Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-30 City Council (3)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT APRIL 30, 2001 CMR:213:01 777 BRYANT STREET: APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S APPROVAL, AFTER REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD/HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD, OF AN APPLICATION BY SUMMERHILL HOMES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 30-UNIT, FOUR-STORY CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX, SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. ZONE DISTRICT: AMF. FILE NUMBER 00-ARB-111. 3 325 CHANNING AVENUE: APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S APPROVAL, AFTER REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD/HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD, OF AN APPLICATION BY SUMMERHILL HOMES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 36-UNIT, THREE-STORY CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX, SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. ZONE DISTRICT: AMF. FILE NUMBER 00-ARB-112. 300 HOMER AVENUE: APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’SAPPROVAL, AFTER REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD/HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD, OF AN APPLICATION BY SUMMERHILL HOMES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 10 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND 10 ACCESSORY UNITS, SURFACE PARKING AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. ZONE DISTRICT: DHS. FILE NUMBER 00-ARB- 113. CMR:213:01 Page 1 of 11 RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of the proposed project, subject to the following: 1. 777 Bryant Street: Allow a minor exception for building height of 48 feet where a maximum of 45 feet is allowed. Sustain the Director’s approval of the remainder of the building design. 2. 325 Channing Avenue: Deny the minor exception for intrusions into the north daylight plane and require reducing the dormer intrusions from 40 to 20 percent of the length of the building. Sustain the Director’s approval of the remainder of the building design, including the porches that extend into the Mews. 3:300 Homer Avenue: Deny the minor exception for intrusions of the main homes into the side daylight plane by reducing the intrusion of the dormers on the four of the main homes from 20 feet to 15 feet. Sustain the Director’s approval of the remaining exceptions for intrusions main homes into the front setback; for the main homes, accessory buildings and below-grade patios into the side yard setbacks; and for the exclusion of basement floor area, for purposes of calculating FAR, created by the below-grade patios of greater than 200 square feet. BACKGROUND At its meeting of April 2, 2001, the Council conducted a public hearing addressing the three appeals filed for the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision on the three SummerHill Homes projects located in the South of Forest Area (SOFA). The Director’s decision was made based on the review and recommendation of the combined Architectural Review Board/Historic Resources Board (ARB/HRB). Staffpresented to the Council the appellants’, issues in three areas of the development review for each project. The first two issues presented by the appellants addressed the combined ARB/HRB review process; and the conformance of the projects with the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan (CAP), the Comprehensive Plan, and the Development Agreement. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Council generally agreed that these two issues had been sufficiently addressed and that there was no basis for upholding the appeals for each project in that it would not affect the final design and development. The Council discussion on the third issue raised by the appellant focused on the exceptions and the potential, impact from granting development exceptions and the resulting effects on the public’s accessibility to space such as the future park. At the conclusion of the meeting, Council directed staff and the applicant to develop further analysis of the exceptions, including alternatives where appropriate that could eliminate the need for exceptions on all three projects. Council also requested additional information on any intrusions into public property and clarification of floor area for each project. The Council closed the public CMR:213:01 Page 2 of 11 hearing and continued the three appeals to allow for further review of the exceptions to the development standards in the SOFA CAP for the Attached Multiple Family (AMF) and Detached Single Family (DHS) zoning designations. DISCUSSION In response to Council’s direction, the applicant, SummerHill Homes, has developed alternative plans that eliminate all but one of the exceptions required for the three projects. The one exception for which an alternative was not developed is discussed under item number five for the project at 300 Homer Avenue. Staf.fhas reviewed the altemative designs and has evaluated the merits of each compared with the original proposal and the rationale for the original exceptions. 777 Bryant Street - Block A:30 Condominiums (Attachment A) The original proposal that was recommended by the ARB/HRB and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment required a minor exception for building height of 48 feet where a maximum of 45 feet is allowed by the AMF development standards. Staff supported this additional height for several reasons: 1) the minor increase in height provides the opportunity for a steeply pitched roof, rather than a flatter roof, which is more consistent with the architectural style of the building; 2) that portion of the roof that exceeds 45 feet is limited to 3 feet in vertical elevation and 15 percent of the entire roof structure and would only be partially visible from the ground at the public right-of-way; and 3) the project is otherwise consistent with the AMF development standards of the SOFA CAP. In the alternative plans, the applicant has reduced the pitch of the roof and lowered the podium of the building in order to remove the need for this exception. Staff has summarized the effects of the alternative as follows: Pro: The building height would be reduced by three feet. No exception would be required. Con: The pitch of the roof would be reduced from 5:12 to 3:12. The flatter pitch of the roof would compromise the Craftsman architectural styleof the building. The flatter pitched roof would only be needed on the gable ends in the middle of the building, thereby creating an unbalanced roof profile. Staff believes that a series of consistently pitched roofs presents a more coherent design that is superior to the alternative. Con." The alternative also would result in the building podium being lowered from 2 feet to about six inches. This would lower the elevation of the porches, minimize the amount of textured stone base surrounding the porches and reduce the visual interest provided by the elevated porches. The net effect would be a series of porches that are virtually at grade. Staff believes that a series of elevated porches with stone bases presents a more visually pleasing "face on the street" at the pedestrian level than the alternative design. CMR:213:01 Page 3 of 11 Effect on public property: Alternative plans do not address the effect of increased height on public property because the 3 foot increase in roof height does not intrude into any daylight plane and because that portion of the roof that exceeds 45 feet would not be visible from the sidewalk directly fronting the project. Portions of the higher roof would be minimally visible from the sidewalk across from the project and from of the public park. However, the 3 feet of additional height would not constitute a significant visual impact on the park and neighborhood and would not substantially affect the shadow pattern created by the building. Effect on Williams House Driveway: The alternative would not affect the Williams House driveway. The improvement to the driveway would not change as a result of the alternative. Effect onfloor area: The reduction in building height would not, in itself, affect the floor area of the building. However, the building will need to be reduced in size to meet City’s floor area restrictions. The original plans did not include two substantially covered walkways on the ground floor and two stairwells on the third floor in the calculation of floor area. The mechanical space on the fourth floor that is referred to by the appellants is actually an unenclosed portion of the roof that does not count towards floor area. Recommendation: The Council’s review of the development agreement on April 12, 2000 accepted that this project would include 4 fourth floor units. Staff recommends that the Council support the original design and the minor exception for building height. 325 Channing Avenue - Block:B 36 Condominiums (Attachment B) The original proposal that was approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment required a minor exception for intrusions into the north daylight plane (facing the park) for dormers and gable ends that intrude about 40 percent of the length of the building where a maximum of 20 percent is typically allowed. The ARB/HRB and staff supported this exception because the dormers serve to articulate the building mass and create the appearance of a series of individual residential buildings. In the altemative plans, the applicant has reduced the dormers and pulled the building back into the site to remove the need for this exception. The stepping stones leading from the rear patios to the park were a decorative enhancement to the design drawings and have been eliminated. There is no easement for the private development within the public park for either the proposed project or the alternative. There is an access point from the central courtyard of the condominiums to the park; however, there are no easements on the park to serve the residential units. The units along the park have their primary access through the interior courtyard and not the park. The alternative also illustrates the effect of removing the porches along the Mews. CMR:213:01 Page 4 of 11 The porches in the original plans intrude six feet into the Mews, as allowed by the DHS regulations. Staff has summarized the effects of the alternative as follows: Pro: The alternative would reduce the intrusion of the building into the daylight plane from about 40 percent to 20 percent of the length of the facade facing the park. Pulling back the building into the site would not affect the character of the building and would increase the setback to the park. As a result, no exception .would be required. Con: Reduction in widthofthe dormers facing the park would compromise the Craftsman style and the articulation of the building without substantially increasing the daylight for the park. A sun/shadow study demonstrated that a 40% intrusion would not have a negative effect on the park. Elimination of the patios in the Mews would reduce the residential "presence" and the interaction of public and private spaces (residents) along the Mews. Effect on public property: The building would still intrude into the daylight plane on the park side but would be within the 20 percent allowed in the DHS regulations. The alternative would slightly reduce the amount of shadow cast on the park due to the reduction in dormers and the pulling back of the building from the park. The altemative would not significantly affect the use of public property but would discourage residents from accessing the park through individual patios, and prevent access from individual units, if the City elected to construct a fence. The main park access would continue to be from a single entry at the north end of the courtyard. As with the original plans, each housing unit would be provided with a main entry from the courtyard. The project doesnot include an easement on the public park site for private~access. Effect onfloor area: The alternative would not, in itself, affect the floor area of the building. However, the building would need to be reduced in size to meet City’s floor area restrictions. The original plans did not include stairwells and elevator shafts on the second and fourth floors in the calculation of floor area. Recommendation: Staff recommends that.the Council support the altemative design and eliminate the minor exception for intrusion into the daylight plane. Staff’recommends that Council retain the porches facing the Mews. 300 Homer Avenue - Block B: 10 Two-Family Homes (Attachment C) The original proposal that was approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment required minor exceptions for front and side setback intrusions and daylight plane intrusions. The minor exceptions for setback and daylight plane intrusions resulted from specific direction from the ARB/HRB to create better siting of the houses and more private open space and maintain accessory units on all the lots; consistent with the development agreement. Staff believes that the intrusion into the front yard setback for these five units along the mews is justified for several reasons. CMR:213:01 Page 5 of 11 Unlike a typical street frontage, these homes would face onto the Mews which is a privately owned and maintained 40-foot-wide landscaped area with a public access easement. The design and layout of the Mews provides a pedestrian-oriented area of walkways, trees, lawn and landscaping that can better absorb the narrow front yard setback of the adjacent homes compared with a typical ten foot sidewalk/landscaped strip on a public street. The visual effect of the smaller setbacks would be reduced by the wider area and more extensive landscaping provided by the Mews. The smaller setbacks would be only partially visible from the nearest public street, as the homes are oriented perpendicular to Channing Avenue. There are no doors along this side and the area would be landscaped. Finally, the smaller front yard setbacks would not affect the light, air or privacy of any existing residential use and would enhance the usable open space areas to the rear of the proposed homes. In the alternative plans, the applicant has addressed each exception as follows: 1. Minor exception for front yard setbacks of five to 12 feet where a minimum of 15 feet is required along the mews. In the alternative plans, the applicant has straightened out the meander in the driveway and pulled back the homes to the 15-foot setback. This is the same configuration that was shown on the. previous plans prior to ARB/HRB direction to create more usable open space. This alternative would remove the need for the front yard setback exception. Staff has summarized the effects of the alternative as follows. Pro: The alternative would eliminate the intrusion of the main homes into the front yard setback. As a result, no exception would be required. Con: The altemative site layout provides only a minimal usable open space area in the rear yards. The ARB/HRB noted this as the greatest flaw of the original proposal and specifically requested that the applicant seek ways to open up the rear and side yard areas for greater private open space. Effect on the driveway area: The elimination of the meandering driveway would result in a straight "alley" .alignment of the driveway, and would eliminate the space provided for trees adjacent to the uncovered parking spaces on each lot. This would reduce the visual interest of the driveway by eliminating the variable setbacks of the accessory buildings. Effect on public property: The homes would be set back from the Mews as required in the DHS regulations. The alternative would only slightly reduce the amount of shadow cast on CMR:213:01 Page 6 of 11 the. Mews, because the houses are aligned along the south Mews boundary line. The alternative would not significantly affect the use of public property and would reduce the the use residents could make of their private backyards. An altemative design that was not presented by the applicant would entail reduction of the size of the main homes to provide additional open space in the rear yards. The homes, as proposed, are approximately 2,000 square feet with garages ranging from 412 to 476 square feet and studio units approximately 400 square feet. Because the main homes, as proposed, are a typical size for new houses in the area, are well designed and proportioned,, staff does not believe that an alternative which reduces square footage would result in a better site design. Recommendation: For these reasons, staff recommends that the Council support the original design and the minor exception for intrusion into the front yard setback. 2. Minor exception for intrusion of the accessory units on the lots along Channing Avenue into the street side yard setbacks resulting in a setback of 4.5 feet where a minimum of 10 feet is typically required. In the altemative plans, the applicant has reduced the size of the each accessory sturcture to a one-car garage so that intrusions into the street side yard setbacks are removed. This alternative required elimination of the studio unity and one covered parking space on each of the two lots. Staff has summarized the effects of the alternative as follows: Pro: The alternative would eliminate the intrusion of the accessory structures into the side yard setback facing Channing Avenue. As a result, no exception would be required. Con." The alternative site layout results in a loss of two of the studio residential units. Staff believes that the intrusion into the side yard setback for these two lots is justified in order to retain the two studio units on these two lots. Effect on public property: The accessory units would be removed from the sideyard setback as required in the DHS regulations. The alternative would slightly reduce the amount of shadow cast on .Channing Avenue. The alternative would not otherwise affect the use of public property. Effect on floor area: The altemative would require a reduction of the floor area of the main homes and accessory structures from .65 to .45 FAR. CMR:213:01 Page 7 of 11 Staff recommends that the Council support the original, design and the minor exception for intrusion into the side setback. 3. Exceptions for intrusion of the below-grade patios on all lots into the interior side yard setbacks resulting in no setback where a minimum of 4 feet is typically required. In the alternative plans, the applicant has shown two options: 1) reduce the sunken patios to .less than 200 square feet and eliminate the use easement for private open space with the adjoining property side yard, and 2) eliminate the sunken patios entirely and redesign them as light wells. Option 1 and 2 would remove the need for the exception. Staffhas summarized the effects of the altemative as follows.: Pro: Option 1 would eliminate the need for the use easements but would not require, an exception for the intrusion of the patio for 2 feet into the 6 foot sideyard setback. Option2 would eliminate the patios entirely and replace them with conforming lightwells. As a result, no exception would be required for Option 2. Con: Both options result in significantly smaller areas of usable outdoor open space. Option 1 would reduce usable patio areas from about 350-400 square feet to less than 200 square feet. Option 2 would eliminate the patio areas entirely. Both options would provide narrow (6 feet wide or less) at-grade sideyards. The patios would not be visible from any public area since they would be constructed below grade and provided with a privacy wall and landscaping at the front of the home. Also, the usable portion of the 350-400 square foot patios would only be about 200 square feet a~er patio landscaping and walls are deducted. Effect on public property: Neither option would affect the amount of shadow cast on the Mews, the public park or public streets and would not otherwise affect the use of public property. Effect onfloor area: Neither option would have an effect on the actual floor area of the main homes or accessory structures. However, the original plans would require an exception for excluding the floor area of the basement because the patios are larger than 200 square feet. Recommendation: For these reasons, staff recommends that the Council support the original design and the minor exception for intrusion of the below grade patios into the side setback and exclusion of the basement floor area, for purposes of calculating FAR. 4. Minor exception for intrusions into the side daylight plane for dormers on the main homes on four lots that intrude about 20 feet of the length of the building where a maximum of 15 feet is typically allowed. CMR:213:01 Page 8 of 11 In the alternative plans, the applicant has reduced the dormer intrusions to 15 feet. This alternative would remove the need for this exception. Staffhas summarized the effects of the altemative as follows: Pro: The alternative would reduce the intrusion of the dormers into the side daylight plane to that allowed by the DHS regulations. As a result, no exception would be required. The alternative would reduce the width of the second floor dormers by about five feet: This width would be consistent with the dormer width of the remaining six homes on the site but would remove a decernable articulation of style between the houses. The visual effect of reducing the dormers would be minimal. The smaller dormers would slightly improve the light, air or privacy of adjacent homes by reducing the intrusion into the side daylight plane. Con: The alternative would result in less variation in the size of thedormers among the ten homes. The light, air and privacy of existing homes would not be affected. Effect on public property: The smaller dormers would be partially visible from the Mews and nearest public streets, although the effect would be minimal as the homes are oriented perpendicular to Channing Avenue. The alternative would not significantly affect the shadows cast on the Mews or otherwise affect the use of public property. Effect onfloor area: The alternative would have.a negligible effect on floor area. Recommendation: For these reasons, staff recommends that the Council support the alternative design and eliminate the minor exception for intrusion of the main home dormers into the side daylight plane. 5. Minor exception for intrusions into the side daylight plane for accessory units that intrude about 10 to 22 feet of the length of the building where no intrusion is typically allowed. The applicant did not provide altemative plans for these intrusions because there is no apparant no method to eliminate this exception without sacrificing the studio units. Any attempt to push the accessory units back into the site would result in elimination of uncovered parking spaces, reduction of maneuverability in the driveway, elimination of some of the studio units or locating the accessory buildings on lots 5 and 10 closer to the public park. It is staff’s understanding that Council specifically requested accessory units on all of these lots to provide additional housing in the area. The development agreement also calls for accessory units on these lots. It should be noted that the DHS development standards are not clear on this issue. On one hand, the DHS regulations allow a zero side yard setback for accessory buildings. On the other hand, the daylight plane appears to apply to all "structures" on the site. It is not CMR:213:01 Page 9 of 11 physically possible to construct an accessory building with a second story apartment on or anywhere near the side property line without having portions of the second floor intrude into the side daylight plane. Without providing an exception of these intrusions, no accessory living units could be built on lots of this size (4,370 square feet). Recommendation: For these reasons, staff recommends that the Council support the original design and the minor exception for intrusion into the side daylight plane. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ~ environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared for the SOFA CAP including the project. The EIR was reviewed and certified by the City Council on March 27, 2000. The project, as currently proposed, has been ~eviewed in comparison with the project that was evaluated in the EIR and therefore, no subsequent environmental analysis is required. Copies of the EIR and the findings made by the City Council pursuant to CEQA (Resolution No. 7950) are available for the public review in the Planning Department on the Fifth Floor of City Hall. ATTACHMENTS Figure 1 - Location Map Attachment A - Block A (AMF) - Developer Alternatives (Council Members only) Attachment B - Block B (AMF) - Developer Alternatives (Council Members only) Attachment C - Block B (DHS) - Developer Alternatives (Council Members only) CMR:213:01 Page 10 of 11 iz~t~q~LUSARDI e~ ~,/~urr~nt Planning Manager ¯ DEPARTMENT HEAD: G. EDWARD GAWF Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANGER APPROVAL: Assistant City Manager Combine Architectural Review Board/Historic Resources Board Members(ARB/HRB) Appellant, Steve Reyna, 840 KiplingStreet, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Applicant, SummerHill Properties, Rick Wurlezelbacher, 777 California Avenue Palo Alto CA 94304 CMR:213:01 Page 11 of 11 Bryant St Ramona St North Blocks A & B - ARB/HRB Review Blocks D,E,F - DHS Director’s Review SOFA Key April 2001