HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-21 City Council (11)City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:OCTOBER 21, 2002 CMR:427:02
SUBJECT:945 HUTCHINSON AVENUE [02-IR-42]: APPEALS BY LINDA
WANK, 901 HUTCHINSON AVENUE, AND ANNE K. WILBUR,
1240 CHANNING AVENUE, OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S APPROVAL OF THE
APPLICATION FOR RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING TWO-
STORY RESIDENCE FROM 1421 EMERSON STREET TO 945
HUTCHISON AVENUE, OWNED BY TENCH COXE, 1401
EMERSON STREET, UNDER THE SINGLE FAMILY INDIVIDUAL
REVIEW PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council decline to hear the appeal, thereby upholding the
Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval Four or more affirmative
votes by Council Members are needed to set the matter for hearing.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicants propose to move an existing two-story residence, built in 1924, from 1421
Emerson Street to 945 Hutchinson Avenue. The second floor would be removed and
replaced with a reconfigured second floor to comply with R-1 zoning regulations and
Single Family Individual Review Guidelines. The residence would be 25 feet, 6 inches
tall with 2,624 square feet of floor area including a new detached garage. The project site
area is .6,375 square feet with an existing single story residence that would be
demolished. The neighborhood contains a variety of housing styles and a mix of single
story and two-story homes.
BACKGROUND
The proposed relocation and reconstruction of a home at 945 Hutchinson Avenue is
subject to the City’s Single Family Individual Review and not a design review process
because it includes a second story. Second story additions, however, are reviewed under
CMR:427:02 Page 1 of 5
the City’s Individual Review Guidelines for compatibility with existing development,
with a focus on privacy, scale, massing, and streetscape. Prior to the tentative approval
of the application, the adjacent neighbors at 901 Hutchinson Avenue and 1240 Channing
Avenue, located on the left (north) side of the subject property, submitted letters that
raised concerns about privacy and solar shading. As a result of these concerns, staff
required the applicant to reduce ~the size of the two dormer windows that face the
appellant’s rear yards. Staff also requested a solar study to be submitted to determine the
extent of the solar shading. On June 26, 2002 the Current Planning Manager tentatively
approved the Individual Review (IR) application. The adjacent neighbors expressed
continued concerns about privacy and solar shading and submitted letters on July 2, 2002
requesting a Director’s Hearing in accordance with IR procedures. In an attempt to
further satisfy the concerns of the adjacent neighbors, the applicant revised the proposed
plan to move the location of the house six feet further to the south. Believing that the
applicant’s solar study was inaccurate; the appellants submitted their own solar study at
the Director’s Hearing on August 1, 2002. Because of conflicts between the two solar
studies, the hearing was continued to September 5, 2002. The Hearing Officer requested
that Origins Design Network, the City’s consulting architect for Individual Review,
perform an independent solar study to determine the solar impact of the project. This
solar study was presented at the continuation of the hearing on September 5, 2002. After
all three studies were considered, the application was approved by the Director of
Planning and Community Environment on September 19, 2002. On September 30, 2002,
these neighbors appealed the decision.
DISCUSSION
The appellant’s concerns are specifically related to guideline #1 and guideline # 6 of the
Individual Review Guidelines, involving privacy and solar orientation respectively. The
subject property is oriented so that the north side property line is contiguous with the rear
property lines of the two appellants. The appellant’s rear yards are directly north of the
subject property. Staff believes the application meets Guidelines #1. and #6 for the
following reasons.
Individual Review Guideline #1
Individual Review Guideline #1 states, "place second-story windows to respect privacy
between properties". This guideline was not intended to eliminate second floor windows,
but rather to minimize the loss of privacy on adjacent sites.
The approved plans include two second floor dormer windows at the ~north side of the
proposed residence, facing the appellant’s rear yards. The size and placement of these
windows were modified to comply with Individual Review Guideline #1. To minimize
the loss of privacy:
The size of the windows have been reduced
CMR:427:02 Page 2 of 5
@
@
The windows have been placed high in the wall
The entire house has been shifted further to the south, away from the appellant’s .rear
yards
Due to the configuration of the interior second floor space, these dormers will serve as
the bed walls for the rooms. This means that there is only a slight probability that anyone
would look out of these windows. Even if the occupants choose not to place the bed on
this wall, these windows still do not provide the opportunity for casual observance of the
neighbors’ rear yards.
When the house was shifted further to the south side of the lot, the plate heights on the
south side of the house had to be reduced to comply with the daylight plane requirements.
Each second floor bedroom will have an interior head height of only three feet at the
exterior walls on the north and south sides of-the house. These modifications, to achieve
compliance with the Individual Review Guidelines and the R-1 zoning,regulations, have
diminished the usability of the second floor space.
Individual Review Guideline #6
Individual Review Guideline #6 states, "respect the solar orientation of the adjacent
neighbor’s houses and yards?’ This guideline was not intended to prevent any shadow
from being cast over an adjacent neighbor’s yard but rather to minimize the shadow 6n an
adjacent property, and to maintain solar access on the site.
The following findings enable staff to recommend consistency with this Guideline:
At a proposed height of 25 feet, 6 inches, the building height is 5 feet, 2 inches lower
than the maximum height allowed, even though the property is located in a flood.
zone.
The applicant adjusted the location of the house approximately six feet further away
from the rear yards of the adjacent property owners. The proposed driveway has been
moved to the left (north) side of the house to achieve an additional six feet of
separation between the proposed residence and the neighbors’ property. The resulting
setback between the new residence and the property line would be nearly 12 feet,
where only six feet is required.
The applicant reduced the height and the mass of the structure by tucking the second
floor under the roof. As discussed above, dormers have been proposed to achieve a
functional head height within the rooms. By reducing the plate height of the second
floor to only four feet, the height and mass of the structure has been significantly
reduced. Reducing the height of the building has also reduced the shadow that would
CMR:427:02 Page 3 of 5
otherwise be cast on the adjacent properties if the residence were built according ,to
the maximums to allowed by the R-1 zoning regulations.
Three separate solar studies have been submitted by the applicant, the appellants and the
city’s consulting architect. Each of the solar studies illustrates how the rear yards of the
adjacent properties currently experience shading as a result of existing fences, hedges and
buildings. The studies also illustrate how the new residence will increase the amount of
shadow beyond what is experienced under the current conditions. The additional shadow
will only fall over the appellant’s rear yards primarily in the months of November,
December and January. The shadow of the proposed house at this time of year will fall to
the northwest in the morning and to the northeast in the afternoon. This means that the
shadow will only fall over each of the rear yards for a portion of the day. The solar
studies indicate that the adjacent properties will not experience any additional solar
shading for most of the year. It is only in the winter months when the shadow from the
proposed residence will extend beyond the shadows currently cast by the existing fences,
hedges and buildings.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies. The
Director’s decision to approve the application is consistent with staff’s implementation of
the Individual Review Guidelines. If the Council votes to hear this appeal and decides
not to uphold the Director’s approval, it will effect how the City will implement the
Individual Review Guidelines.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
per Section 15303(a).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:Approval letter with conditions
Attachment B"Letters from adjacent neighbors
Attachment C:Director’s Hearing staff report
Attachment D:Excerpt Minutes from September 5, 2002 Director’s Hearing
Attachment E:Appeals Filed
Attachment F:Solar study by Origins Design Network for the City (Council Members
only)
Attachment G:Solar study by Carrasco & Associates for the Appellants (Council
Members only)
Attachment F: Solar study by FGG Architects for the Applicant (Council Members
only)
Attachment I: Plans (Council Members only)
CMR:427:02 Page 4 of 5
PREPARED BY:
RUSS REICH, Associate Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
/STEVE MsI m
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
FRA~
City Manager-
Dan Garber, 2201 Byron Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Tench Coxe, 1401 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Anne K. Wilbur, 1240 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Linda Wauk, 901 Hutchinson Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
CMR:427:02 Page 5 of 5
Planri~g Division
City Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Coramunity Environment
September 19, 2002
Attachment A
Dan Oarber
2201 Byron Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Subject:945 Hutchinson Avenue, Single Family Individual Review, 02-IR-42
On September 19, 2002, the Director 0fPlanning and Community Environment
conditionally approved Single Family Individual Review application 02-IR-42 for a
proposed new two-story residence at 945 Hutchinson. This approval was granted
pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.14 and the Palo Alto
Single Family Individual Review G-uidelines. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303 (a). Zone
district R- 1. - .......
The adjacent property owners have indicated concerns about the impact that this project
would have on their properties. The concerns are specifically related to .guideline #1 and
guideline # 6 of the Individual Review Guidelines involving privacy and solar orientation
respectively. The subject property is oriented such that the left side property line is
adjacent to the rear yards of the neighboring properties. These rear yard spaces are
directly north of the subject property. The following information has been provided to
explain staff s recommendation for the approval of this application.
Individual Review Guideline #1 states, "place second-story windows to respect privacy.
between properties". This guideline was not intended to eliminate second floor windows,
but rather to minimize the loss of privacy on adjacent sites.
The applicant has proposed two second floor dormer windows at the left (north) side of
the residence. These windows face the rear yards of the two adjacent neighbors to the left
(north) side of the subject property. The applicant has reduced the height, of the originally
proposed windows by 50% (from 4 ½’ tall to2 ¼ ’tall) and placed them 5 feet high in the
wall to comply with Individual Review Guideline #1. These small windows set high in the
wal! reduce the potential privacy impact to the adjacent properties. Due to the
configuration of the interior second floor space, these dormers will serve as the bed wall
for the rooms. Which means the likelihood of anyone looking out the window is minimal.
Even if the occupants chose not to place the bed on this wall, these windows still do not
provide the opportunity for casual observance of the neighbors rear yards. A tall person
would have to be standing at the window and looking down to be able to view the
adjacent rear yards.
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154 fax
945 Hutchinson
September 19, 2002
Page 2
A number of modifications have been proposed to fu~her satisfy the goals of the
Individual Review Guidelines. In addition to reducing the size of the proposed windows
in the two dormers, the house hasbeen shifted six feet to the south away from the rear
yards of the neighbors to the north. This will further reduce the privacy impact as well as
reduce the shadow cast by the pro.posed residence. As a result of moving the house
further to the south, the plate heights on the south side of the house had to be reduced to
comply with the daylight plane requirements. As the residence is currently proposed,
each second floor bedroom will have an interior head height of only three feet high at the
exterior walls on the left and right sides of the house. These modifications, to achieve
compliance with the Individual Review Guidelines, have diminished the usability of the
second floor space. To diminish the second floor space further by eliminating the donner
windows would be unreasonable.
Individual Review Guideline #6 states, "respect the solar orientation of the adjacent
neighbor’s houses and yards." This guideline was not intended to prevent any shadow
from being cast over an adjag.e~t neighbor’s yard but rather to minimize the shadow on an
adjacent property, and to maintain solar access on the site.
The applicant has taken several steps to minimize the shadow that would be experienced
by the adjacent property owners. While the height limitation for this property is 30 feet
8’7, the proposed height of the new residence is only 25 V2 feet tail. Even though the
property is located in a flood zone, the applicant has managed to keep the overall height
of the building lower than the maximum height allowed.
The applicant has also reduced the height and the mass of the structure by tucking the
second floor under the roof. Dormers, as discussed above, have been proposed to achieve
a functional head height within the rooms. By reducing the plate height of the second
floor to only four feet, the height and mass of the structure has been si~ificantly reduced.
Reducing the height of the building has also reduced the shadow that would otherwise be
cast on the adjacent properties if the residence were built to the parameters allowed by the
zoning regulations.
The applicant has revised the original plans to move the house further away from the rear
yards of the adjacent property owners. The proposed driveway has been moved to the left
(north) side of the house to achieve an additional six feet of separation between the
proposed residence and the neighbors’ property. The resu.lting setback between the new
residence and the property line would be nearly 12 feet, where only six feet is required.
Three separate solar studies have been submitted that show the existing solar shading on
the adjacent properties and the solar shading that would result from the construction of
the proposed residence. Each of the solar studies illustrates how the rear yards of the
adjacent properties currently experience shading as a result of existing fences hedges and
buildings. The studies also illustrate how the new residence will increase the amount of
shadow beyond what is experienced under the current conditions. The additional shadow
will be predominantly experienced in the months of November, December and January.
At this time of year, when the sun is lower in the sky, the adjacent property owners will
945 Hutchinson Aw
September 19, 2002
Page 3
¯ experience a longer shadow than is currently cast by the existing fences, hedges and
buildings. This additional shadow will only be experienced at certain times of the day.
The shadow of the proposed house at this time of year will fall to the northwest in the
morning and to the northeast in the afternoon. The solar studies clearly indicate that the
adjacent properties will not experience any solar shading for many months of the year and,
when they are shaded, itis only for a portion of the day.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The approval is subject to the following conditions:
The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance.with plans dated
August 16, 2002, except as modified by these conditions of approval.
2.A copy of this approval shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit.
Final plans submitted for building permit must conform to building and zoning
regulations.
The applicant must acquire a house-moving permit from the Building Division
prior to moving the structure.
The Director’s decision shall be final ten calendar days after it is mailed unless,
prior to the expiration of said ten-day period, the project applicant or an owner or
occupant of any of the adjacent properties requests review by the City Council as
provided in Chapter 18.14.100 of the PAMC.
A copy of this letter shall accompany all future requests for City permits relating to
this approval. In the event that there is an appeal to City Council, an additional
letter will be mailed with information regarding the scheduled hearing date before
the City Council.
If an appeal to the City Council is requested, the applicant or neighbor may request optional
mediation, The mediation will defer the date of the City Council hearing a maximum of two
weeks and be limited to two mediation sessions. The City Council Hearing will not be held
if there is an agreement between the parties. The City of Palo Alto will provide the mediation
at no cost.
Should you have any questions regarding this approval, please do not hesitate to call Russ
Reich, Associate Planner, at (650) 617-3119
Sincerely,
Lisa Grote,
Chief Planning Official
945 Hutchinson Av,~n
September 19, 2002-
Page 4
Tench Coxe
Fred and Dorothy Backlund
Linda Waulk
Anne Wilbur
Bruce and Jane Gee
Diana Miller
Albert and Lois Santos
James and Michele Scott
John and Sarah Herriot
Tony Carrasco
Reich, Russ ~Attachment
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Wauk, Linda [LWauk@pdl.com]
Thursday, June 13, 2002 5:35 PM
’russ_reich@city.palo-alto.ca.us’
945 Hutchinson Avenue
Dear Russ:
¯ I am wri!ing to voice my considerable concerns about the design of the house
to be built at 945 Hutchinson Avenue.
The house as Currently designed will overlook and overshado~v our garden with
resultant loss of amenities..Our private garden/patio area is small and
limited. I’m concerned the new house will put much of that area in shade,
perhaps totally in the winter. Additionally, its windows, both ground and
second story, will look directly into the garden/patio area, which is our
only usable private garden area.
I believe the house is overbearing and out of scope with neighboring houses.
I am concerned that my property valui~ Will decrease with this iarge, .
intrusive house next door. I realize and accept ~t developers/owners have ¯
.rights to build .on their property; however, I don’t believe they have a
right to diminish my quality of life and property value.
Besides changes to the design and size of the house, I would suggest that
the position of the house on the lot might be altered so that the garage is
built in the back on the opposite side (which would place it next to a
neighbor’s garage, which seems suitable) and the drive be built adjacent to
my garden. Doing this would create a buffer zone to lessen the impact of
the house on my property without adversely affecting the neighbor on the
other side, whose private garden area is on the opposite side of the house.
I suggest a shade study be performed and a study regarding window placement
and type to eliminate overlooking our small, private garden/patio area.
Thank you for your attention. I apologize for the lateness of my response -
I was out of the country when the notice was initially posted and returned
sick, not leaving the house for a number of days.
Regards,
Linda Wauk
901 Hutchinson Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 3286640
Reich, Rus ........~ ----__
From: ¯
Sent:
To: ’
Subject:
Nicholls, Keith [Keith.Nicholls@bovislendlease.com]
Friday, June 14, 2002 12:37 PM
’russ_reich@city.palo-alto.ca.us’
planning permit. 945 Hutchinson Avenue
Dear Mr. Reich
I live at 901 Hutchinson Avenue, the corner property. I share the house with
Linda Wauk.
I am writing to you to protest the issuance of a planning permit to the
developer to allow construction of a new two story house at 945 Hutchinson
Avenue.
At various times I have worked as a developer and for developers. I have
also held political office for’eight years and been very involved in urban
planning issues. As a result, I believe that l amaware.of the rights and
obligations of both developers, and those whose qualityof life is affected
¯ by out of scale developments,
I have read the Palo Alto Planning Division Re~i~W Guidelines and will
follow that format as l list my objections to the granting of a permit based
on the plans which I insPected at your office. ’
901 Hutchinson Avenue is the corner house next to 945. As the corner house,
more than half of the land not built on, is open to the public. It.is an
open garden area, fronting both Hutchinson Ave. and Channing Street. It
affords no private space for the residents of the house. The only private
areas are at thenorthern and southern ends of the house. At the northern
end there is an apricot tree, a raised vegetable garden, some bushes and a
lot of shade.
The only garden area we have is at the southern end of the allotment
adjacent to 945. In this area we have a small lawn, a patio and some flower
beds. The proposed two story house, six feet back from the dividing fence
has two second story dormer windows looking directly into our only usable
private area..
Iwish to request a design change that will eliminate the dormer windows.
Maintaining the roof slope, substitute arow of ceiling height clerestory
windows in the second story rooms facing 901 and repl.acing the dormer
windows overlooking our small garden/patio area. Landscaping and possibly a
trellis will resolve most problems with all the new windows at the first
floor level.
I recognize the rights of the developer, and recognize that change will
occur, but Linda and I also have rights and will exercise them. The proposed
building is out of scale with houses in Hutchinson Avenue, a modest Palo
Alto street. From my only useable garden area (a small space) I will have to
look at a 24ft or.25ft wall. In most cases where there are wall/roof heights
of this magnitude, they are adjacent to similar houses and share a common
side fence. This is not the case here and I expect the planning division to
request more sensitivity from the developer.
The height and location of this building wall will block sunlight and may
also block my television dish. I request that the developer make. a shade
study so that we, including our Channing Street neighbors, can obtain a
better idea of the various impacts this much larger structure will have on
our properties.
Locating the proposed driveway on the other side of the house would provide
some relief from the bulk and height of the structure. On the other side
(south) of 945, the single story house (965 Hutchinson) has its back to the
dividing fence with 945.
The house at 965 would not be impacted by a two story house over the fence
in the same manneras we are at 901. There would be no shading and no more
overlooking of 965 than in the present plans. Moving the driveway would
allow the rear garage to be relocated to the opposite corner of the
property, adjacent to an existing garage.
I trust that you will find my objections and suggestions reasonable and that
the developer can incorporate them in his plans.
Sincerely
Keith Nicholls
JOHN PAUL HANNA
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
DAVID M. VAN ATTA
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
~L~NA & VAN ATTA
ATTORNEYS AT LAgr
A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPOI~.TIONS
525 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 705
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94301-1921
www.hanvan.com
JUN i 8
TELEPHONE
{650) 321-5700
FACSIMILE
(650) 321-5639
June 14, 2002
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning
City Hall
250 Hamilton Street, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Atm: Russ Reich
RE: Notice - 945 Hutchinson Avenue
Dear Mr. Reich:
This office represents Mrs. Anne Wilbur who resides at 1240 Channing Street. Mrs. Wilbur received notice from the City
of Palo Alto regarding an application for Single Family Individual Review from Joseph Ney for proposed demolition of a
structure at 945 Hutchinson Avenue and the replacement of that structure by an existing building to be moved from 1421
Emerson Street.
Mrs. Wilbur, who has resided at 1240 Channing Street for over 14 years, has requested that we express her vehement
objection to this proposed demolition and relocation of residential structure. The structure that is proposed to be moved to
945 Hutchinsonwould sit directly behind Mrs. Wilbur’s residence. It would create a number of problems and issues, and we
strongly feel be out of compliance with the City of Palo Alto’s Single Family Individual Review Guidelines.
The structure that is proposed to be moved is a two story residential structure. It will be extremely massive and tall and will
be very close to Mrs.. Wilbur’s real" property line.
All new two-story residences in Palo Alto are to meet the City of Palo Alto’s Single Family Individual Review Guidelines.
The proposal of the adjoining landowner does not meet several of the Guideline criteria.
In particular, the proposal does not address the sensitivity required for the fundamental policy expressed in the Guidelines
for privacy for the adjacent neighboring houses or the new structure. Mrs. Wilbur is greatly concerned in this regard, as her
rear yard is shallow in depth, and because of the height of this proposed relocated structure, would be materially impacted
visually as well as being substantially deprived of sunlight.
This proposed relocated structure is totally out of keeping with the neighborhood and would be an enormous intrusion into
on the privacy 0fthe Wilbur home. Another of the fundamental precepts of the Guidelines is that the overall massing of new
homes and second story additions should be compatible with adjacent houses and the predominant neighborhood scale. The
proposed relocated structure Violates this precept.
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning
June 14, 2002
Page 2
In addition, the proposal iscontrary to Guideline #4,lacldng in sensitivity to the existing height pattern of the neighborhood
and the height of the adjacent houses.
Fmthermore, the proposal is contrary to Guideline #6, as the shadows that would be cast by the relocated structure in its
proposed location would interfere with solar orientation of Mrs. Wilbur’s adjacent home and yard, essentially eliminating
sunshine from the rear yard for most of the day.
On behalf of Mrs. Wilbur, we are lodging this letter of protest regarding the issuance of any permits or approvals by the City
of Palo Alto that would authorize the demolition of the existing home at 945 Hutchinson and its replacement as proposed by
the house that is currently located at 1421 tilnerson. As we ha~:e, stated, ’the proposal fails ~o mec~ se~’eral of the City’s
Guidelines, and therefore, cannot be accepted by the City. Please inform the undersigned and Mrs. Wilbur of.any meetings,
hearings or other activity of the City with respect to this matter.
Davi M. Van Atta
of
Hanna & Van Atta
cc: Mrs. Anne Wilbur
[T:\WPW1N60\CLIENTS\WILB UR\LtrCity[6.14.02].doc]
JUL o b’ 20OZ
July 2, 2002
John Lusardi
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Re: 945 Hutchinson Avenue - Request For Director’s Hearing
Dear Mr. Lusardi:
In regard to 945 Hutchinson Avenue, please consider this a request for a Director’s
Hearing before the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Please advise of
the scheduled hearing date.
can be reached at my office at (650) 847-3800. I appreciate your prompt attention to
this matter.
Thankyou.
£nne K. Wilbur .i
POST OFFICE BOX 128 PALO ALTO, CA 94302-0128 650-847-3800
Ltrs02/945Hutchinson Request F~L~.ri~f~b0u-~rwilbur.com WEB SITE: www.z-wilbur.com
FAX 650-328-8826
2 July 2002
Russ Reich
Associate Planner
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: 945 Hutchinson Avenue, Single Family Individual Review, 02-IR-42
Dear Russ:
Thank you for spealdng with us on Friday, June 28th, regarding the above house
application. Unfortunately, I do not agree with your assessment regarding the impact of
the structure on the neighboring properties to the north and hereby request an appeal of
the approval.
Please let me know immediately what the next steps are. I will be out of the country on
business the week of July 22.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Linda Wauk
901 Hutchinson Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Tel home: 650 328-6640
Tel work: 510 574-1557
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
945 Hutchinson Avenue, Palo Alto
August 1, 2002.
Comments by Keith Nicholls
901 Hutchinson Avenue
On a point of information; the Notice of Hearing as printed, is ’incorrect. The notice refers to the
relocation of an existing two-story residence from 1421 Emerson to 945 Hutchinson. This is not
what is about to happen. The second story of the Emerson Street house is to be demolished. Only
part of the house, the first floor, will be relocated to, and will replace an existing single story house
at 945 Hutchinson, which is also to be demolished. A new second story will be constructed at 945.
I do not understand the economics of this procedure, which I find curious., but I make no comment
except to emphasize that the proposed second level of the new house to be located at 945
Hutchinson Ave., does not exist at present, except on drawings.
When Linda Wauk and I were first~quifing about the proposed development, we were informed
that developers did not have to give much weight to the Individual Review Guidelines, only the
building code was enforceable. I thought that curious too, but have since heard comments to the
contrary, and seek clarification.
On a point of information, I would like confLrmation that the Palo Alto Single Family Individual
Review Guidelines are also enforceable, as well as the building code.
We asked for the developer.to make a solar/shade study. When the result was presented to us, it
appeared that the existing single story house cast as big a shadow as the taller, bulky proposed two
story house.
Curious! But there are many curious things about this application
Together with our neighbor, Ms. Anne Wilbur, we have commissioned a separate solar/shade study
which indicated that the shadow was false. This solar/shade study will be addressed by others.
Turning to the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines, I comment as follows
The introduction states that change should respect adjacent homeowners and foster considerations
for privacy, scale and mass; and streetscape. It also should be aware of each property’s effect on
neighboring properties. I can find no evidence of concern for neighboring properties here.
Living next door, immediately to the north and in the shade of the proposed new building we are
concerned about all three matters.
The Review Guidelines were developed for conventional side by side house allotments. 901
Hutchinson and 1240 and 1240 Channing Street do not fit this convention. The rear of both
properties abut the side of 945 Hutchinson. The corner lot, 901 Hutchinson is particularly affected.
Privacy issues and overshadowing need special consideration which do not as yet appear to have
been addressed in the Guidelines.
Fundamental Principal -- Privacy.
Since the second level of the proposed development is in the drawing stage only, a simple design
change, could and should relocate windows to face the streei (west) or the back garden of 945
Hutchinson (east).
I formally request that the dormer windows, Overlooking and facing into the only usable
private space available at 901 Hutchinson, be deleted .from the plans.
Because this area is designated flood zone, the floor level of the first floor is 2ft 6inches above
grade. The ceiling height of the first floor appears to be 9 ft above this, or 11 ft 6 inches above
grade. Plans show a row of first floor windows all of which will overlook our private space on the
other side the existing 6 ft high dividing fence. A 9 ft high fence is needed to maintain privacy,
Fundamental Principal -- Mass andScale.
Second story additions should be compatible with adjacent houses.
This is clearly not the case with the proposed development.
At present, from the kitchen window of 901, one can see over the roof of 945 and see the sky. The
proposed development features a solid vertical wall up to a minimum height of approximately 16 ft
above grade. At that level the roof begins to slope up to the hip to a height of 24 ft. In two locations,
where dormer windows are planned, the vertical wall is continued up to a height of 22 ft 6inches.
This vertical wall, full of windows, up to 22 ft 6inches high, is just 6 ft away from the dividing
fence protecting our small private garden space. We may as well live in New York, or a fish bowl.
I formally request that any permit for the development stipulate that on the north side, the
roof begins at the floor level of the second floor, and slopes upward, without interruption, to
the roof hip line. The angle of slope to be the present proposed slope or less.
The Review Guidelines have provision for setback of the second story from the front of the house.
In effect, granting my request will mandate a setback of the second level from the north side of the
house which abuts 901Hutchinson. It will also have a positive effect on overshadowing. Any
windows required in the rooms to be set back, should be either sky-lights, or face east or west only.
Fundamental Principal -- Streetscape,
The Hutchinson Avenue neighborhood is primarily a single story, or single story with attic
neighborhood. The proposed two story development at 945 Hutchinson Avenue is out of scale and
out of character with existing houses and the streetscape.
Planning Hearing Re:845 Hutchinson- 8/01/02
My name is Anne Wilbur
I reside at 1240 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto
I have resided at this location since 1987
I am als0 in the real estate business and have a company in Palo Alto known
as Wilbur Properties
My property is perpendicular and immediately north of the subject Site
My reasons for appealing the decision regarding the Hutchinson property are
the following:
The proposed house was approved based on erroneous information
submitted to the planning office and not verified by the planner.. Ii
have substantiation for this that will be presented by Tony
Carrasco of Carrasco and Associates, a Palo Alto architectural
company.
The proposed house will cast a large shadow in my backyard. The
yard is small and shallow and it is completely taken by the pool
and the spa. The pool and spa were installed prior to my purchase
of the house. An accurate solar study that was performed by Tony
Carrasco’s office shows thatat certain times of the year, the pool
and baclcyard will be completely in the shade. Also, when you are
standing at any 0fthe rear windows of the first story of the house,
you will no longer be able to see the slcy, only the north side of the
proposed house.
I submit photos of my house and yard.
The outstanding feature of my house is the sunny backyard. The
house faces north and the backyard faces due south. The house
was designed so that the living area consisting of the living room,
kitchen and family rooms are at the south side of the house. These
are the rooms that are the most lived in. By casting a large shadow
on this side of the house, the house will completely lose its appeal
and the pool will be in the shade of the proposed house.
The proposed house invades the privacy of my backyard and the
rear portion of my house. As stated above, the living area of the
house is completely oriented to the south side. The privacy of the
yard and the main portion of the house will be lost by the windows
facing the backyard.
To give an idea of the disparate proportion of the proposed
development to my home, the bottom windowsills of the proposed
house completely clear the existing fence between my property and
the applicant’s!
I wish to explain that after the application for this permit was approved by
the city’s planner, I met with him and asked him what the basis for the
approval was. He said that it was approved because the developer agreed to
submit a solar study and to reduce the size of the second floor windows.
There was no explanation of what criteria were used to judge the solar study,
or what the overall rationale-was for the project’s approval considering that
the proposed house violated several design guidelines for the construction of
single family houses in Palo Alto.
The decision should be reversed and the house should not be approved.
I would suggest that the City approve a one-stow house on the site. If the
house has to be constructed so that it clears the flood plane, then there
should be no windows on the north side of the house, unless they are below
the height of the existing fence.
The proposed house is being moved from another location where it might
have been very appropriate. Why are we not seeing a new house built
instead of a house that does not fit into the site or the neighborhood? The
owners are relocating this house without any r;gard to the suitability of the
site for the house. It’s a two-stow house in a one-stow neighborhood. Nice
house wrong location. Find another lot where this house could fit.
In the Community Center area of Palo Alto there are exactly 12 parcels out
of a total of 900 that would cause a similar impact on adjacent properties by
this type of development--namely the construction of a two stow house
immediately to south of the backyards of adjacent properties. This is only
1.3% of parcels. This section of Palo Alto is characterized by smaller,
rectangular shaped lots situated on straight, perpendicular streets. I attach a
copy of the parcel maps for this area highlighting the impacted properties.
So this is not a common occurrence in Palo Alto, and a denial of this permit
would not set a precedent one way or another. This is a special case and the
City should carefully reconsider this application as it is very detrimental to
my property.
A final comment is that I did not agree to mediate prior to this hearing
because I do not see a simple solution or obvious compromise on this issue.
I feel very strongly that the relocation of the house from Emerson and the
proposed second floor addition would be more suited on a different lot in
Palo Alto.
Appeal Hearing 1 August 2002
against proposal for
945 Hutchinson Avenue
Appellant Linda Zipf Wauk
Background: My family home at 901 Hutchinson Avenue,
a. I bought the house in 1976.
bo ¯ My home has been the family home for over 25 years and represents
emotional and financial security to me. I do not want my quality of life to
diminish, nor do I want the value of my home diminished
c. The proposed house overlooks my backyard.
i. The backyard is my main private garden area,
ii.The backyard is where the major part of my daily life occurs: all
daily entrance and exits from my home, .all entrance and exits from
the garage (laundry, etc.), and all outside eating or relaxation.
iii. My kitchen, where I spend much time, overlooks the backyard.
My lot is an unusual lot in Palo Alto, and is at right angles to the lot of the
proposed house. The City of Palo Alto established this arrangement
sometime prior to when the house was built in 1941. I therefore believe
that the City of Palo Alto has an obligation to protect the integrity of my
lot despite its unusual alignment.
2.The Proposed House Adversely Affects My Home and Breaches the Cit?,
of Palo Alto’s Planning Guidelines.
The proposed house on 945 Hutchinson would severely diminish my quality of life
and the value of my home. In doin. g so, the proposed house breaches the City of Palo
Alto Planning D~ivision’s Palo Alto Single Family IndividUal Review Guidelines .
(November, 2001) (hereafter, the "Guideline" or ’"Guidelines"), which all proposed
two-story houses must meet in Palo Alto.
The height and the placement of the windows violate my privacy and
Guidelines # 1 ("Place second-story windows to respect privacy between
properties.") and #5 ("Carefully compose window locations, patterns,
proportions, and shape When planning a second-story addition.").
i. The inhabitants will have from both the proposed ground level
¯ windows and from the second level windows a total view of
everything in my backyard and, from the ground level windows, a
view into my kitchen (and therefore into my dining room and
family room). Note that the bottom of the ground level windows
(which are approximately 4-6-feet tall) start at approximately the
level of my six-foot tall fence.
ii. "I have not seen afrontal elevation, so I do not’ know aesthetically
how the proposed house might affect the neighborhood, just how
its height, mass and window placement will adversely do so.
The height and size of the proposed house violate my privacy, overwhelm
my home and backTard and violate Guidelines #3 ("Be sensitive to the
predominant neighborhood scale when planning a new two-story home or
second-story addition.") and #4 ("Be sensitive to the existing
neighborhood height patterns and particuIarly the height of adjacent
houses when planning a new two-story house or second-story addition.").
i. There is. nothing of similar scale to the proposed house on.
Hutchinson Avenue. The proposed house would loom over my
home and garden. If possible, please see the 24-foot measuring
staff erected at the fence between my home and the 945
Hutchinson lot showing the heights of the windows, .floors and
overall height of the proposed house.
ii. The height of the proposed house is unusual for Hutchinson
Avenue. The.proposal is a two-story house in the flood zone,
which raises it another 2.5 feet above adjacenthomes: And, for
example, although the adjacent house on the other, side of the
proposed house is a two-story house; it is not of the same Scale or
obtrusive on the neighborhood as this proposed house would be.
The height and ’size of the proposed house will block the sun to_my
backyard and violate Guideline #6 ("Respect the solar orientation of the
adjacent neighbors’houses and yards.’).
i. The solar study performed.by the developer was inaccurate and
misleading. We will be presenting a more accurate solar study at
the appeal hearing.
ii. Contrary to the developer’s assertions, the proposed house will
block the sun to my backyard to an adverse degree~ As for most
people, sunlight is very important to me (and obviously,
particularly to my plants).
My proposal: I request that the City of Palo Alto Planning Division grant
my appeal and reject the proposal for a two-story house at 945
Hutchinson Avenue.
September 9, 2002
Reich, Russ
Planner
Pale Alto Planning Department
250 Hamilton Ave.
Pale Alt0, CA 94301
945 Hutchinson
September 5 2002 Director’s Hearing
FGG’s Solar Impact Study
Dear Russ,
To eliminate any mis-understanding about any solar study variations, we would like to
request the City withdraw our Sola~ ~!mpact Study of 945 Hutchinson that we prepared of our
May 20, 2002 submission of the project.
In the September 5, 2002 Director’s Hearing regarding this project, the City presented its
own Solar Impact Study of the project. Fergus Garber Group accepts the City’s study in lieu of
it’.s own as representing the solar impacts the project will have on its neighbors.
One note, the City’s study is of the August 14, 2002 submission. If the City believes it
would be helpful to the neighbors that raised the issue, the City may want to determine the impact
of the difference between the roof ridge heights shown in the August 14, 2002 and the May 20,
2002 submissions.
Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions or would like to discuss this for
any reason.
Sincerely,
Daniel Mason Garber
Parmer
Fergus Garber Group, LLC
Cc:Tench Coxe
Kent Mitchell
Fergus Gather Group, LLC. 2201 Byron Street Pale Alto CA 94301
phone 650/473-1870 .fax 650/473-t871
Attachment C
Director’s Hearing
Staff Report
Agenda Date:
To:
August 1, 2001
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
From:Russ Reich, Associate Planner
Department:
Subject:
Planning and Community Environment
945 Hutchinson Avenue [02-IR-42]: Request by Joseph Ney on behalf’of Tench Coxe
for Single Family Individual Review approval t0 allow the relocation of an existing two
story residence from 1421..l~merson Street to 945 HutchinsOn Avenue. Environmental
Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
per Section 15303(a). Zone District R-l, Single Family Residential.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Director of Planning and Community Environment approve the Single Family
Individual Review application for the relocation of the house located at 1421 Emerson Street to 945
Hutchinson Avenue, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in Attachment A.
PROJECT HISTORY
The application was submitted on May 21, 2002. On June 20, 2002 a Notice of Incomplete was sent to
the applicant that listed corrections that would be necessary to continue the review process. The
correction list included concerns about privacy due to the location of the proposed second floor dormer
windows at the left side of the house, The list also included a correction that requested the applicant to
provide a solar study to evaluate the shadow impact o.f the proposed tV~o-st0rY house. On June 24, 2002
that applicant submitted revisions that reduced the size of the two dormer windows and provided the
shadow study. On June 26, 2002 the Current Planning Manager tentatively approved the application.
The adjacent neighbors at 901 Hutchinson Avenue and 1240 Channing Avenue submitted letters on July
2, 2002 requesting a hearing.
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is 6,375 square feet in area with an existing single story residence. The project site is
located in a neighborhood with a variety Of housing styles and a mix of single story and two-story
development.
945 Hutchinson Avenue Page 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of moving an existing two-story residence from 1421 Emerson Street to
945 Hutchinson Avenue. The second floor of the existing residence will be removed and replaced with a
reconfigured second floor to comply with zoning regulations. The residence is proposed to be 24 feet
tall with a total square footage of 2,624 including the new detached garage.
PUBLIC COMMENTS RECIEVED
Staff has received three letters raising concerns about the proposed residence at 945 Hutchinson. Copies
of theses letters have been provided as Attachment B. The letters generally state that the proposed
residence is out of scale with the existing neighborhood. The two overriding concerns are privacy and
solar access. The neighbors are concerned about the loss of privacy due to the location of two-second
floor dormer windows. They are also concerned that the proposed residence will cast a shadow over the
rear yards of each of their properties.
ISSUES
The two issues that seem to be of most concern to the adjacent property owners are related to Individual
Review Guidelines #1 and #6. The applicant has proposed two dOrmers on theleft side of the proposed
¯ residence with windows that face the rea~ )~ards of the adjacent neighbors to the left. The adjacent
neighbors are concerned that these windows will intrude on the privacy they currently enjoy. Staff has
required that the applicant modify the windows to comply with Individual Review guideline #1.
Guideline # 1 requires the applicant to "place second-story windows to respect privacy between
properties." The applicant has revised these windows to half the size originally proposed. The windows
are located higher in the wall such that a person standing in the room could not casually observe the
private rear yard spaces of the adjacent neighbors. They are situated four and one half feet high in the
wall and would be approximately three feet wide by two feet tall. Staff believes that setting the windows
higher in the wall and reducing the overall size of the window would adequately reduce the privacy
impact of these windows.
The second issue is the amount of sunlight obstruction caused by the new residence. The adjacent
property owners to the north have yard spaces that would experience additional solar shading as a result
of the height of the proposed house. Individual Review Guideline # 6 requires that the applicant
"respect the.solar orientation of the adjacent neighbor’s houses and yards". The applicant has employed
several of the techniques suggested in the Guidelines to reduce the height and massing of the proposed
residence. The second floor would be tucked into the roof of the house. The plate heights on the second
floor at the left side of the house would be only four feet high. The adjacent properties to the north
would experience a sloping roof with two dormers rather than a second story volume. Even though the
property is located in a flood zone, the applicant has managed to keep the height of the proposed
residence to 24 feet. By using these techniques, the applicant has minimized the solar impact to the
adjacent properties. While additional shading may occur, staff believes that the proposed project meets
Individual Review Guideline #6.
945 Hutchinson Avenue Page 2
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Draft Conditions of Approval
Letters from adjacent neighbors
COURTESY COPIES
Applicant: Joseph Ney, 2201 Byron Street, Palo Alto, and CA 94301
Owner:Tenet Coxe, 1401 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Prepared by:Russ Reich, Associate Planner
Manager Review: John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager
945 Hutchinson Avenue Page 3
o
ATTACHMENT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
945 Hutchinson Avenue / File No. 02-IR-42
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans dated
May 21, 2002, except as modified by these conditions of approval.
The plans must be revised to reflect the changes to the second floor dormer windows as shown
on plans dated June 24, 2002.
A revised set of plans must be submitted for the file to reflect the changes required in condition
# 2 above.
These conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted for the
Building Permit application.
945 Hutchinson Avenue Page 4
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
IO
ii
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
Attachment D
City of Palo Alto
Excerpt of Draft Minutes of Director’s Hearing
September 5, 2002
Speakers:Lisa Grote
Russ Reich
Dan Garber
M/F: Male or Female unidentified speakers
Questionable words/phrases in [brackets]
Lisa Grote: Okay. I think we’re going to go ahead and get started with our September 5th
Director’s Hearing and this is a continuation of a hearing of August 1st regarding 945 Hutchinson
Drive. And this is a situation wherea~{~ applicant has applied for an individual review, have
received to some preliminary comments which would have led to an approval and have made
some revisions to the plans based on neighborhood concerns. The neighbors have requested a
Director’s Hearing in order to discuss those concerns.
We started that on August 1st, and at that time the two issues that were primarily brought up as
being of concern are the solar access study and the sun actually Shadow Analysis that was
conducted by the applicants to begin with, and then there was some slightly conflicting
information submitted by the neighbors architectural consultant. And so we had requested that
our in-house architectural consultants look at and conduct the solar analysis and we can compare
then the results of all three of those studies. And then, in addition there with some concern about
privacy and window location, particularly in the dormers on that one side of the house. And we
can talk a little bit more about that.
But basically what’s shown on the wall there are the results of our consultants solar analysis and
we can go into that a little bit more detail. But before we do that, I believe there’s been a change
of architect for the applicants. It’s actually the same architectural firm, but a change of
person/people within that architectural firm?
Mr. Dan Garber, Architect: That’s correct. Joe and I were at the previous meeting. He’s moved
on to other professional pursuits and I am the partner of [inaudible] design of this project here.
My name is Dan Garber.
Ms. Grote: Thanks. Just note that for the record. So generally, Russ, do you want to go over
some of the results or I can summarize what we’ve got here kind of the differences between what
our consultants have said and then what the other two analyses have shown.
City of Palo Alto
Excerpt of Draft Minutes of Director’s Hearing
September 5, 2002
2
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
i0
ii
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
Russ Reich: I can go through that. The first thing that I want to point out is the plans have been
revised since the initial submittal to shift the house over, moving the driveway to the left side of
the property to further move the house away from the rear yards of the adjacent property owners
on the left side to further reduce the solar impact. So that was the first thing I wanted to cover.
In the initial project summary, the house was originally 24 feet high and as a result of moving the
house over and reconfiguring the second floor further, the currently proposed height of the house
is 25 foot 6 inches tall. So I wanted to point out those changes. I analyzed all three of the solar
studies and the differences were fairly minor. I’ll just kind of go through them.
These are the existing house, existing conditions, origins which prepared this solar study. [Ann
Carasco] who prepared the solar study for the adjacent property owners were pretty much the
same for this day and time of.the year. Thisbeing the 19ngest day of the year, June 21st..The
applicant, [FTG] didn’t submit a solar study for this day of the year so there was no cOmparison
to make on that. .
For the December 21st day, shortest day of the year where the sun has the, or the potential for
shadow is more extreme, the solar study from [FTG] architectures are a little bit longer shadow,
kind of out on to the stireet. But in terms of the shading in the rear yards, it was very similar to
origins. The [Carasco] study shows a bit shorter of a shadow at this time of the year and doesn’t
include the fences or hedges existing there which do cast in pretty dramatic shadow actually
coming into this point on the property, as well as in this area for the point in time.
Ms. Grote: So the kind of purplish shadow should be extending towards the edge of that white
area?
Mr. Reich: This purple is actually the house. The fence is represented by this dotted line here
and then the hedge, the 10 foot high hedge actually comes out here to this dotted line. And they
didn’t actually show it because they didn’t want to confuse the drawingl They didn’t show the
hedge shadow in the morning but it would be on the same line coming at an angle inthis location
shadow in this area here.
At noon, the [Carasco] study is a little bit shorter in terms of a shadow, shorter than the origin
study. The [FTG] study is actually a little longer than origin so they were slightly conflicting.
The [Carasco] study is shorter than origins for the noon time study and again, didn’t show the
hedge and the fence. The [FTG] study shadow is slightly longer than origins and they do show
and it may be a little bit confusing because the [FTG] study does show how the other buildings
and fences cast a shadow so it’s not just showing the new building or the existing building, but
they’re showing how their existing fences and buildings are casting a shadow so it looks a lot
more extreme or dramatic.
Going into the new residence and existing configuration. Origin and [Carasco] are basically the
same while [FTG] does show a little bit longer of a shadow. It appears that the reason that the
City of Palo Alto
Excerpt of Draft Minutes of Director’s Heating
September 5, 2002
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
i0
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
FTG shadow is longer, it was because I think they were calculating last March/September, which
is the mid-point between the year because their June 21st shadow is exactly like [Carasco’s]
shadow for that time of year. So that’s why their shadow is a little bit longer but [Carasco] and
origins were similar in their study for this time of the day.
The origins and [Carasco] solar studies are nearly same for the December 21st date. One thing to
take into account though is that these shadows which are the same as [Carasco] show but this
house is actually over an additional 4 feet, I believe as a result of shifting the house over,
[inaudible] showing the same shadow. So that was kind of the differences that I gleamed from
reviewing all three of the studies.
Ms. Grote: Go ahead.
Mr. Garber: Soyou can understand, the solar studies that [FTG] did, [inaudible] they were in
general, most of them were longer than-they should have been with one exception, I guess down
there.
Mr. Reich: Yes. They were at both times in both situations, they did show the shadows being a
little longer and that could have been the result of potentially overestimating height of fences or I
think in a lot of instances, the [FTG] study was also showing other buildings and other fences
which would elongate the shadows beyond what these show because they’re only focusing on the
building. So they’re showing other shadows caused by other features. So it’s not to say that it’s
inaccurate, they’re just including other items that would also cause shadow.
M: Well, it’s information, there’s been 3 studies done by 3 professionals. How do you know that
yours is the correct one?
Mr. Reich: We’re not assuming that at all. We’re just comparing the differences between the
three. We’re not saying one is more accurate than the other. There’s a lot of slight variations but
all three of them are fairly close to being near the same: They’re not off by some .extreme number
of feet.
M: So, when you say fairly close, we’re talking inches or feet?
Mr. Reich: It’s a matter of feet. Sometimes they look almost identical and sometimes it could be
3 to 6 feet off.
Ms. Grote: And one of the reasons why we asked our consultants to do this is because there were
some discrepancies between the applicant’s shadow analysis and then the neighbors. And so we
wanted to see what would theoretically, objective analysis show. And we believe that our
architects do have an objective opinion and what it’s showing is that all 3 of them are within a
reasonable range, we believe. Yes?
City of Palo Alto
Excerpt of Draft Minutes of Director’s Hearing
September 5, 2002
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
io
ii
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
F: But it is showing in the proposed house in its new configuration of being over 4 feet, but
because it’s higher, it’s casting the same amount of shadow as originally proposed position of the
house.
Mr. Reich: Provided that everything is accurate then, yes.
F: And so, nothing has changed in terms of the solar pattern that is going to cast by the proposed
changes?
Mr. Reich: Well, not knowing the accuracy of the [Carasco] study that is similar to this pattern,
moving the house over may have reduced the shadow and certainly would reduce it at other off
times of the year. But at the extreme time of the year, it appears to be the same as the shadow
done by [Carasco] but I don’t know if his shadow to what extent was accurate. So you could say,
that potentially it’s the same shadow, after you move the house over, but I don’t know because we
don’t have the comparison done by them between this placement of the house or moving the
house over.
Ms. Grote: And I also think that moving the house over was not just a deal with the shadow
issue but it was also to deal with some of the privacy questions, by moving the house over and by
shortening up the windows. That was an attempt to reduce any impact on the privacy.
F: Correct. But I’m just trying to make the observation that it does not seem to have had a
positive impact on the amount of shadow.
Ms. Grote: Yes, it may not be positive or negative. It may be a neutral issue.
F: Correct~
Ms. Grote: Right. Yes?
M:_ Just a [inaudible] to answer that. Our shadow study in the existing house is quite different
than the [FTG] shadow analysis of the existing house and our point was that if you made a
decision based on this shadow analysis of the existing house shading the backyard and the pool,
that information was inaccurate. Well, your information on the top left-hand corner seems to be
accurate, but it is quite different than the [FTG] that was submitted, [inaudible] with the original
application on which you made the decision.
Mr. Garber: I’m perfectly happyto accept the City’s study in lieu of ours.
Ms. Grote: Okay. Well, that summarizes the differences. I think to look at the primary impacts
are the two bottom, the longest days of the year and how much of a difference there is between
the proposed house and the existing, and whether or not that constitutes a significant impact on
the neighbor’s backyard. And that’s what I’ll be considering as I make my decision.
City of Palo Alto
Excerpt of Draft Minutes of Director’s Hearing
September 5, 2002
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
io
ii
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
At this point, the guidelines in the Individual Review booklet do not [inaudible] process, don’t
say that no shadow shall be cast. It says that there should be an attempt made to minimize
increases in shadow or minimize impacts, but not that it’s expected that no impact would be
made. Go ahead.
F: I also have a question. In the new analysis, you talked about a 10 foot hedge, where have you
placed the 10 foot hedge?
Mr. Reich: The hedge is shown in this location here.
Ms. Grote: Which is where it is in reality. So we haven’t placed it an~vwhere. It’s been reflected
as where it grows.
F: No, I wanted to know whether or.not you placed it just in the one garden or if you were
extending it along the whole.
Mr. Reich: Only in the rear yard of 1240 Channing there.
M.’_ Can I ask another question?
Ms. Grote: Sure.
M: In your consideration of the shadows, when the [inaudible] was probably not considered that
a shadow will be cast from the side of the house into the backvard [in front] of the house, you
probably considered from side yard to side yard. And this was an extraordinary, it’s .a different
condition and where the guidelines might have been looking [inaudible] for your decision, would
you and when you make your decision consider that this shadow is [in the] backyard or some
place [legally usable], in both two properties?
Ms. Grote: That would certainly be considered. I think that when th~ guidelines were drafted, it
was overall how a shadow might impact a neighboring yard, whether it wasn’t specific to a side
yard or a rear yard or a front yard. It was how that shadow might affect usable space, usable
outdoor space on a site. And again, it wasn’t intended to prevent shadow but it was intended to
minimize it and to have sensitivity to it as the design was being considered. So certainly, I’ll
definitely look at that but I don’t think there were limitations to it or qualifications to it when the
guideline was created. Are there other questions or comments that people would like to make on
shadowing or other matters? Either.
M: [inaudible] and you have to accept this possibility of the two-story house that will increase
the shadow and in moving the house is part of the step, it’s not really what we want but it’s a step
and we’re grateful for that. But it still doesn’t address the privacy issue. And we’re totally
opposed to those dormer windows on the second level. The windows on the first level, we can
City of Pal0 Alto
Excerpt of Draft Minutes of Director’s Hearing
September 5, 2002
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
i0
ii
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
screen [inaudible] by adding it as part of the fence, that can done at some expense but it can be
done. But at the second level, those dormer windows are a gross invasion of our privacy and we
object strongly and we’ll continue to object strongly. And I believe that that second story should
be re-designed to accommodate the elimination of those dormer windows. And whether they be
skylights or some other sort of window, those dormer windows as far as we’re concerned must go
and we will do all that we can to make sure that they do go.
Ms. Grote: I would like to ask the architect if you have a response to that because that is the next
primary issue is the question of privacy and location of windows. And I know that they have
changed from the original design, they’ve been made smaller but are there any other thoughts or
ideas that you have had about reducing that impact?
Mr. Garber: Beyond the work that has been done, the house has been, let me just ask before I
respond to that directly. Do you as the way that you manage these Iinaudible], will you be asking
me to come up and describe the changes to the house or make any sort of presentation or do we
just do this as a question and answer form?
Ms. Grote: Actually, the first hearing, we did have a presentation from your architect. And
certainly, you can discuss if there have been changes since that time. You can discuss any of
those changes that you’d like to present to the group. I’m not aware that there have been any so
that’s why I was asking you if there have been.
Mr. Garber: Relative to that question, there have been no additional changes. We may have
changed since the first subrmssion which show a much larger window in the dormer and we have
reduced the size of this windows. As you can see in the second subrmssion in August, that was
submitted after to the benefit of the neighbors comments from the first hearing. The house in
general has an extremely low second floor. The [inaudible] height, meaning where wall stops
and the exterior wall and the roof starts is about 3 foot 8, meaning that a person in a [9-12] pitch
of the roof can’t get within about sixteenth of that exterior wall before having to stoop down and
get to it. So there’ve been a tremendous amount of accommodations made to keep the house low,
not have its presence speak too large. The dormers are critical in order for people to be able to
put a bed into those rooms and be able to still move around. If you don’t have those dormers, the
rooms essentially become unfunctional’.
Just in general, our client has asked us to do everything that we can to accommodate the concerns
of the neighbors and the concerns that were voiced,in the last hearing. And I think that we have
responded as best as we can to his request for us to do that. In fact, we have gone overboard but I
would normally recommend for him to have a house that does have a second floor.
Ms. Grote: Okay, so if the dormers were to be removed and let’s say replaced with skylights,
then the head height in the room itself would be what?
Mr. Garber: It would be severely comp.romised.
City of Palo Alto
Excerpt of Draft Minutes of Director’s Hearing
September 5, 2002
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
io
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
Ms. Grote: And what does that mean? What would that result in?
Mr. Garber: It would mean, well, here, let me just’explain it. Right at the moment, the walls in
the second floor come up to about [inaudible] and that means that the roof, the ceiling comes out
of the edge about like this, about like that. So I’m just about 6 feet, so that means that I would be
able to get within just short of 6 feet of that wall before I hit my head. The dormer allows and I
can show you on one of the other drawings, it allows you to put a bed next to here. It allows
someone to come into the bed and then get into it while docking slightly. The reason why you
don’t want to put the bed on the other side of the room is because that’s where you enter the room.
So in other words, if I’m entering the room here, I can now go from one side of the room to the
other side of my bed without hitting my bed and then I’d come down and get into my bed this
way." Follow me? If you move the bed to this side then I have to, table is here, but then I have to
crouch down in order to get around the other side of the bed and then stand back up. So without
the dormer there, I have very few alternatives with what I can do with my bed. It makes the room
significantly more difficult to use. I’d be happy to ask our client if you would be willing to accept
that, [inaudible] we can find out.
Ms. Grote: Okay. Yes?
F: Well, first of all, Russ said that the height of the house has gone from 24 to 251/2, so
something else has been done since our meeting last time.
Mr. Garber: That is correct. Did you want me to explain that?
Ms. Grote: That .would be great.
Mr, Garber: It’s ac[ually ver.y simple geometry, First [inaudible] this blue dash is what you saw ’
in the last meeting. And the dark and shaded are~ is the house as it now stands. This point here
is the screen point, the [inaudible] type there as just describing. And it goes up in a [9-12] pitch
here and it comes back down. But this side of the house, if you recall from the last meeting had a
large cross dormer in it which allows to get a significantly more head height on the south side of
the house. Moving the house over, it pushes that cross dormer into the daylight plane which you
can see here. So we couldn’t do the cross dormer so we took that out and then put in two dormers
on the south side so that we could accommodate the constraints of daylight plane. That means
that the roof which is over here at 3 foot 8, over here at 3 foot 8 if you take that same pitch and
draw it up, you’re at a foot and a half higher and that’s where that difference comes.
M: One of the things that was discussed at the last meeting and I realized you were not there was
perhaps changing some of the configuration of the second story by increasing the footprint of the
entire house. Did your firm consider that at all?
City of Palo Alto
Excerpt of Draft Minutes of Director’s Hearing
September 5, 2002
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
io
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Mr. Garber: There was, well, what we ended having to do the old footprint had a notch out here.
And that had to be filled in and in order to get that square footage back, we had to take away
space from the garage in order to [inaudible] for the project. We have not considered extending
the floor [inaudible] beyond that perimeter because our requirements, at least the whole design is
predicated on utilizing the existing house that we’re moving which is this house here. So if we
were to move, for instance, this back portion out, we are adding a significant more amount to the
cost than would otherwise would not have to because we’ve suddenly [inaudible] be utilizing the
house that we’re moving.
F: So, no, you did not really consider it because of cost factors? Not because of anything to do
with the design or how it would impact the neighbors but because of the cost?
Mr. Garber: Yes, that’s correct. I’d say that that’s a fair statement.
Mr. Reich: There’s also another significant factor that needs to be brought into this is that the
opportunity doesn’t really exist to do that because they are their square footage limit already to
expand.
F: They have exemptions to that?
Ms. Grote: There are very few exemptions but there are something called a home improvement
exception which allows you to go slightly over your FAR, 100 or 125 square feet in order to
design an addition that’s more in keeping with either the original house or the neighborhood or
better suited to a site. So there is an exemption process to allow that. And I’d like for us to be
able to finish what he was saying, but also are you at your maximum coverage or not? I know
that you’re at your maximum FAR but are you at your maximum coverage?
Mr. Garber: Let me check. We’re significantly under it. What’s allowable is 2100 square feet
and [i.naud, ibie] is 1352.. So there’s plenty of coverage should we want to utilize it.
Ms. Grote: Okay. So what would then the impacts be to the house that you want to move if you
were to remove that back wall and lower or spread out the square footage, extend it back? I’m
assuming you’d have to remove the back wall?
-Mr. Garber: Yes. Because of the slope of the roof, we’d still have the same issues of trying to
enter a new license [inaudible].
F: No, no, no. But you can completely re-design your second story. You’re taking off the
second story to move the house. You don’t have to maintain, yet as you have now designed it,
you could make it only a partial second story. You don’t have to make a full and extend the
footprint.
City of Palo Alto
Excerpt of Draft Minutes of Director’s Heating
September 5, 2002
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
io
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
Mr. Garber: That’s correct. But the issues for the client then would be how much of this
backyard is he willing to give up for that when he could take it on the second floor, .right?
Because there is an efficiency to putting it on the second floor.
F: Yes. But likewise, how much far [ina.udible] ?
Mr. Garber: Exactly. It’s a good point. [overlapping conversation] The other issues obviously,
so you’ve got that, you’ve got this but how much can you actually add on. If we are spreading
this square footage over the first floor or add a potential second floor, or if we get an extension
for another 100 square feet, there may be the opportunity to add this whole square footage there.
F: But my suggestion was, let’s not maintain the second level as it now is but to alter that and
extend the footprint, to give them the space that they feel they need.
Ms. Grote: Or make a partial second floor and a larger first floor footprint in order to
accommodate the needed space.
F: Correct. So it’s more design to the lot than rather than putting the house as configured on to a
lot where it is not perhaps appropriate, the most appropriate. To try to design using the base,
trying to design something that is more appropriate for the lot configuration, we would have less
of a solar impact and they could also configure the partial second story so that it does not have
windows on the north side.
Ms. Grote: What would that do to your floor plan?
Mr. Garber: Well, I can’t say that I’ve studied it to answer that fully. Certainly, one of the
concerns that we have to look at is whether we can make the program work that they’ve asked us
to design with him. And two, if the house, let me leave it at that. I don’t know what the impacts
could be. I’d have to develop a [inaudible] to see if it will be accepted and then respond to you.
M: Getting back to the dormers, we appreciated your [inaudible] survey as you’ve showed us
how you circulated around the dormers to get into bed and [inaudible] at the table. But basically,
while there is a shadow impact on the dormers, it’s not the dormers themselves that we object, it’s
the dormer windows, because they are the objects that invade our privacy and we are objecting to
those windows. It may be that you could, traditionally, dormers always have windows
overlooking the street, not someone else’s small backyard. If maybe that window could be
eliminated and put some skylights in, you can do some architectural treatment and I think
[inaudible] what other people say architecture usually and my architect alwa-ys do what I tell
them. But other people’s architects have their own ideas and if you could see to removing those
windows and maybe putting skylights in or some’ other solution that you have, I think that a lot of
our issues would be wiped out.
City of Palo Alto
Excerpt of Draft Minutes of Director’s Hearing
September 5, 2002
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
io
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
M: I think what they’re suggesting is the existing house has that their roof slope that goes in the
top is the direction [inaudible] if you can keep that same existing [inaudible] slope and put the
dormers facing the street and your backyard, it will solve the privacy issue, as well as this
suggestion of increasing the footprint and reducing the size of the second floor.
M: One thing to add to that comment, the original house does show the second level at 90
degrees. Last week, last meeting, I raised that question, too, and I was told now it was going to
be basically the same second story. As you can see from the photographs,. [inaudible] but if that
building was put on the block, we’d havea whole and I’m sure there’s a window in the end.
Mr. Garber: Oh, there certainly is, yes.
M: And that would be overlooking and invading out.privacy.
Mr. Garber: The other thing to remember, yes, that’s an excellent point is that this existing house
is significantly larger. [inaudible] Aside from the guidelines and your concerns also we’d have a
[inaudible].
Ms. Grote: So, I take it what you’re looking at is considering how changing the roof and putting
the dormers at the end would affect the design?
Mr. Garber: Yes, I think the point is well taken that regardless Of the way the roof works, you’re
going to want windows on all four sides. The other issue, of course, is that if you switch the
direction of the roof, we will likely end up penetrating the roof, the daylight plane more than
what is allowed, which is I’m sure why we ended up in the design of it now.
F: Why do you make the assumption that you’re going to want windows on all of the sides? I
know many planned communities right now and, in fact, before I moved back to Palo Alto where
one wall does not have ~indows in the second story just because of courtesy concerns.
Mr. Garber: If you had a choice?
F: But there are other, I mean, if I had my choice of a house, it would not be where I’m living
now, it would have all sorts of things that when it comes down to it, maybe are not tlie best thing
for that lot. And part of this whole issue is the lot has been selected and you’re trying to put a
house on it that is not designed for the lot. You’re trying to put an existing house and force it into
the situation.
Mr. Garber: I think we have taken the lot that the existing house is not designed for it and that is
why the house has been changed to accommodate the conditions that are there.
F." Not sufficiently.
City of Palo Alto
Excerpt of Draft Minutes of Director’s Heating
September 5, 2002
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
i0
ii
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
Ms. Grote: I think you had a question a while back.
F: I had a question. I’m not the homeowner, I’m not [inaudible].
Ms. Grote: Can you identify yourself?
Elizabeth Wong: My name is Elizabeth Wong and I’m very interested that this process be a fair
process, that the homeowners get to design and live in a house that they like and as well as still
keep your neighbors happy. But I was wondering, does any place in the guidelines suggest that
the footprint of the first floor would have to be enlarged in order to accommodate privacy or
shadows or something like that. I think [inaudible] carrying it to an extreme, because obviously
all the neighbors would want a larger house invisible from their fences and the homeowner
doesn’t have a backyard. And when you have small children, that’s the one thing that you want is
a backyard. I love being outside of my house.
Ms. Grote: I think that’s something that we’re exploring. There’s nothing in the guidelines that
says that first floor has to be designed one way or another except to reduce impacts, first and
second floor to reduce impacts on the neighbors’ privacy to maintain a streetscape and to
maintain a general mass and bulk that’s consistent with the neighborhood. So they don’t get into ’
specifics about how you design or if you enlarge a first floor or make it smaller. So you wouldn’t
see a reference to that in the guidelines. That’s something that we’re talking about specifically as
a potential solution to this situation. But it’s not something that would necessarily be discussed
than any other individual review, although it might be. It depends on how a design responds or
isn’t responding to a situation.
M_i: .I’d just like to make the point that we all have rights and we all have obligations to protect
our neighbor’s rights. In this case, I’d just like to point out that the personal private back space
and [inaudible] is five to six times the private back space [inaudible]. And now that back space
is being invaded by this property, by this new design.
F: It’s much larger than any of the other backyard [inaudible] also.
Mr. Garber: But it’s allowable. [overlapping conversation].
F: We’re talking about allowance.
Ms. Grote: I certainly think that with the allowable lot coverage in the district itself, it
anticipated that there might be more of a site cover than you’ve got shown covered. And so that
in essence, there could be smaller yards whether that’s a smaller backyai’d or smaller side yard. It
could fill up more of that site. So, I think there’s some more discussion we should have on how
you might change some of the footprint, some of the footprint of the existing house in order to
accommodate neighborhood concern about the impacts.
City of Palo Alto
Excerpt of Draft Minutes of Director’s Hearing
September 5, 2002
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
io
ii
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
I hate to prolong this process but I’m thinking that we should probably explore some of those
alternatives and have a continuance and sit down with your applicants and see if there is some
solution that they could accept.
Mr. Garber: Let me clarify just one thing. Is this continuance from the first hearing or is this the
second hearing?
Ms. Grote: Well, this is part of the Director’s Hearing. And I don’t want to continue it too many
times because I know people want a decision and decide what to do next. Putting you in the
unfortunate position of having to speak for your client, if you think your client would be
receptive to looking at some of these alternatives, then I will continue this for another two weeks
and we can sit down and talk about some of that, If you don’t think he’d be receptive, then I’ll go
ahead and close the public hearing and make a decision based on the information that I have and
the concerns that I’ve heard expressed.
Mr. Garber: My personal suspicion is ithat he is not going to be receptive, What he wants to be
able to do is take the house as it is and put it on the lot and make the accommodations as best he
can for to, if you want to make it address the Zoning issues as well as the guideline issues and to
within that constraint meet as many of the concerns as he can. I’m happy to talk with him
though, I apologize that he’s not here today to confirm that.
M: Just one clarification, is th.e house being moved and your present plan is 4 foot or 6 foot?
Mr. Garber: It’s moved off as far to the south as we can. It’s about 4 feet because we can’t get
any closer than 6 feet to the property line. I mean, actually we’ve left ourselves 4 inches there so
that we can have gutters and all that other things in there.
Ms. Grote: Okay. One last question, architecturally, I don’t know what the effect of this would
be, if you were to take the windows out of the dormer and put skylights, keep the dormer but put
skylights in the dormer, what would that do to the look of the house?
Mr. Garber: Well, given that the neighbor that would be looking at it is the one that has to be
dealing with it, I think it’s not an architecturally great solution. A dormer is a creative form of
window and [why I had to create a dormer that’s blank or blind] is not a great solution, But it’s
going [inaudible] if you put the skylights in it, etc.
F: I think there are still other issues. I prefer to see the footprint [inaudible] to the second story
configuration.
Mr. Garber: I hear that and I think I actually [inaudible] all things considered but that is beyond
what the constraints that our client has actually given us [inaudible].
Ms. Grote: Okay. I think what I’m going to do is go ahead and close the public hearing.
City of Palo Alto
Excerpt of Draft Minutes of Director’s Hearing
September 5, 2002
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
io
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
3s
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
Mr. Garber: If there’s some change to that, I will talk to him.
Ms. Grote: Okay. And then if there’s some change to that, would neighbors be willing to come
back, we’ll re-open the hearing and see what we can work out, if that’s possible? Okay.
Mr. Garber: If that is a possibility, can we do it before [inaudible] and we can come up with
sketches [inaudible].
Ms. Grote: It’s usually held on a two-week interval. If people are willing we can try and do it
before that. It’s usually on a Thursday afternoon, I’d have to check my calendar. I’ve got these
scheduled every two weeks.
Mr. Garber: Maybe we can adjust that?
Mr. Grote: Okay. Yes?
M: My name is [Glen Marian] I’m actually with Coldwell Banker and I represent [inaudible] and
I lmow a lot of what he does and I talked to him today and he wanted me to make sure there were
some understanding as to why we’re doing this. And first of all, we’re trying to save a house
instead of tearing it down. And most importantly, it’s not a business decision that he’s making or
making money or [inaudible]. We have an end uger who as a family, who would never in your
wildest dreams be able to live in the community center and raise their family there. And we’re
essentially passing this on to them at cost. And so the more you move things out, drag it out or
whatever the more expensive it gets, it gets beyond the ability to do our intention was to the
project in the first place.
Mr.. Garber: He’s a personal friend.
F: He’s the financial advisor for [inaudible]. So, he may be coming from an area that housing
cost less in his town and, therefore, it’s hard to move into Palo Alto but he is not a disadvantaged
applicant. And I also am not actually sure that this pertains to what is happening to the site.
[overlapping conversation] No, you’re trying to play the violin.
Ms. Grote: Okay, I don’t t.hink we should argue with each other, so thank you.
Mr. [Glenn Marian]: There’s a question about the finances on it and Dan, that’ s one of the things
that eliminates the project. And by bringing us back to building and [spec house], alright, is that
the more we add costs to this, the less desirable it makes it possible for us to do what we’re trying
to do in the first place.
M: Let that person come and speak for himself because he’s going to have to eventually.
City of Palo Alto
Excerpt of Draft Minutes of Director’s Hearing "
September 5, 2002
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
i0
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
Ms. Grote: Okay, thanks. Yes?
F: Lisa, I think the direction that you’re taking is in at the moment speaks to an issue that you
raised at the first hearing which is that is there a design solution to this problem? There is a
design solution to this problem and I think you’ve asked appropriately Dan Garber to come up
with a solution. Now Tony raised it also at the first hearing that they’re trying to put up a house
that’s not suitable for the lot that they’ve chosen. It’s probably suitable for some other lot in Palo
Alto but it isn’t suitable for this lot. So to ask that the house be re-designed so that it does suit
the lot because it’s appropriate, I’m very happy that we’re going in this direction.
Mr. Garber: However, i don’t think that that is the issue in front of us. The issue is that we do
have the house, that is the client has asked for it to be put in place on the lot and what is, what
can we do with the house to make it accommodate. And that’s the issue.
F: But Dan, you als0 said that he asked you to do everything that you can to accommodate the
concerns of the neighbors.
Mr. Garber: Yes, that’s true.
Ms. Grote: I think we do know what the concerns are, what the issues are and I will close the
public hearing. If you tall to your client, he’s willing to consider some of these ideas or other
ideas that you may come up with, we’ll go ahead and re-open it. We will do that as soon as we
can. We’ll start looking at people’s schedules and things if there’s some cooperation on your
client’s part. And if not, then I have some information and I think enough to make a decision.
So, we’ll take it from there.
F: And if there is no continuation, your decision is what you’ve told us the first time?
Ms. Grote: Yes, I have t0 days to make the decision and then there is a 10-day appeal period and
you need to make that appeal in writing, whichever party appeals. And then if the Council
decides to hear it, they will need 4 votes in order for this to be heard by the City Council. If there
aren’t 4 votes on the Council to hear the appeal, whatever my decision is, stands. If there are 4
votes to hear it, then it’s considered by the Council and they’ll make the final decision. So, thank
you all very much.
:z~z oF ~’ALO A~TO Attachment E
, Office o1~ the City Clerk . O~J ~’v ~ ....
Pl~[g ~d Co~uni~ Envko~ent
LOCATION O~ PROPERTY: Assessor’s Pa:cel No.
Name of Properiy Owner(if other than appe][ant)
Property Owner}s address (if other than.appe,lant).
Street
Zone District
City Zip
The decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment dated
19 whereby the application of , .~,~..5~ ~ [’~ ~
(original applicant)
(parcel map/sfibdivision)
~r ,-1
was ~,,,,~J~51~ , is hereby appealed for the reasons stated in the attached
(approv ~’,didenied)
letter (in duplicate).
Date {)..q c-,~,_~.’~).,.r30-~Signaturi: of Appellant A’~
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENEATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL:
Date Approved Denied
Remarks and/or Conditions:
CITY, COUNCIL DECISION:
Date :A :~proved
Remarks and/or Conditions:
Denied
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED:
1.Plans (A2pplicant)
2.Labels (Applicant)-"
3.Appeal Application Forms
4.Letter ~,_Q. -~______By:. g,L-
By:%L~
Linda Z. Wauk
901 ]~utchinsoa Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
28 September 2002
City of Palo Alto
Department of Plarming and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 943.03
RE: 945 Hutchinson Avenue, Single Family Individual Review, 02-IR-42
Dear Sir or Madam:
I, owner of 901 Hutchinson Avenue, a home adjacent to the above property, request
review by the City Councii of the approval of the above application, as provided in
Chapter 18 14.100 of the PAMC.
I believe the proposed house violates the guidelines as specified in the attached le~er,
written for the appeal hearing on 1 August 2002. As I understand the intent of the
creators of the guidelines, the guidelines are to be strictly adhered to and not to be
considered, as mere suggestions.
Additionally, my property is somewhat unusual in Palo Alto in that it is set at right angles
. to the lot of the proposed house and is. due north of the proposed house. The City.of Palo
Alto established this arrangement sometime prior to when the house was built in 1941.
My back yard is especially at risk to lack of privacy and shading from the adjacent.
property. I believe that the City of Palo Alto, which set up this lot arrangement, has an
obligation to protect the integrity of my lot,
¯ The proposed house at 945 Hutchinsonis a force-fit of an existing house moved from
another plot to this one. The applicant has apparently refused to modify the footprint of
the house to build a house better designed to th~ specific lot and peculiarities of the
property in regard to the neighbors to the north. It was suggested at the second hearing of
the appeal that the owner consider a redesign of the footprint of a larger first floor and a
partial second floor. I believe a free home can be built next door, even using ~he moved
house, bm a redesign is needed, as was suggested at the appeal hearing..In order to
resolve this as amicably as possiblel I request mediation, as offered by the Ci.~...
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Linda Wauk
Appeal He.sting 1 August 2002
against proposal for
945 Hutchinson Avenue
Appellant Linda Zipf Wauk
Background: My family home at 901 Hutchinson Avenue.
a. I bought the house in 1976.
b. My home has’been the family home for-over 25 years and represents
emotiona! and financial seeuxity to me. i do not want my quality of life to
diminish, nor do I want the value of my home diminished
c. The proposed house overlooks my backyard.
i. The backyard is my main private garden area.
ii. ~’he back-yard is where the major part of my daily.life occurs: all
daily entr~mce and exits from my home, all entrance and exits from
the garage (laundry, etc.), and all outside eating or relaxation.
¯iii. My kitchen, wh6re I spend muc~l time, overlooks the backy~rd.
d. My lot is an unusual lot in Palo Alto, and is at right angles to the !ot of the
proposed house. The City of Palo Alto established this arrangement
sometime prior to when the house was built in 1941. I therefore believe
that the City of Palo Alto has.an obligation to protect the integrity of my
lot despite its unusual alignment.
2.The Proposed House Adversely Affects My Home and Breaches the City.
of Palo Alto~s Plannin~ Guidelines.
The .proposed house on 945 Hutchinson would severely diminish my quality of life
and the value of my.home. In doing so, the proposed house breaches the City of Palo
Alto Planning Division’sPalo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines
(November, 2001) (hereafter, the "Guideline" or "Guidelines"), which all proposed
two-story houses must meet in Palo Alto.
The height and the placement of the windows violate my privacy and
Guidelines # 1 ("Place second-story windows to respect privacy between
properties.") and #5 ("Carefully compose window locations, patterns,
proportions, and shape when planning a second-story addition.").
i. The inhabitants will have from both the proposed ground level
windows and from the second level windows a total view of
everything in my backyard and, from the ground level Windows, a
view into my kitchen (and therefore into my dining room and
family room). Note that the bottom of the ground levelwindows
(which are approximately 4-6-feet talI) start at approximately the
level of my six-foot tall fence.
bo
ii. i have not seena frontal elevation, so I do not know aesthetically
how the proposed house might affect the neighborhood, just how.
its height, mass and window placement will adversely do so.
The heigh~ and size of the proposed house vi.’olate my privacy, overwhelm
my home and.backqcard and violate Guidelines #3 ("Be sensitive to the
predominant neighborhood scale when planning a new tworstory home or
’ se’cond-}tory addition.") and #4 ("Be sensitive to the existing
neighborhood height patternsand particularly the height of adjacent
houses when planning a new two-story house, or second-story _addition.").
i.There is nothing of similar Scale to the proposed house on
Hutchinson Avenue. The proposed house world loom over my
home and garden. If possible, please see the 24-foot measuring
staff erected at the fence between my home and the 945
Hutchinson lot showingthe heights of the win. dows~,floors and
overall height of the pmpos.ed house.
ii. The height of the proposed house i~ unusual for Hutchinson
Avenue. The proposal is a two-story house in the flood zone,
which raises it another 2.5 feet above adjacent homes. And, for
example, althpugh the adjacent house on the other side of the
proposed house is a two-story house, it is not of the same scale or
obtrusive on the neighborho0das thisproposed house would be.
c.~ . The height and size of:the proposed house will block the sun to my
backyard and violate Guideline #6 ("Respect the solar orientation of the
adjacent neighbors.’ houses and yards.’).
i.The solar studY performed by the developer Was inaccurate and
misleading. We will be presenting a more accurate solar studyat
the appeal hearing.
ii. Contrary.to the developer’s assertions, the proposed house will
block the sun to my backyard to an adverse degree. As for most
people, sunlight is very important to me (and obviously,
particularly to my plants)..
My proposal: I request that the City of Palo Alto Planning DNision grant
my appeal and reject the proposal for a two-~tory house at 945
~utehinson Avenue.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Office of the City Clerk
APPEAL FROM TIlE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
AN]) COYnVfUN~TY EI,rWRONMENT 01TY OF PAL0 ALTO, CA
~. t.T f QLEr~F, S OFFICFTo befiled in duplicate within ~Ydays from the date of decision of hhe ~rec~or o~ ~
Plarming and Community Envirom-nent 02 sEP 30 PM 26
Address
Street
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel N~). £5-~5 ~ " ~ g -- O ~ O l Zone District
Street Address q~¢ ~e, T~’O-[
Name of Property Owner (if othdr than appellant)
Property Owner’s address (if other than appellant)City ZipStreet
The decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment dated
19 whereby the application of ..
(origin!l applicant)
for a
(parcel map/subdivision)
was .,- is hereby appealed for the reasons stated in the attached
(approved/denied)
letter (in duplicate).
Date ~’/";Yd/¢’ ~Signature of
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL:
Date Approved Denied
Remarks andlor Conditions:
CITY. COUNCIL DECISION:
Date Approved De~ed
Remarks and/or Conditions:
SUBMI;FTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED:
1.Plans (Applicant)~
2.Labels (Applicant)~
3.Appeal Application Forms ~
4.Letter O~J!-
5.Fee ~
By:"~
By:~, L.;
By.
September 30, 2002
Ms. Lisa Grote
Chief Planning Official
Ctiy of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue . ’
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Re: 945 Hutchinson Avenue, Palo Alto - Application No. 021-1R-42
Dear Lisa:
The purpose of this letter is to appeal the decision outlined in your letter dated September 19, 2002
regarding the subject Single Family Individual Review application. I hereby request that this matter be
heard by the City Council.
My reasons for the appeal are based on the fact that the decision is contrary to the intent of the City of
Palo Alto Planning Division’s Single Family Individual Review Guidelines dated November 2001..
The guidelines did not anticipate side yards facing backyards. Additional consideration should be given
for this type of situation. The proposed house can be redesigned so that the impact to the neighbors is
minimized with respect to privacy and solar issues, Specifically, the size of the first floor can be
expanded and the second floor reduced. While this would diminish the size of the backya~-d, the area of
the proposed backyard is extraordinarily large in relation to the size of the lot and other backyards in the
neighborhood.
Thank you for your attention to this.
Sincerely yours,
Anne K. Wilbur
790 HIGH STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301-2420 650-847-3800 FAX 650-328-8826
EMAIL: wilbur@Bviibur.com WEB SITE: www,rwiIbur.com