS page 3. We ag~ ask you and staff to look favorably upon our request and approve bur application for a Home Improvement F~ception. Debbie M. Kohler *I put an~asterisk on this comment because of a change in interpretation in the zon!l~g ordinance. When applied for a building permit for the 120 square fdot shed I built in the back yard, I was told I didn’t need a permiL The Bttlk~ing Code doesn’t require permits for structures under 120 square feet. StaiT explained that these sheds didn’t count as lot coverage or floor area. In ~1990 or so, staff decided to limit 120 square foot structures in a rear yard. because a homeowner had proposed to build three or four of these structures In his rear yard. A logical decision. Since 1989 ! have always a~$umed the 120 square foot structure still didn’t count as lot coverage br floor area. As recently as 1998 1 was told this by staff this was still the ~Itlmtion. Now I’ve been told they count as lot coverage. These type of fflt~rpretatlons should be noticed for all to know. 721 COLORADO AVENUE, SUITE 102 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 TI~ (650) 328 1086 FAX (650) 321 2860 KOHLER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS Attachment C November 29, 2002 Amy French Zoning Administrator City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, Ca 94301 RECEIVED DEC 0 DEPAFITIvIENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIFIONMENT RE:HIE - 4291 Wilkie Way. Exception for 26.5 Sq. ft. Beyond Allowable FAR Exception for 36.1% Lot Coverage Dear Zoning Administrator, I am requesting a Home Improvement Exception for my home at 4291 Wilkie Way. Debbie, my wife, and I want to provide a living space for our son, Matthew, while he attends college and works in my office part time. We have considered various solutions to providing a living situation that would conform to the zoning ordinances. Unfortunately, we find the best solution requires two minor exceptions to the R1 Zoning Ordinances. The two exceptions are for 26.5 square feet beyond the allowable floor area and a lot coverage of 36.1% where 35% is permitted. We first considered a separate cottage structure in the rear yard. Since our rear yard abuts Adobe Creek there is a 25 foot setback required from the edge of the creek. This setback plus the location of 42 inch diameter oak on the adjacent property and 24 inch diameter pepper on our property severely restricts the location and size of a potential structure. We explored the possibility of expanding the small loft above the existing Dining Room. This was feasible because we could expand directly over the garage. However, this would require the placement of second story windows facing our neighbor, the Johnson’s, at 9287 Wilkie Way. It would create additional bulk to our existing home. Currently the loft space is centrally located in the center of the house. The windows of the loft all have a 52 inch sill. It blends in well with the house and is a subtle second floor space. Expansion of this space would create privacy issues with adjacent neighbors and create more bulk facing the street. 721 COLORADO AVENUE, SUITE 102 TEL (650) 328 1086 PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, 94303 FAX (650) 321 2860 KOHLER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS page 2 We finally decided to utilize the existing side yard to the south. The area between the existing house and the required six foot setback is 9’-3." The interior width of the proposed addition will be 8’-9." The proposed addition is a one story space with a small bedroom, a bath, and a sitting area. The addition is located to the rear of the Berman home on the south (see site plan) to avoid direct privacy issues. The new windows facing the Berman home have been kept to the minimum required for building code compliance. THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY: The lot is adjacent to Adobe Creek and a heritage oak tree on the neighbors lot to the east. The drip line of the oak hangs over a large portion of our rear yard reducing optional building areas. An existing 24" diameter pepper tree along the creek also protrudes into the rear yard limiting expansion possibilities. The required SCVWD 25 foot set back from the creek edge reduces the allowable building area for a separate detached structure. The side yard becomes the only viable option for a small expansion because of the following limitations: a.the desire not to create further bulk to the second floor as mentioned above, b.the location of existing windows facing the rear yard, c.the required SCVWD 25 foot set back from the creek edge, d.the drip lines of existing trees. THE GRANTING OF THE APPLICATION IS DESIRABLE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL ANrD NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER: The goal is maintain the overall character of the single story homes on this portion of Wilkie Way. Although we have an existing loft area, it’s bulk centered in the middle -~f the roof area facing the street.It appears to be part of the one story roofline and not a separate second floor. As previously mentioned, expansion of this loft area would eliminate the delicate balance between the existing rooflines of the loft and the lower portion of the home. A one story expansion to side will contribute the stepped character of the existing roof line. KOHLEK ASSOCIATES AKCHITECTS page 3 THE GRANTING OF THIS APPLICATION WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBORS: The addition has been designed to minimize possible privacy conflicts with the property next door. The only window with view to side the property line will be the bedroom window sized for the minimum required for a bedroom by the building code. The other windows are all above head height in the bathroom and in the sitting area to provide light and ventilation. The addition is setback from the front property line 48’-4" and extends only 3 feet to the front of the rear line of the neighbors home. The shape of the addition has been extended to provide a sound and sight screen from our existing patio to the rear of the adjacent home.The addition will comply with all set back and daylight plane requirements.We will be planting screen shrubs in the common property line setback area. This one story addition will less intrusive than a potential second floor addition have In summary, we believe the proposed solution will be the most appropriate to solve our space and living needs. The proposed addition will blend in with existing homes in the neighborhood and have an minimum impact our neighbors. We hope that you will review this application favorably. Please do not hesitate to phone or write if yo.u have any questions or need additional information. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerel Roger Architect .721 COLORADO AVENUE, SUITE 102 TEL (650) 328 1086 PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, 94303 FAX (650) 321 2860 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 Director’s Hearing Thursday, February 20, 2003 REGULAR MEETING - 3:00 PM City Council Conference Room Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Attachment D Staff: Steve Emslie, Planning Director Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official Amy French, John Lusardi, Planning Manager, Special Projects Ms. French: 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 the first item, 375 University Avenue will be heard after 4291 Wilkie Way. That is the plan for now and we will see when we can get a heating officer for that item. Basically this Director’s Hearing is to hear the project for the first time in my case, I will be reviewing the plans, the project, I will be hearing from the applicants, from any interested citizens, from Staff and I will not be making any decisions at this meeting. I have ten days in which to make a decision. If you wish to appeal any item on this agenda you will need to contact the Planning Division. The appeal period is ten calendar days from the date of my decision. In the case of the ones I would be deciding for 375 University Avenue, that is not my decision but the same rule applies as far as the number of days. City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 If you challenge this land use decision in court you may be limited to raising only those issues or someone else raised at a public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to the public hearing. NEW B USINESS 4291 Wilkie Way [02-HIE-21] Request by Roger Kohler for a Home Improvement Exception permit to allow additional floor area (26.5 square feet) and lot coverage (106.3 square feet) beyond what is allowed in the R-1 Single Family Residential zone district. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15303. Ms. French: With that I will start 4291 Wilkie Way [02-HIE-21]. A request by Roger Kohler for a Home Improvement Exception permit to allow additional floor area (26.5 square feet) and lot coverage (106.3 square feet) beyond what is allowed in the R-1 Single Family Residential zone district. This is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. I would ask for a presentation from the applicant regarding the project. Hello Roger. Mr. Roger Kohler, Applicant: Hello. Ms. Debbie Kohler, Applicant: I am sitting here but I am not saying anything. City of Palo Aho Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ms. French: Oh, great and who are you? Ms. Kohler: I am Debbie Kohler. Ms. French: Debbie, nice to meet you. Mr. Kohler: I am Roger Kohler the owner and the architect of the project. We have applied for what I consider a fairly modest Home Improvement Exception on our property. We are trying to create a separate but still attached living space for our son who is going to school and working for me. We are trying to create something that has the least amount of impact on our home and we all can achieve what we are trying to achieve. We have several issues on our lot, which have created some of the difficulties we have right now. The biggest item is that we are attached to a creek, which changes the rear setbacks. It also changes the allowable square footage. Our setback instead of being eight or nine feet out in the creek it is eight or nine feet less than our actual property line even though we are paying taxes on that property. In the letter that I wrote to appeal the hearing for today or request the Director’s Hearing I stated some numbers where in fact if we could include that area we would not have a floor area ratio issue we would still have a modest lot coverage issue. Also we would not have a lot coverage issue if the rule about detached 120 square foot structures was still the way it was when I built City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 mine which is that they didn’t count for lot coverage or floor area ratio. I have verified that with Carolyn Beset an hour ago upstairs who is right above us that in fact for years they didn’t count for either one of them. Ms. French: Is that for years? Mr. Kohler: coverage. The 120 square foot structure we have there did not count for floor area or lot Ms. French: Oh, and you are saying you have spoken with a former Staff Member who has stated the policy. Mr. Kohler: She still works for the City of Palo Alto. Ms. French: Former Planning Staff Member that says there was a policy of interpretation that these would not included in lot coverage. Mr. Kohler: Right. I did not know that and I am in the business and so for ten years I have been telling people that and now I have just found out now it counts for lot coverage and floor area. I verified with her, she said in fact they have limited it to one because at one point someone tried to build four of them in his backyard and they said no-no only one is going to be your freebie. So now our lot coverage would have been different if I had known things were different. City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 .6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Also as families grow older and things change if we had known what we know today we would have done some of the remodels, we have done two major remodelings, different than we did and we would have rearranged the house. Now it is very difficult to go back and undo what has already been done. We also have located the area on the side of the house we are trying to not expand what is already a modest loft space upstairs which was done in 1979. It has been improved in part because right now it is not even all floor area, a lot of it is open to below, and the idea is that there are no real windows that look down into neighbors. You have to walk over and look down the windows. But if we were to expand on the second floor, which we probably could do, but it would be really a mess to the existing house and would create windows down to this neighbor as well as possibly this neighbor on this side. I have talked to this neighbor here on the south side and we walked the site with her on Sunday and she seems pretty comfortable with the idea. We only have one window facing her property line that is low enough to see out and that is for a small bed area. It is barely a bedroom size, it is just a little over the limit. Her house is here so we pushed this way back so that we are behind her. This addition also creates further privacy from our patio so when this is built she won’t even hear us when we are out on the patio. For what it is worth, I am not exactly sure, we across the street from apartments. So we are not exactly in a totally residential neighborhood and it does create some issues with noise from them and parking. I am not exactly sure that helps or not I am just letting you know it is not just a straight residential area. As you look down our street here I would have thought by now we would have more two-story additions done but so far we haven’t. So this is our house here and City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 then there are other homes down the street. So we are trying not to do the second floor, which would actually be very expensive, and we think this is a relatively modest request and give us a tremendous amount of return. One last thing as I was looking through the Zoning Ordinance on Home Improvement Exceptions I couldn’t fmd in the Ordinance where it says. Ms. French: In the Guidebook? Mr. Kohler: In the Guidebook, these items. It says HIE cannot relive grant from floor area plus its incidental fence limits, underground parking, one-story, etc. none of that is here in the Ordinance. Ms. French: Well, this is the Ordinance and that is a derivative of the Ordinance. So what are you looking to find? Mr. Kohler: I am just commenting that it is confusing. If you go the Ordinance it doesn’t correspond to what is in the booklet. Ms. French: There is a problem with our handouts and because the Ordinance is law and that is interpretation of law. So can you refer to the section in here that you can share with me that you were relying on to make this? City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 .6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Mr. Kohler: It says that floor area cannot be unless it is incidental and less than 100 square feet. Ms. French: Can you show me that section that you are looking at so I can be on the same page as you, literally? Mr. Kohler: Okay. Ms. French: You are looking at the regulations on an HIE cannot grant relief?. Mr. Kohler: Yes. Expect for floor area that is incidental. Ms. French: Floor area limit. Okay. Cannot grant relief from the following regulation, the floor area ratio limit unless the added space is deemed to be incidental and is less than 100 square feet. Mr. Kohler: Right. Ms. French: And you are asking for 26 square feet of floor area. Ms. French: Okay, lot coverage 106 but your, that is confusing. So you are 26 over the floor area. Okay, so you meet that according to the Guidebook. Mr. Kohler: Well, yes but as you know yes, that is why I think it is very incidental. City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ms. French: How would you describe it t~ be incidental? Mr. Kohler: In that it is just a modes extension of this thing here and you really can’t see it from the street and it actually provides more privacy for her. Ms. French: But it is floor area. It is not like it is an attic space or a second floor equivalent. I don’t know how we would describe incidental. So that is something for me to in my learning curve here find out what that means. Mr. Kohler: Well, between 1989 and 1996 or 97 floor areas were granted for 100 square feet almost automatically. Here is HIE number, I don’t know whatever it is granted in 1993 the house was 6,800 square feet and we added 100 and it was no problem. So it was already over the maximum 6,000 square feet. Maybe it was a little ridiculous you just went in and you almost got it automatically so to me based on that history 26 square feet seems awfully. Ms. French: You have been around and doing this for a while so you have seen the changes. Mr. Kohler: Well, the problem with the changes is they occur without notice. There is no notice that comes out that says we know we have been doing this and now we are doing this. So it is very confusing to us in the design field. As I noted in my letter that recently there have been a lot of decisions that seem to make homeowners’ lives more difficult and I am not sure that is the goal of the Planning Department, to make life difficult for homeowners. City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ms. French: You say it is difficult and that is a whole other topic. We do have people out there that watch homes very closely and have suggestions for how we can modify them. Thank you. I will keep this. So what we are left with is we have some codes, we have this Guidebook, that is why I was very interested to see what you saw in the Guidebook that you were hanging your hat on so to speak. Mr. Kohler: The second item there is what is unusual with the lot and I have the creek, an odd- shaped lot, ! have a giant oak tree in my neighbor’s yard, we have a large pepper tree. So when we were doing these other additions we couldn’t go out probably as far as we might have done in the past. In fact I am not sure this would have been approved today, this little addition in the front that is on the cover of the booklet. Ms. French: Well, we clearly need to update all of our handouts. That is a known entity in our department. So in our spare time that is what we will be doing, if we could find some spare time that would be great. Let’s get back to exactly what it is that you are doing here. So the three points you made is you don’t want to make a second story because it is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Kohler: Right. Ms. French: It is more consistent in your opinion to keep it on the first floor. City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Mr. Kohler: Right. Ms. French: The second thing is you said that you feel that the finding is that you cannot include part of your tax assessed lot area because it is within the easement of the creek. Mr. Kohler: That’s right. Ms. French: And if you were able to include that as part of your lot area this would not be an issue as far as floor area ratio. Mr. Kohler: Yes, that’s correct. One other thing in terms of the architectural character this exists, this is existing and our little addition is one step down. So we are trying to repeat the forms that have been created coming down. That is a minor point but I just wanted to point that out too. That is one of the items that says meet architectural integrity of what is there and that is what I am trying to do. Ms. French: So then the other thing you mentioned is in a conversation with a former Planning Staff Member that you believe that the one accessory structure is not included in the lot coverage. We know that it is not included in floor area ratio. So because we have many policies that we work with we have an interpretation log that indicates what we can do. Mr. Kohler: It exists, really? City of Palo Alto Page I0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Ms. French: There is an interpretation log, yes, that does say certain things about certain features and how we counted floor area. So I can do that research and see, because it would be good to have another source besides a former Staff Member. I would like to find that in writing somewhere and that will be part of my consideration. Mr. Kohler: How many former Staff Members would you like? I could probably get a hold of them. Ms. French: No, I am saying rather than hear an account from somebody I would like to fred it in writing. Mr. Kohler: So in fact when someone makes a change like the daylight plane change which came about a few years ago that gets recorded. Ms. French: Okay. I don’t know what you are talking about but in some cases like the year before last, November 19, 2001 we passed and in conjunction with that there was the Zoning Ordinance Update on that chapter and that was a codified thing. There is an interpretation log that is available to Staffto go back if somebody asserts that something is not being correctly interpreted we can go back and look in the log and find if there has been something that was set down. So I can do that for you. City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 Mr. Kohler: One last thing is when I met with Steve Emslie about this process because I was a 2 little surprised I received a letter just asking me to withdraw the application without any 3 discussion and I was kind of upset. He mentioned that he had gone back, and I don’t know how 4 thoroughly, looking at HIE applications and noticed that the number of approvals had declined in 5 the last few years over the time of the HIE process. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ms. French: Okay, I don’t know about this. those applicants approved? The number of applications and the percentage of Mr. Kohler: Had declined dramatically. Ms. French: Okay. Mr. Kohler: Again, is that a policy decision not to approve them or where they just weird applications I don’t know but that would be something that would be nice to find out. I am a homeowner here. I am presenting this from the homeowner side. As an architect I have two clients who are saying what happened with your HIE? I am saying I don’t know yet. They each want to come in for an application for extra square feet but I have to tell them I don’t know. So it would be nice if there was a policy on it. Ms. French: I will look for that in our interpretation log and see number one if I can find what you are talking about on the accessory building and then basically. City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Mr. Kohler: Can I see that aerial? Ms. French: This is not codified, this less than 100 square feet, it is in our Guidebook and we still have the findings that must be made. What you are saying is you think that the creek situation is part of the parcel. Mr. Kohler: It says generally not in the neighborhood and if we count the lots we have 15 or so and there are four that are impacted by the creek. If you took the 350 that are in our neighborhood between Charleston and the creek there are maybe 20 that are impacted out of over 300. So it is kind of a weird situation. Ms. French: Yes, it is not that you are the only one but you are one of only a handful. Mr. Kohler: A select lucky few. Ms. French: You have a nice easement behind your house. Well, Roger, thank you and Debbie thank you. I am happy to meet you. I am interested in reviewing these plans a little further. I will be speaking to the Staff. Staff do you have anything to add? Actually I should give the public a chance too. Do you have anything to add or have we received comments in the negative or positive from the neighbors? Staff: One of your neighbors just came in to take a look at the plans and other than that she didn’t have any comments. She just came in to look at it. City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Ms. French: But that neighbor is not here today? Staff: Right, she is not here today. Mr. Kohler: neighbor. It might have been Hanna.I don’t know why or maybe it was just another Staff: It was the one next door. Mr. Kohler: Okay. She walled it all over on Stmday and I explained everything. Ms. French: So at this point I would like to ask if there are any members of the public here to speak to this item which we are on in case you walled in late, 4291 Wilkie Way. It is item number two on the agenda? Yes, please come up. Ms. Christen Harrison, Willde Way, Palo Alto: I am a neighbor of Roger and Debbie’s and I think it is a fme project. I think it will have zero negative impact on the neighborhood. It is pretty much invisible. So I am just here to support it. I am here for another reason but I will support it while I am here. City of Palo Alto Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Ms. French: Thank you, appreciate your comments. With that seeing no other folks here wishing to speak I will close the public hearing. I don’t believe I have any further questions. Staff, do you have anything to add? Okay. Thank you. Roger, did you bring this in? Mr. Kohler: You can have it. Ms. French: We have more of these. Mr. Kohler: I want to make sure which revision it is. Ms, French: Done. Well there are only three items. Why don’t we wait until the end of the next one? So I am on item number three. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Attachment E Attachment F Attachment B 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 Planning and Transportation Commission May 28, 2003 Verbatim Minutes DRAZF EXCERPT 4291 Wilkie Way*: Appeal by Roger Kohler of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s denial of a Home Improvement Exception permit to allow additional floor area (26.5 square feet) and lot coverage (106.3 square feet) beyond what is allowed in the R-1 Single Family Residential zone district. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303. File No: 02- HI~-21. Staff Report Weblink: http://ww~v.citvofpaloalto.org/citvagenda/publish/planning- transportation-meetings/2016.pdf Ms. French: For the record, it is 4291 Willde Way. The appellant who is also the applicant for the project in this case wishes to add roughly 330 square feet to the first floor. Chair Bialson: Could I ask the audience to please leave rather than discuss in the back of the room. I don’t think we have enough copies of this item that was just handed out, the interpretations. I see this is with respect to what was raised in Oral Communications. Is that correct, Mr. Kohter? Now we have enough copies. Now back to Staff. Ms. French: The appellant who is also the applicant wishes to add roughly 330 square feet to the first floor of his two-story residence. The second story is comprised of only a 200 square foot loft area. Staff was not able to make finding n-amber two in this case regarding preserving neighborhood character for the extra FAR and lot coverage over the maximums in the code for this case. The neighborhood does include three three-story apartment complexes as well as the single-family residences. Staffis of the opinion that the additional 26 square feet of FAR although it is a very small amount does not m.eet the finding based on preserving architectural or neighborhood character and that perhaps the variance process is the more appropriate process for this request. The finding number one was also not made by Staff in that it is interpreted by Staff as pertaining to the immediate neighborhood not to the zoning districts throughout the City. The property does have an easement nmning across it related to the creek, Water District land that is an easement, that does remove a portion of the existing lot from lot area calculations on which the FAR and lot coverage are based. So that is a consideration that we did consider as we were evaluating the project. There are two accessory structures on the property as shown in plans that Staff’s advice to the applicant was to remove one of those to remove the need to get a variance or HIE for the lot coverage component. The code and our guidebooks indeed since 1990 have noted that accessory facilities or actually any buildings on the property are indeed included in lot coverage. The applicant has suggested that this has not always been the case but it indeed we have some evidence that it is the case. The accessory structures on the site that are greater than 120 square feet do not count for floor area so it is kind of a disconnect if you think about it. It does require inclusion in the lot coverage calculation but not in the floor area calculation. So that is where there has been a bit of a hang up in understanding. As far as the other finding, that can Page 1 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 be made, finding number three but as we process these we need to make all three findings to approve an HIE and that is why Staff did not approve this HIE. That concludes my presentation. Chair Bialson: Okay. In keeping with the indication made by the Attorney for the City can we have the disclosures at this time? Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I walked by this unit and in the area. Chair Bialson: Joe? No disclosure. I walked by the unit myself. Karen? Commissioner Holman: I visited the site this afternoon. Chair Bialson: Pat. Commissioner Butt: I visited the site as well, had no contact and just for the record could the City Attorney clarify our disclosures? I don’t mind disclosing I visited the site but are disclosures required for site visits or only for contacts? Ms. Furth: Both. This is a quasi-judicial matter that means that while this is not conducted like a formal trial we don’t require sworn statements people are expected to speak to you on the relevant facts and legal standards and you are expected to make your decision based on the information that is presented to you at the hearing. So the purpose of your disclosures is to let people know that you have seen the site so that if there is something unusual about the site when you visited it they could respond to it. The purpose of disclosing conversations about the matter again is to disclose relevant information that you have obtained through those conversations that should be part of the general discussion so that you are not basing your decision on information not generally available that you received outside this heating. Chair Bialson: Michael. Commissioner Griffin: I did view the subject property. Commissioner Betlomo: Annette. Chair Bialson: Joe. Commissioner Bellomo: I will disclose that I talked to Amy French regarding this application this afternoon. Is that discussion with Staff required disclosure? Ms. Furth: Not generally. Generally we try to include in our presentations to you at this hearing everything that we may have said to any of you individually as well. Chair Bialson: Thank you. I think at this time we will hear from the appellant. You will have 15 minutes and another oppommity to speak should you wish it at the close of public comment. Page 2 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 Mr. Kohler: I am Roger Kohler, owner of 4291 Wilkie Way. I hope not to take your 15 minutes. Basically we were planning to do a simple addition on this house in part to create a living space for our son who is currently working in my office and going to school. We thought it would be good if we could create a space where he could be semi-separate from us and have it fairly livable use. So it was kind of creating a housing unit for here in Palo Alto. We looked at the various options and it occurred to me that if we could go beyond the requirements we could create a nicer space that was a little more usable. So it works out that my misunderstanding about the 120 square foot shed has been for ten years wrong. I went in 1990 or 1991 and built that shed myself and was told at the time forget it, you don’t need a permit, you don’t need anything it is under 120 square feet. So I have been telling a lot of people over ten years that that’s what they can do. So I guess I am wrong. Besides that I think one of the issues here is that the Home Improvement Exception was created for minor exceptions to create existing structures more livable and usable in today’s world when they were designed and built quite a while ago. It was created because in the 1990s there was a series of multiple variances requested for a lot of these kind of issues and the Council said let’s create some issue that has a minor variance in effect and that’s why they created the Home Improvement Exception. I would just like to run down a couple of things here. Staff is saying there are no exceptional circumstances with our lot well the creek is a fairly large problem because in fact we lose almost 300 square feet of our area, which if that could count toward our floor area we would not be requiring any kind of a Home Improvement Exception now. Because the creek is there we have to take off the 300 feet. Also because the creek is there it pushes the rear yard setback in eight to ten feet closer than if the creek wasn’t there and we would have eight to ten square feet more. Our neighbor has a gigantic oak tree which is wonderful and we hope it survives and that has also created a large area where we can’t build. We have a large pepper tree in the back yard which we are trying to maintain so we can’t build too close to that. So there are exceptions and issues with our property that don’t necessarily apply to everybody else. Now there are a lot of homes in this neighborhood along the creek but there are also a tremendous number more of them that are not on the creek. So in a sense we have a little bit of an exception that I think is an exception. Then we also live across the street from two large apartment buildings, which create ongoing hassle for us with the parking and the traffic. We have had two cats killed on Wilkie Way. So we were trying not to do any more second floor additions. If we hadn’t done this little loft many, many years ago in fact for eight or nine years it was not a loft it was just a high ceiling. Beyond that we are paying taxes on that 300 square feet in the creek and yet we can’t use it as part of our project. The rear yard has been impacted and right now it may not look like much but in past additions if we had been able to take advantage of some of these different issues we would not probably have some of the issues we have today. Also Staff just mentioned that there were two accessory structures on our property and I only know of one. I don’t know where the other one came from but we have the one. So I thought overall this was a relatively minor exception to ask for. I did mention it to one of the Staff members at one point and he said it was not a big deal. So yes, we can survive without these exceptions and we can shrink this down and make it a much smaller space but it has one advantage in that we are shielding our usable open space patio in the backyard from our Page 3 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 neighbor. It kind of creates a sound barrier for her so when we are out in the back patio she is not going to be hearing us as much as she does now. I just thought that we have exceptions. It is an odd lot, we have a creek, it does to me comply with the number one requirement of exceptional and ordinary circumstances. I am not sure about number two. I didn’t quite understand what the Staff was saying. It seems to me that because we have this multiple family across the street you just approach your house differently than you would without that there. So I am just here to put forth my wish that the Home Improvement Exception be utilized as it was intended for very small exceptions as when the first home improvements came about. Then in the early 1990s you could be guaranteed, literally guaranteed 100 square feet on Home Improvement Exceptions. I know that for a fact because we got 100 square feet on a house that already 6,700 square feet in size and we got another extra 100 square feet. Staff automatically told clients that they could come down and get a Home Improvement Exception for 100 square feet. We had a new home, and they said, well you come back after your house has been lived in for a couple of years and we can give you 100-foot exception. Then it got more difficult for Home Improvement Exceptions and now I have had two people tell me that they have gone down and talked to the Staff at the counter and that Staff has pretty much said no Home Improvement Exceptions at all. So I guess I am just trying to get this out in the open and have the discussion about Home Improvement Exceptions. What is acceptable and what isn’t? I know it is a case-by-case basis but I have had Staff tell some people that I am working with that they just will not endorse any Home Improvement Exception not even for any minimum amount of square feet. So in summary I think we have some exceptional situations here, which warrant the Home Improvement Exception, and I would hope that you would agree with me and approve our application. Chair Bialson: Thank you. I have a question for you. Commissioner Burt: Mr. Kohler if you were to make your addition on a second story you would not any lot coverage exception. Is that correct? Mr. Kohler: That is correct. Commissioner Burt: When I visited the site this loft you call it, is it presently counted as floor area on the second story? Mr. Kohler: Yes. Commissioner Burt: If you were to remodel would you be keeping the loft at that limited height or if you redid your second story would you do a full height elevation or be inclined to do so? Mr. Kohler: The option and I can look at the plans but the easy way to add on to that although not very difficult because it is difficult because there are some high ceilings below we could add out over the garage. That is the best place to do a second floor addition, over a garages because they are unfinished, they are easy to get access to but that would then put windows on the second floor over our neighbor’s house. I didn’t really think that was a good option. We could probably Page 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 go back although that would really be expensive. Any .way it is adding more second floor windows into the neighborhood which I tend to agree, I think second floors have this problems with privacy. Commissioner Burt: Would the second floor addition option result in a higher second floor than your loft currently is? Mr. Kohler: It probably would because the loft is only like seven- three or four feet high from the ceiling. It may not even be legal. It was originally intended as a high ceiling and then we added new small loft space. Commissioner Burt: I have one further follow up. That loft space does all qualify against FAR at that limited ceiling? Mr. Kohler: Oh yes. Yes, it is 17 feet to the top of the roof and we are like 17 feet to the ceiling and so then the roof structure was above that 17 feet so it does count. One last thing, correction, the exception for the rear yard projection is an extra six feet into the 20 feet so you still have 14 feet rear yard for half the width of the house. It is not a six-foot setback. Just didn’t want to let that go by. Chair Bialson: I think I understand that. Another Commissioner has a question. Michael. Commissioner Griffin: Mr. Kohler, just to clarify on page four of the Staff Report it says that you have informed Staff that you intend to move forward with a building permit application for an addition that meets the zoning requirements and that you wish to use this appeal process to have a public discussion of the HIE. So my question is this for real? Mr. Kohler: Sure it is for real. At the time what I was thinking about doing, I haven’t done it, I haven’t applied for the permit yet. I just thought and the more we thought about it it made more sense to push this through because it provides a living space that is livable. It is not necessarily a second unit but it creates a livable space for him and maybe some student in the future could survive and not be interacting with us. It is very economical to do it that way and it just seems a very straightforward solution. So yes, I would definitely pursue this. Chair Bialson: One more question from Pat. Commissioner Burt: Just to clarify the paragraph that Michael was citing, where it says in the Staff Report that Mr. Kohler has informed Staff that he plans to move forward with a building permit application for an addition that meets the zoning requirements. Are you planning on applying for a conforming permit if you are not successful in this appeal or either way? Mr. Kohler: Well either way we would prefer to apply for the permit with the HIE approved. That would be my preferred option. At the time when I said that it seemed to make sense to just go ahead and get the process started and then if this was approved in process I could always go back with a revision. Page 5 1 Commissioner Burt: So what I just want to clarify is that you do not plan on applying for a 2 conforming permit if you are successful in this appeal. You only plan on applying for that if you 3 are unsuccessful in this appeal. Is that correct? 4 5 Mr. Kohler: Yes, I think that is logical. 6 7 Commissioner Butt: Well that is just not the way it is written and I want to make sure. I am 8 clarifying for the record. 9 10 Commissioner Griffin: Another one. Can you tell us a little bit about the accessory structure? It 11 is a tool shed or storage for office? 12 13 Mr. Kohler: It is a storage shed. It is eight by 15 all with Home Depot wood. It is on two four 14 by six beams with four joists and it has a shed. It conforms to all the zoning ordinance but it was 15 hand built in 1990. 16 17 Commissioner Griffin: So it is not on a concrete slab or anything of that nature. 18 19 Mr. Kohler: No, in retrospect it should have been done on a concrete slab. I wish I had done it 20 on a slab but in those days I could do it myself with wood and I did. 21 22 Chair Bialson: Thank you. One more question. Joe. 23 24 Commissioner Bellomo: Roger, the Staff Report mentions that there is 179 square feet of the 25 property, which is covered by the Adobe Creek easement. Is that the amount of property? 26 27 Mr. Kohler: Well, I just measured it and calculated it while I was sitting here waiting and I got 28 275 square feet or so. It is pretty easy measure it is about eight feet in the middle and about 32 29 feet long. So I just ran that number. 30 31 Chair Bialson: I think Staff is now looking at that. Is that correct? 32 33 Commissioner Bellomo: Is there a parcel map? 34 35 Chair Bialson: Amy, is that what we have? 36 37 Ms. French: Are you asking about the difference in figures? 38 39 Chair Bialson: Yes. 40 41 Ms. French: I just spoke with Staff who said how she did this was triangulating based on the 42 block maps that we have on record to calculate the area. 43 44 Mr. Kohler: Well, I used the block map to draw the site plan so I don’t know what the difference 45 is. I have the drawings. 46 Page 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 Chair Bialson: Any fiarther questions of Mr. Kohler? Thank you very much. Now we will open this up for public comment. I have only one speaker request card for Bo Crane. You will have five minutes to speak. Mr. Bo Crane, 4283 Wilkie Wag, Palo Alto: I am a neighbor of Mr. Kohler’s. My house is a couple of houses over. I am a big supporter of Staff. I think they did an excellent job in the last item. In looking at the findings I think that there is a very narrow interpretation of extraordinary circumstances. I think the creek is extraordinary. I am an adjacent property owner who does not have a creek so to say that other properties are restricted by the same easement, there are only a few properties. The previous item had the extraordinary circumstance of the fact that it was on a comer. There are a lot of comer lots throughout the City. Again, I am big supporter of Staff but I think that this is a very narrow interpretation. His property line does go into the creek. Number two I think I also narrow. Staff talks about the preservation of an existing architectural style in their response but it also says preservation of neighborhood character. There are two apartment houses across the street. The Elk’s Club and Rickey’s Hyatt are further down the street. The ability to give a bedroom to an adult son to me helps preserve the neighborhood character. I have a daughter myself who is going to be 20 next week and the ability to create extra space in your house and provide room for a 20 year old is not the same as providing for a six year old or a young child. So I think that this does preserve neighborhood character. So I think that these interpretations should be expanded. Also the fact of wanting to keep it on a ground floor prevents from going higher. There are not a lot of second story houses in the neighborhood. That is another way of preserving neighborhood character and it also preserves architectural style. The granting of the application is desirable. So I think there can be a liberal interpretation. That is my feeling on the Staff Report. On a more human level I think it is a very minor exception. I think it is for a good purpose. I know Roger’s son. He is a good guy. I know that this particular portion of the house seems suitable. There is only one house between Roger’s house and the bike bridge so it is not like it is plunked down in the middle of the neighborhood. It is towards the end. I know Staff said why not just remove the shed. It is a metal shed stuck in the back. The rear house if far away, there is a creek there, the shed serves a purpose and it seems kind of pointless to just drag this shed out from where nobody can see it. So I am entirely in favor of the report. I think Staff does a good job but I encourage the Planning Commission to expand a little bit more on the report that they have given. Thank you. Chair Bialson: I have no other speaker request cards so I will close the public hearing portion and bring this back to the Commissioners. Any questions or comments, Commissioners? I mention both because we are running up to a point where I would like to take a break and we do have another item on the agenda. Anyone care to speak? Karen, you have something? Commissioner Holman: Yes, I would. Can Staff remind us all just for consistency sake the action taken and why it was taken on the Edgewood property some months ago that came to us? That was because of a creek issue and how that FAR was handled. Page 7 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 1 Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: Wyrme may want to add to this but essentially the 2 creek easements were being enlarged along a portion of Edgewood Drive. It affected about 14 or 3 15 properties. What we wrote were findings to the effect that the additional square footage that 4 would be covered by an enlarged easement would not be subtracted from the lot size calculation 5 and therefore would not affect either FAR or lot coverage. The original width and depth of the easement would be subtracted because that had been done historically and is done for all watercourse easements. So that portion was remaining to be subtracted and would remain subtracted from the lot size, however the additional square footage would not be subtracted. Ms. Furth: Section 18.88.070 since 1978, actually earlier than that that was a [reconification], has said explicitly that although most easement areas get included when you are calculating lot size flood control easements, drainage easements, these creek side easements are excluded. So the City’s rule is when we calculate lot dimensions and when we calculate lot area we calculate it along that easement setback line. It is not quite accurate to say that that’s a taxable portion of the lot whereas you are taxed on the entire lot but you only get to use part of it. It is certainly true that you do not get to use it in the same way as if the easement were not there but it is also true that if you are not already so protected by Proposition 13 that it is irrelevant that the value of your property when it is assessed is discounted because of the presence of that easement there. Chair Bialson: Do you have a question, Michael? Commissioner Griffin: I would be interested in Steve giving us a little history on the way that the HIE has been administered here over the last number of years. I think this would be instructive for all of us to hear if this has morphed from one direction to another at all and why. Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: Let me make a rough stab at it and ask Lisa, who has a bit more longevity than I do, to kind of chime in. It is my perception that we have moved from a more liberal interpretation in meeting the findings for the HIE since it has been in place, having that grown into a more restrictive interpretation and a narrower interpretation of the findings especially when it comes to intensity proposal either in amount of lot coverage or FAR which we are finding harder to justify based on extraordinary circumstances. Lisa may care to comment as well. Ms. Grote: I would only add that HIEs have never been a given. We have always had to very carefully consider them and make all three findings in order to approve them. So there has never been an approach that would say you are guaranteed a certain amount of additional square footage or a certain amount of coverage or a certain extension into your setback or daylight plane. Every single one has been carefully considered and the findings have had to have been made in order to approve them. Chair Bialson: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I was responding to Michael’s comment. In this process also there were somewhere in the middle between 1993 and now there was quite an outcry from neighbors and members of the community feeling that we were giving HIEs away. We were giving away 100 square feet. I don’t know whether we were or we weren’t and people were saying we weren’t Page 8 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 but there was a perception in the community that this amount of square footage was being given away over and above, and we had people saying that was the case. People in the community very much complained about that. Chair Bialson: Wyrme, did you want to say something? Ms. Furth: Yes. I of course wasn’t around for much of this history but my job is really to read the ordinance and give you any advice that we can draw on from looking at the ordinance itself. There is no question the ordinance is not a bonus arrangement. There would be no basis for reading this ordinance to say well everybody gets at least 100 square feet. That would be an abuse of the ordinance and an abuse of your discretion. So that is not an option when it comes to interpreting it. However, this is a discretionary permit, you are the Planning Commission advising the City Council and you have the findings in front of you. I will say that when looking at HIEs you have broad discretion in deciding whether or not something is desirable. You have broad discretion in identifying what particular special circumstances might be. You have broad discretion in deciding whether there is any adverse impact on somebody else. It is important not to use the HIE to swallow another rule. I would caution you about this in thinking about the creek side setback. The creek side setback rule is a rule that of necessity only applies to creek side lots but it doesn’t mean that it can be abolished or amended essentially by saying if you have a creek side setback then we will give you FAR as if you didn’t. That would be subverting that rule. That would be amending the code without amending the code. If you think that it is bad rule then we should amend the code. If you believe that something is necessary for design reasons, if you believe that it is important for neighborhood preservation then that is your call. That wasn’t Staff’s call but that is your call. Chair Bialson: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have a question similar to one I asked on the previous application. Did the Staff consult with the applicant about a different configuration rather than asking for a 26.5 square foot exception to FAR? It is such a small amount of square footage could the same goals be accomplished without that exception? Ms. French: Clare Campbell is the StaffPlarmer on this and I was present for of course the Director’s Hearing on this and also spoke with the applicant who was concerned that we were applying the rules unfairly to his project. We did talk to him about what we thought was a viable option to just simply remove a storage shed so that he could have living area in remm and then he would not need to go through the HIE process. That is the limit of what we talked about. We did also speak to him about the possibility of increasing the loft area on the second floor, which would then remove the issue with the lot coverage. So that was the limit of our discussion with him as far as options. Commissioner Holman: That answers the lot coverage but not the FAR issue because the ancillary building does not count towards FAR, correct? Page 9 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 Ms. French: That is correct. We talked to him about reducing the proposed addition by 26 square feet in order to not have to ask for excess floor area. It is in your Staff Report. Chair Bialson: Pat. Commissioner Butt: In the StaffReport under finding number two the requirement is that the application is desirable for preserving an existing architectural style or, and I emphasize or, neighborhood character. In the Staff response in the third sentence it says, "Properties adjacent to project site are single story and it would be preferable for any addition to be placed on the ground floor." First I would like to point out that I don’t see much of a difference between desirable and 15referable. Second the report then goes on to say that the floor area in excess of the allowed FAR is not needed for preservation of the existing architectural style. So it certainly seems to be that the Staff Report here is implying that both architectural style and neighborhood character would be required, that there is an acknowledgement that the neighborhood character requirement is met but a claim that there is not a necessity for the architectural style. Therefore finding number two is not met because both requirements are not fulfilled here. Could Staff comment on that? Ms. French: The intent was not to say both are not met or both need to be met but we were trying to address both of those saying that we don’t think either one of those have been met. The fact is it is a multiple story neighborhood if you take into consideration those apartments across the street. So if they did want to add to a second floor it could still be considered a preservation of the neighborhood character because it is not just a single story neighborhood. However, we do acknowledge that the houses adjacent, next door, are single story and for those people it would be preferable. That is why the word preferable was introduced. The second part which is talking about the architectural style, this is not an historic residence, by putting the floor area on the first floor it doesn’t necessarily preserve a style. If they put it on the second floor I don’t think it would ruin the style of house. Commissioner Burt: I agree that the preservation of the style does not necessitate the granting of the HIE but I still am struggling with the difference between desirable and preferable. Chair Bialson: I don’t think there needs to be a response. Are you looking for a response to the issue of desirable versus preferable? Commissioner Burt: Yes, I think so. I think it is a pretty crucial point and I think this is a key component of the approval. If there is a distinction that Staff is making between desirable and preferable then I need to understand it. If they no longer feel that way then I would like to have that clarification. Mr. Emslie: The application is for two parts. It is for coverage, excess impervious coverage, and an FAR overage. We need to take a look at the application as a whole as it is presented. I think that the preferable and desirable are interchangeable when you are looking at it fi:om the coverage aspect. What this is saying is that if you wanted to keep this on the ground floor because that is a predominantpart of the neighborhood character that’s fine but because the Page 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 46 application also includes an FAR overage, and I think that is immaterial to the character, it is a basic intensity of the land use that is governed by existing rules about what and what is not counted in terms of lot area. So I think that really goes more to the coverage that if this were simply an impervious coverage and not asking for extra FAR then I think we could make that finding and I think that is what has been implied in the comments of Staff so far. Commissioner Burr: Okay, so then the lot coverage issue really is a finding that we might be able to make and then we are boiling down to 25 square feet. Mr. Emslie: That is correct. Commissioner Burr: Okay. I have a follow up questions. Chair Bialson: Okay, let’s get on with this because we do have one more matter to resolve and the time issue is getting to be more important. Michael. MOTION Commissioner Griffm: I am going to move the Staff recommendation that the PTC sustain the Staff recommendation and have City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s original denial. Chair Bialson: Do I have a second? SECOND Commissioner Cassel: I’ll second. Chair Bialson: Phyllis seconds it. Would you care to speak to your motion, Michael? Commissioner Griffin: Well this is really a tricky item. I am not having a lot of fun proposing this. I am a recipient of a variance on my own property and I am very empathetic to what people have to go through to get one and the circumstances that prompt a person to make the application. I think that the findings are well found and I was also attracted to the comment Staff made about exchanging tool shed area for living area. I don’t have a tool shed on my property but somehow it seems like if I did have one I would be willing to sacrifice that if it meant that I could have an increase size to my home. So that is one of the things that prompts me to support the Staff recommendation. The other things as I said were the findings I think are well found. Chair Bialson: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: Likewise I find this difficult. We often have issues that come before us that sit on the edge of the rules and that is why they get to us and that is why they are difficult. In the original discussions and I am sorry I threw out my minutes but I needed some space to put all those things that we have on storage for items that are not going to be handled for another six months and I threw out the last eight years worth of minutes that I had. I have needed them ever Page 11 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 since I threw them out. To the best ofmyrecollecfion it was not our intent at the time we did this to grant additional square footage or lot coverage just for the purpose of adding it. It was more intended in the way that we were dealing with the last issue and that is what if we needed to complete this piece out to the comer and in order to make it look right and fit and that took us another 25 feet out into a space in order to make the design work. So it was not my understanding when I originally worked on this ordinance that this is how this would work. This is a lovely house I have a lot of fun with it and I think it has a lot of character. The neighborhood is eclectic. It is not up to me to decide whether or not the property should have a tool shed or whether they should take some space out of the existing house or how it should work but there are a number of ways that this can work out in order for this very talented architect to design a space for another member of his family if he wishes to. Chair Bialson: Joe. Commissioner Bellomo: I to am having a difficult time. I understand the rigorous reviews and the HIE considerations that Staffwent through on this. Wynne brought good light on the creek easement and I find that that is not extraordinary circumstance. I am concurring with Phyllis’s comment that I think there could be a creative way to resolve the situation for this applicant. I believe that. I have looked at HIEs. Every residential client that I have always considers these in some regard and they in my experience they are necessary only when there are somewhat of a nonconforming use or an extraordinary circumstance. They are never a slam-dunk as far as I am concerned. So I am going to support that motion also. Chair Bialson: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I will concur with the other members of the Commission this is a difficult item. The whole evening this evening has to do with exceptions of one nature or another. I am persuaded, the reason I had asked Staff earlier and asked again tonight during the meeting about the Edgewood properties and the creek issue is because I wanted to know that we were dealing with those and the City was dealing with those in a consistent fashion. That is why I asked that question. It does appear, as Staffhas pointed out, that there is at least one other way to accomplish the goals of the applicant without an HIE. I think along with other Commissioner’ s comments I think that is probably enough to be said. One clarification, I did hear the applicant say that he believed now that a permit was required for a accessory building of 120 square feet or less and that is not the case. Staff please correct me if I am wrong. Ms. Grote: You are correct. It does not require a building permit. It is counted into lot coverage but it does not require a building permit. Chair Bialson: Pat. Commissioner Butt: I am going to oppose the motion for a number of reasons and I feel pretty strongly on this. Unfortunately it doesn’t sound like I have a majority of support of the Commissioners. My understanding, my memory of the HIEs is quite different from Phyllis’s. Page 12 1 My experience is different from Phyllis’s. I back eight years ago routinely applied for an HIE 2 and was granted it for reasons that were far less compelling than this applicant’s. Over the last 3 week I spoke with another neighbor and mentioned this circumstance and asked about their 4 experience. They had a similar experience to my own and had far less compelling reasons than 5 this applicant’s. I spoke to two very senior former Planning Commissioners who were on the 6 Commission at the time of the adoption of the HIE and for a number of years thereafter. They 7 shared similar experiences that this was intended to be a low threshold. There were findings that 8 were required but they were not intended to be stringent in their requirements and it wasn’t a 9 requirement that there be no other way that the applicant could achieve their means. That this 10 was a preferable outcome, that it was a 100 square foot discretionary review. 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 Secondly, we recently had adopted changes that essentially eliminated penalties that homeowners would have for staying on a single story. I guess it was under the R-1 review that we basically eliminated what were built-in penalties for homeowners who would not be able to maximize their FAR due to lot coverage constraints. This accessory building requirement is something that we were not aware of, we thought we had eliminated that penalty and we have a built-in penalty here. Okay, maybe we have to look at that in the ZOU but nevertheless it is the sort of thing that I believe considered as a valid basis for an HIE. The Staffhas said that finding number three is met, finding number two we had concurrence that it was met in terms of the lot coverage and then in terms of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances I think the applicant has several. They have this existing accessory unit. We have the creek issue which is very similar to the corner lot issue. It is not an entitlement for an HIE but I think that it is an exceptional circumstance that is acceptable in the discretionary review. We have the irregular lot shape, which creates constraints. We have mature trees that create constraints. The Staff pointed out in the report that the lot size is over standard lot size and I don’t see where that is a relevant issue. So I think there are at least four findings for exceptional circumstances and that it is desirable for preservation of the neighborhood character that this is in fact a neighborhood of single-family homes. The fact that there is another neighborhood essentially across the street, it is zoned differently and of very different density doesn’t change this neighborhood. We heard a lot about this neighborhood’s character in the Hyatt Rickey’s review. I think that this application merits approval far more than most of the HIEs that have been approved over the last decade. I think if we are going to have a policy change in the standards by which HIEs are approved then we should have a policy discussion before this Commission and before the Council and we shouldn’t have just a slippage in the requirements that is done without a policy discussion. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you, Pat. I am going to be supporting the motion. I understand your concerns, Pat and I feel that those should be brought up as discussion aimed to changing the ordinance. I feel Staff is appropriate in its analysis in coming forward with the decision in this matter before us and in other matter. I think that Phyllis is correct in her recollection that we did have quite an outburst from the community with regard to the ease with which HIEs were being granted to people. Staff is responding by going back to the ordinance and the words of the ordinance. If we want a change made it should be made in the ordinance. There is the appeal process so matters can come before us and we can apply a different set of eyes and standards if we wish to, again looking to the ordinance. I am very sympathetic to Mr. Kohler and understand Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 what his issues and concerns are but I respect his skill enough to assume that he will be able to be creative in working around this matter. It is his decision as to whether he wants to have his shed or not have his shed vis-a-vie the loss in living space that that is causing. If this wasn’t Mr. Kohler before us but another individual who we were concerned about perhaps modifying this home with a view of trying to sell it and who we would characterize as a developer I think there would be a different view that we would have with regard to this and I don’t think that is appropriate. I think we have got to look at the language of the ordinance and decide what the community has decided to impose on itself and its members with the community values in mind to be furthered. So with that and with it definitely being a difficult decision to make I too will support this motion. So I think what we need to do at this point unless the maker wishes to make any comments is to go to a vote. Michael is that okay? Let’s go to a vote. MOTION PASSED All those in favor of the motion say aye. (ayes) All opposed? (nay) That is five Commissioners for with Commissioner Butt voting against and Commissioner Packer not in attendance. Page 14 Attachment APPROVAL NO. 2003-4 RECORD OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 4291 WILKIE WAY: HOME IMPROVEMENT EXCEPTION 03-AP-04 (ROGER & DEBBIE KOHLER, APPLICANT) At its meeting of June 23, 2003, the Council upheld the March 7, 2003, Director Of Planning and Community Environment’s denial for a request for a Home Improvement Exception for lot coverage and floor area, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION !. Background. The Director of Planning and Community Environment ("Director")] finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On December 2, 2002, Roger Kohler applied for a Home Improvement Exception(HIE) to request relief from the lot coverage and floor area regulations for the R -I district as part of a project to build a 335 square foot addition to an existing two - story house ("The Project"). B. The first exception requested would allow an additional 26.5 square feet of floor area beyond what is allowed in the R-I zone. C. The second except~n would allow 106.3 square feet of lot coverage beyond what is allowed in the R-I zone district. D. Following staff review, the Director reviewed and denied the project on March 7, 2003. E. The Planning and Transportation held a public hearing on May 28 , 2003 and voted to 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 Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. 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: No exceptional or eXraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property were evident as it relates to the exception request. This site has a slightly irregular shape, however, it is larger than most of the properties in the immediate 000302 syn 0091213 1 area west of Adobe Creek. The project site is well over 9,000 square feet while the typica! ~I lots in this area are about 7,000 square feet. At the rear side yard of the property, there is a portion of the Adobe Creek easement which covers approximately 179 square feet of the property. There are the other properties adjacent to Adobe Creek which are also restricted by this same watercourse easement. The site has mature trees in the rear yard, however, they do not impact the placement of the proposed addition in any way since it is to the right side of the house and conforms with the required side yard setback. 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 8.70 or other significant tree, which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of the regulations in that: The immediate neighborhood is a mix of single story and multiple story structures. Directly across the street fro m the project site are several apartment complexes that are zoned RM-15 Low Density Residential. The properties adjacent to the project site are single-story and it would be preferable for any addition to be placed at the ground floor. The proposed addition is on the ground floor, however, the floor area in excess of the allowed FAR is not needed for the preservation of the existing architectural style. 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in t he vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that: The proposed additional floor area and lot coverage would have minimal impacts to the surrounding neighbors and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience. SECTION 4.Home Improvement Exception Denied Home Improvement Exception No. 02-HIE-21 is denied for 26.5 square feet of additional floor area and 106.3 square feet of additional lot coverage. PASSED: AYES: 000302 syn 0091213 NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: i. Those plans prepared by Koh!er Associates titled "Additions and Modifications to the Residence of Roger and Debbie Kohler", consisting of 5 pages, dated November 29, 2002, and received December 2, 2002. 000302 syn 0091213