The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0350.095City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER AGENDA DATE: July 17, 1m DEPARTMENT: Planning aDd Community E.vfronmeat CMR:350,\15 SUBJECT: 130 Parksid. Drive -Appeal of ZouiDg Administnol;,r Approval of Home 1m provemeDI Exception IIS-HlE-6, REQUEST This report addresse; an appeal of the Zocing Administrator's appro.'al of Home Improvement Exception 95-HIE-6 10 all<Jw • one-story addition 10 an existing oo.:-story single-family bouse, wl!iclI would result in 2,S40-squ.are-fuo( (42 percent) 101 coverage ,,1>ere 2,400 squan: feel (40 percent) is the maximum allowed, and would be localed 11 feel from the fioot property line where • 2O-fuo( setback is required and 6 feet from the side property line where an g..fuo( setback is required. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff and the Planning Oxnmission recommend that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator approval of the applkation. The Planning Commission further recommends that an additional coodition be added, which requires that the foundation inunedialely arl]a<:eot 10 the plum tree on the neighboring property be hand trenched 10 &\'oid damage to the tree. POl.1CY lMPLICAlJONS The proposed project complies with Policy I in 1he Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. which states that the City should: 'main/aiJI tlu! general """-density character of existing single-family areas'_ The addition does n<J( increase the intensity of use c< the number of units 00 1he site. It is coosistent with the existing fronI: setback for the garage and maintains the single-story beight limit Page I <Ii C •• J& -. , .';~ '" -.. -... ,-.. -.' -::----. '- '" -'-':-' .:-- The S!ngle·Family Residential Design Ouidelines encourage ~ m.inlenan.oe of existing orchite<:tural styIeo and general compliance ,.i!h prev&!ling setbacks in an area, The J>t0905ed addition is designed with 1M sa'ne architectural COO<Oepts as the existing Eichler bouse: fIaI roof; borizoo!al design orienIation, recessed enlI)'way and unbroken ceiling plane. The J>t0905ed setbacks are coosistent with the existing seth""ks on 1M subject site. as wen as with !be setbacks foo: aW"oxima!el)' five cd>eI houses on Parkskle Drlv~. EXECUTfVES!~ARY Table I SUIIlIIlMizes the required, existing. proposed and approved lot coverage and setbacks. Table 1 Rtqllired EIistiag Proposed ZoaiDg AdmiD&trator aDd PI.DallIl C<>mmilslea AppNVaI LOT COVERAGE 40% 38% 42"1. 4~'- (2,400 sq. ft.) (2,540 sq. ft.) (2.540 sq. ft.) FRONT SETBACK 20 feet 11 feet 11 feet I1fut SIDE SETBACK" 8 feet Heel 6 feet 6 feel • Seefion lB.20.02O(aX2) oCthe P&!o Alto Municipal COOe (pAMC) allows. one-time extension of a nonconfunning interior side setback if the extension does DO! exceed 20 feet in length. The only ponio.., of the skIe waD that requires an HIE in the subject applkation is !he 3-foot portion !hat eJ<1end; into the front setback. Summary of Planning Commission Hearing: The Planning Commission beard the appeal oflhls item on June 28. 1995. Meeting minutes are included in !he July J 7. J 995 packet be City Council information. The appellant spoke against \he HIE granted by \he Zoning Administrator. because sbe believes that the a&litioo wiil cause harm 10 an existing mature tree on her property. She staled that she was unable 10 ob!aln an atborist'. written opWon prior to the PIanni.'lg Commission hearing verifying her IlSserUon, but that she would have ooe to present 10 the CMR~ ·' • .r,. \~~' city Council. She also staled that she consulled with a la"yer aOOo1 the legal r"'luL ... ments of approving I ,'IOrian« and provided copies ofth<: material she had obtained 10 th<: Planning C<>mmissioo. It sbouId be noIed,bowevet, thai th<: applicant is 001 applying for a variana. The applicant ;, applying kr an HIE. which has di fferent fin<fmgs end is 001 S>Jbje..'! 10 th<: same re<jUirements as a ,'8f.ancc application. The appenant also slated Ihat the addition would reduco th<: amount ofprivacy and sunlight in lIer side yard and could reduce the value oflIer bouse. She fill1bel stated that the addition coold be buill witboul any exceptio"" 10 th<: zoning requirements, and !hat th<: awUcants should abide by the rules. She also referenced her letter of appeal, wh . .'eh is attached 10 th<: Planning CoounissWn staff report attached 10 this Cit} Manager's Report. The oppIicants spoke in favo< of their applica.tk>o and the Zonlnll ... dministrator'. decision. They referen<;ed the arborisr, letter tb<:y bd ob!ai.ned stating that the addition would 001 harm th<: Iree on the adjacent property. They also referen<:ed the solar access studY conducted by their architect sbov.ing thai the impact on the neighboring property would be minimal during the entire year. They poi.nted out that th<: addition would face • portloo of the appellant. bouse 00 whkh there are no windows and that the windows in the addition would be obscured by the existing feoce between th<: two properties. Therefure, privacy on tlJe appellant'. property would OO! be reduced. The applicant also pointed out thai tlJe Green M.adow Neighborbood As;ociation supported the HIE application. The project archil"",! used • three dimensional, scaled model 10 show the relotionshi? between the 8WJicanr. house. with th<: additioo. 10 the neighboring bouse and discus.o;ed th<: architectural prin<:iples she used MIen designing the addition 10 this E;':l.ler bouse. She discussed bow !he minor modifications 10 setbacb and lot coverage result in • better design whkh is more consistent with th<: original style ofth<: bouse. Seven additional speakers voiced support lOr !he HIE application and !he beI.:ef thai the addition was sensitively designed and would be an asset 10 the neighlxxbood .. well as !he boose. lhere was consensus OIl the Commission that the HIE request was reasonable and exemplified the type ofproject for y,hlch the IllE process sboold be used. The Commissioo stated !bat the area in questiaII was hasicaOy enclosed DOW, since it wa, surrounded by fences and the existing boose and !hat imj>etVlous surface would not be increased since !he area is already • ?Bved patio. The Coounissioo was im?""sed by the amount of neighborhood outreach !he applicants had cooducted and the high quality design of the addition. After discussion of the thn:e HIE findings as outrmed in !he Planning C<>mmission staff report., the Commission moved 10 support the Zoning Administrator's approval, with an additional conditioo requiring !hat the foundation sban be dug by hand fOr th<: portion of the addition directly ~acent 10 !he tree 00 the neighbor's property. .,..loU .' -." , " ' ..... -=:.~ -,-" .... nSCAL IMPACT ~ is no t!scal inJ?act to the City of Palo Alto from either approval ()( deniaJ of the aweal ENVIRONMENTAL A:§FSSME.~ The pr()~ is cxempr from remw under Il:e California Environmental Quality Act, under SecDoo 15301 [Clas. 1 (e)1 of the State CEQA Gmdelme.. ATTACHMENTS 1) Planning Commission staff repcri, ~ SUM 28, 1995, with 10 attachments 2) Additional infi:lrmation submiaed at JIUle 28, 1995 Planning Commission bearing 3) Request by AppeUant f<l< continuance of Planning Commission healillg, daled 1Wle 27. 1995 4) Response by App'"JC8lI! to request f<l< rontinuance of Planning Ccmmission bearing, dated June 28, 1995 S) P'.ans (City CouOOl Members only) PREP ARE.D BY: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrato< DEPARTMENT HEADREVlEW: ~~~ KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Dirccl<>r of Planning and C-<>mmunity Environment OTY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~ tK.~. BERNARDM STRO ' Assistant City Manager cc: Karen Cullen Marcinik, 4046 Ben Lomond Drive, Palo Alto CA 94306 Gabriel and Edith Groner, 230 Parkside Drive, Palo Aha CA 94306 PlIyllis Hiltoo. 220 Parbide Drive, P .. to Alto CA 94306 Mark Christine, 202 Parbide Drive, Palo Alto CA 94306 o,arks Rundell, 231 Parb;de Drive, Palo Alto CA 94306 --;/' ---.'"'"-'" . • !II '" .. ",.- . ~ - G Attacbment , PLM'NING COMMISSION _______ .... ___ .... __ .... ;4_W.~~=_ TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Planning AGENDA DATE: June 28, 1995 DEPARTMENT: SUBJECT: 230 Pukl;ide Drive -Appeal of Zoning AdmlnisttalO!: app<ova\ 0{ Home Improvemelll Excep600 9S-HIE~. ~MMENDAnoN Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator app<oval 0( an Home ImproVemeDl EJtcq>tion (HIE) 10 allow a one-story addi!ioo. 10 an existIng one-5!<lry single-family house, which would result in 2,540 square feet (42%) 10( coverage, where 2,400 square feet (40%) is the maximum aIJowal, and would be located 11 reel from the frool property line where. 2Q.foot seili<Ick is required and 6 feet from the side property !inc wbere an t foot setba<:k is required. BACKGROUND Tbe subject site is a tlal. 6,000 square foot (60 feet I iOO feet) 10( located on the southeast side of Parkside Drive toward the sooth end 0( the street, close 10 the curve in the road. It is located in the Greenmeado", neighborhood and is zoned R- 1 (743Xs), which restricts houses 10 17 feet in beigbr and ODe babitable floor. Tbe maximum 10( CO'Ierage allowed is 40% rather than the 35 % aIJowal in typical single family districts. Tbe minimum Io! size is 8,000 square feet rather than the 6,000 square feet ~ in I staDdard R-l d"lStrK:t. ",~1.G 6-23-95 Page I -.. Proiec! Description Original Application: The applicant applied for • Home improvement E.ception (HIE) for • 450 square foot single-sI<l!y addition 10 !he existing house on January 25, 1995. The addition would enclose an existing patio area at the front of the house, which is located behlnd an 8- foot high fence. The addition would extend 3 ~ into the required 20 foot front sedlack and two feet lnto !he required S-foot side setback. The new square footage would result in 2,540 square feet (42%) 101 coverage .. 'here 2,400 square feet (40%) is the maxinlum allowed (see Attachment I -Letter hom K.C. Marcinik dated January- 11, 1995). Zoning Administ:ralo< Approval: The Zoning AdIninistntor granted the IDE as requested by the applkant (see Attacbmem 2 -Zoning AcimlnisIIator decision for 9S-IDE-6 dated Aprii 20, 1995). The rationale for deciding in favor of the application vas that Ihe site is 2,00.:> square feet smaller thall the requi.-ed 8,OOO-square-foot minimum for the district and 600 square feet $IlI3l1er 1I)an S1lITOUfKIip.g parcels, the addition is architecturaIly rompatibje with the originaI design of the bouse and neighborhood, and il Nould oct be det:rimeniaI !O the surrounding vicinity _ lhe Zoning Administrator tind'mgs are discussed in detail in the rssues! Analysis section of this report. Appeal: As appeal was filed on April 27,1995 (see Attachment 3 -l",nero( Appeal from Phy~ Hiltoo dated April 27, 1995)_ The appeal is based on the assertions that: I} the small size of the subject site, in relation 10 district requirements and surrounding sites. does nqt create an extraordinary or exceptional circumstance; 2) the addition would not he architecturally compatible with the existlng Eichler design; 3) !he addition will cause damage \0 an existlng mature tree on the adjacent property; and 4) !he addition will extend beyond !he adjacent property owner's front fence. which will look awkward and unappealing. These issues ..re discussed in detail in the Issues! Analysis section of this report. Table l summarizes the required and existlng setback and lot coverage, the app!icant's HIE request and the Zoning Administrator', approval. P:~t.G 6-28-95 Page 2 : .. - Table 1 I ' . Required Edsling . , '.' . '.' WTCOVERAGE 4Q% JS% {2,4m sq fi} FRONT SETBACK 20' 17' SIDE SETBACK" S' 6' Proposed 42% {2,54O sq ftl 17' 6' Zoning .~ .\~: .. -;.: ~~ .'- Administrator's Approval 42% (12,540 sq ft) 17' 6' " Section 18.20.020(a)(2) of the Palo Alto MUllicipal Code (pAMC) allows a one-time • .:tension of a oonconforming interior side se!back if the e.tension <Joe. not exceed 20 feet in !e~.Tbe ooIy portion of the side wall that re<jUires an HIE in the subject appIicafion is the 3-fnot portion that exrends into the front setback. Table 2 sumroMizes !be pertinent infunnation reganflDg the sire. Table 2 Gabriel and EOIth Groner Appellant: Phyllis Hilton Owner: Karen Culkll Marcinik Comprebensive Plan OesigEatioo: Single-Family Residential R-I(743XS) Existing Land Use: One Single-Family Residence 6-2&-95 Pilge 3 •• ' +. '.' ,> •• -".~ ~ -, Surrounding Land Use<: Parcel Size: POUC¥ IMPLICATIONS :::- No!1h: East: South: West: . :- Single-Family Residential Same Same Same 6,000 square feet (60 feel " tOO feet) The proposed project complies with P"licy I in the Housing Elemenl 0{ the existing Comprehensive Plan, which SUIts that the City should: "mainllJifl "'" geMral /ow deMly doJrlJCter oj aisling siJIg/.t-jamJ1y areas". The additioo does not increase the inlensily 0{ use or the number 0{ units on the site. It is coosistenl "'ith the existing fro!!! setback for the garage and lIllIinIains the single-story heigh! limit. In addition \0 the existing Comprehensive Plan, the Single-Family Residential D.'5ign Guidelines encourage the maintenance of existing arcbi1ectural styles and general compliance with prevailing se!backs in an area. The proposed addition is designed with the same archi~turaJ roocepts as the existing Eichler house: flat root, horizontal desigl> orientation, recessed entryway a!>d Imbrol::en ceiling plane. The proposed setbacks are coosL<te1ll with the existing setbacks on the subject site as wen as ","iIh the setbacks for approximately five odier houses 011 Padside Drive. DISCUSSION Issues an;! Analysis Six basic issues have been raised with this application: the lOur issues listed above as pa."l of the appeal and n'o al the Zoning Administrato< hearing regarding wbether or not approval of the application would result in overcrowding of the site a!>d neighborhood, a!>d the belief that an regulatioos sbould be enforced al an times regardless 0{ specific circumstanees in particular cases. Eacb of the issues is discussed below witbln the context of the three fin<fmgs that must be m.We 10 aW'ove • Home Improvement Exception. 6-28-95 Page 4 .. FtodiDg Number J: TIler. are exceptional or extraordinary circums;ances or cooditioos applicable 10 !he property involved tr.at do not apply generally", property in !he same district. The Zoning Administrator found that !he excep!ional circumstanees 011 this parcel are tbal it is SIIlaI1er !han the minimum requirement in the district (6,000 square reet rather than 8,000 square feet) and sm.alJer tban adjaCCGlIots (6,000 square feet rather than 6,600 square feet) and could not accommodate I house of similar size 10 the neighboring properties without exceeding the lot coverage requiremenL Ad<fi1iooal evidence entered into !he record by \he applicant and cons\dered by !he Zoning Administrator, includes: I) when !he Greenmeadow tract was originally developed by 10sepb Eichler in !he 19505, individual lot sizes were reduced s(jgb!ly 10 a«(VD""'<!ate a CO<IlIIlIlIlity anter. This is an exceptiooa.l circumstance that rewJts in . many of the lots "".thin !he uact heing 'lIll.aller !ban they would bave odlerwise been; and 2) the Greenmeadow Il'3Ct is subject 10 a ooe-<!Ory (11 foo( height limit), ,,"'hich means that any addition will increase lot coverage since second stone. canno( he built. The appellant disagrees with !he Zocing Administrator's first finding and slates thaI smaller lot size is DO( an excep!ional condition and that if OVo1lCl'S of small lots are allowed 10 buikI as much square footage as owners of larger lots, floor area ratios (PARs) on the smaJllots could increase up 10 90%, It sboold be !IO!ed thaI !he applicant is DO( requesting a higher FAR than allowed by the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The size 0( the house complies with FAR requirements. The subjects 0( the HIE are the Iocarion and coverage of the permitted flooc area, The majority of !he bouses in the neighborilood are of SimilllI sile design and floor plan as the subject house, Neither !he location nor !he proposed square footage fO£ !he subject house are out of cbaracter with !he surrounding area, Finding Numher 2: The granting of !he applicarion is desirable fO£ the preservation of on e.x.ting archilfC!Ura! style or neighborhood character, which would DO( be accomplished Ihroogh !he strl« appllc3tlon of this cbapter. The Zoning Administrator found thaI !he existing architectural integrlly of !he house would be maintained by !he application, which is • primary reason for granting HIEs, The minor 3-foo( intrUSion into the 2O-t')()( front .. tback would align the new front waD eX the house with the existing wall eX the garage and would extend !he horizontal otienlation eX !he house across !he frOO! facade. The ceiling height in the new baIlway would match !he ceiling height in the existing living room and would create an UIlbroken plane extend'mg back 10 the existing glass wall in the living room, P \PC!a,92flEi6,V ,LG \ '. 6-28-95 Page 5 ~-' ,. -." ' i , I , .: . -,- The minor 2-foot intrusion into !be required 8-foot side setback would allow !be eltisting side waIl plane 10 be COIlIiIvred foe !he fuillength of !he waIl, Maln!aining the required 8-foot side setback would create a 2-foot jog in the ",aU, which would diorupt!he architectural Slyle of the original OOu.<:e, It sOOuld be noted tmd the portion of !he sidewall that requires an HIE is the 3-fOO( intrusion that extends into !he front setbacIc. The majority of the sidewall extension is permitted by Section 18.12.()80(a)(2) of !he FAMe. That section of the Code allo"",. one-time extension of an existing llOOCOIlformlng infenor side setback for • length DOt 10 exceed 20 feet. The only portion of !be maximum 2O-fOO( length that requires an HIE in the subject applic.ation is that portion of !be side waU that extends into !he frOtll setback since the front setback was previously ronforming. The appellant disagrees with the Zoning Aclministralor-s second ftndh~g and states that almost all of the Eichler bouse. on this street were designed witll 8-foot ceilings at the street that grnduruIy rose 10 10 feet over the living room at the back of the bouse. She further states that if the original design did include • 100foot high ceiling at the street frontage, it would gradually slope 10 8 feet III !be sides S(} that neigJl!>ors !louses would no! be shaded and the boose would not i0oi:: oversized for the lot. Observation of the neighborbond reveals that there are in fact several homes on Parkside Drive and Scripps Avenue that have flat 100fOO( high roofs along the street side elevaDon that do not slope 10 8 feet at the side property lines, There does not appear 10 be COOlplere unifo<rniIy in the original Eichler plans regarding ceiling and roof height. Boll! Io-foot and 8-fOO( high ceilings are in keeping with the original architectural Slyle of the stn.'C!Ures. Neither 10-()( 8-foot high ceilings, wbether located at the side ()( from of !be boose, substantia!Jy shade neighboring properties or appear oversized for the sites. The applicant'. proposal is visually consistem with surrounding houses and does not overcrowd the site. FInding Number 3: The granting of the .pplicallon will not be detrimental 0< injurious 10 property or imp<ovements in the vicinity. The Zoning Administrator found that the addition would not be &!trimental 10 property in the vicinity because it would not encroach further into the frOtll setback than the existing boose and would not violate the daylight plane ()( significantly impact the amount of sunlight available 10 the adjacent parcel. All other developmem requirements sud. as the floor area rallo, beight, rear setback and parking would be met. The addition would maintain the architectural style of the existing house and neighborbond and w",JId not increase the intensity of the use on the sr..,. 6-28-95 Page 6 i' _ • . ,~ .- " ' The appellanl d;sagrees with ;his finding and states !:bat: ber bouse is located 10 !he north of the appIicam's property; the plum tree in her side yard will be damaged by an addItion located wilhin sa. feet of the property li!le; and the addition will reduce the amocnt of surJight available 10 the !ree. As the appllcanl poinJs out in his response 10 the appenant's Jetter, the appellant's Ilouse is on the southwest side, not the north side, of the applicant's property. The project archilecl has submitted sun and sbadow drawings io< March 21 and December 21, the longest and sborlest days of the year, respectively, which show that the shadow from the addition will cover an insignificant portion of the appellant's property OIl March 21 and 00 part of ber property on December 1 (see AttacbmeD! 6). All empirlca! observation of the sun's path of travel conducted by the applicant in May clescnl>es the sbadows cas! by the existing bouse. The shadow covered the fence between the two properties, but did not reach 10 the p~.un tree. The loWer portion of the tree was in the fence sbaOOw. while all the tree leaves remained in full sunIigbl.. By the end of the day. the shadow from the applicant's ~ was oriented away from the plum tree and the sbadow from the appellant's bouse rovered the bottom few feet of the plum tree. The attached Jetter from • certified a.'boIist further verifies that buikling an addition within sa. feet 0( the property line will not cause damage 10 the existing plum tree In the appellant'S side yard (see AttachmeD11). In summary. staff finds that the proposal provides an addition that is visually and styrlSlically compatible with the neighborhood while it also responds 10 a parcel thaI is smaller tban S1lmlIl1>di<lg parcels. The HIE process is intended to provide relief from zoning requirements so that the integrily 0( 3D existing design concept or !leighborbood character can be SUS!alned. The proposed addition meets that inteoL Pub!lc Pan;cipatioo AI. the April 20, 1995 Zoning Admlnistralor Hearing. 7 people spoke or submitted Je!Iers in support of the applicarion. Additionally, 22 people signed • peOOon ;" favor of the application. The letters and pe!iOOn are attached 10 this report for the Planning Commission', information (see Attaehment 8 -Letters in Support). The Ietwrs and petiIion reference the compatibility 0( the addition with the original structure and the positive contribution the addition will make 10 the neighborhood. 6-28-95 Page 1 • Two pe<>ple spoli;e and submitted letters in <>pp<lSioon 10 the aw!ication (see A!taCIunenI: 9 -Letten in Opposition). Both. letters reference the incompattbility of the addition with the existing bouse and neighbodlood and the belief that an encroacbment into the side setback will damage the adjacent ""'ltir. trees and iliat an encroachment into the frOll! setback will CGntrioote 10 the overcrowding of the site and neighborhood . Twelve add"1tional letters in support of the application have been received since the Zoning Administrator bearing (see Attacbment 10 -Additional Letters in Support). The additional Jeners all state !hat the addition is weil-designed and would be • "",itive cOIlttiootion 10 the neigbborhood. ALTERNA1JVES The Planning Commission can recommend that the City Council: 1) Deny the appeal and upbold the Zoning Administrator awroval; 2) Deny !he appeal and approve a modified variance for Jot coverage and iDtrusion in !he frOD! and side setbacks for which findings can be made; or 3) Grant the appeal. FL.<;CM, IMPACT There is no fiscal impact 10 !he City of Palo Alto from any of the alternatives. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSF.<iSMENT The project is exempt from revM:w under the California Environmental QuarIty Act, under.Section 15301 (Class I(e») of the Slate CEQA Ouide[mes. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Proceed 10 !be City Council 011 July 11, 1995 for final acoon on the appeal. 6-28-95 Page 8 -, "':, . . ," .,.:~:<:, ..... • . '.-, AUACHMENTSIEXHIBIT: I) Application !e!ler from Karen CnlIen Marcinik daled January II, 1995 2) Zoning Administrator ~ision dated April 20, 1995 3) u!lerof Appeal from Phyllis Hillon. dated Ap.-il27, 1995 4) l.<:aer of Rebuttal from Mr. and Mrs. Groner, dated June 1, 1995 ( .. illl 6 attachmelllS) 5) Minutes from !he April 6, 1995 Zoning AdministIator Hearing 6} Sun Shadow Study p<O'iided by the applicant 7) Lel!er from Certifie<! Arborist 8) Letters in Support of the HIE (/ letters, 1 petition) 9) UtterS in Opposition 10 !be HIE (2 ~!lers) 10} Adcfnional utters of Support (ll letten) 9} Plans [Commission member> ool"j] COL'RITS¥ COPIES: Karen CDIlen Marcinik, 4046 Ben Lomond Dri.e, Palo Alto CA 94306 Gabciel and Edith Groner, 230 Parlcsi& Drive, Palo Alto CA 94306 . Phyllis HiItoo, 2l<) Parkside Drive, Palo Alto CA 94306 Mark Christine, 202 Parkside Drive, 1'.10 Alto CA 94306 Charles Rundell. 231 Parkside Drive, Palo Alto CA 94306 Prepued by: Usa Grote. Zoning Administrator Project Planner: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator DivlsioolDepartmem Head Approval:Na!!CV M. Lytle. Chjef P1annin~ Official 6-28-95 Page 9 ", 'L '. ---~' J __ ._ ATTACHMENT 1 • • • • • • I • , " • " , t • .. ac ••• e:cr. _.Il •• I ...... I~ " .. I.lIltl .• ' ........... , •••• Zoning Mmiroislralot ~ Oepar\IIIenl ()/ Planning aOO Comf!\\l<l!1y Environment RECEIVED JAN 25 1995 Filth Floor • Palo Ano City Hal! 250 Hamlllon AvMJe Palo Mo, CA, 94301. 11 Jan\Iar'i ~ 995 Re: Home 1mprov8~1IIlI Exc:eption for Mr. and Mrs. Groner, 230 ParI<slde Drive. Dear Zoning MminiSlTalor; On behelI ol my c!ienIs, Mr. ard lArs. Gronei', I ..auld like 10 requesl coosiderafoon ol a Home II!'f)f0000ert El<ceptioc\. lAy cfMml$ wOlJld til<e to en<:1ose an exisfll19 COIIered walkway and coocre!e pa!io 10 !Idd space for a Home Office and Guest BaIIlroom. 8o!h ollhe Owne<s reQUIre office space ., !he home; ~ !he existing covered enIryWay wftI provide accesS 10 the rw!w room aOO a[so create a beIIer connectioo belween lhe,8lCisIing Family Room and !he reS! 01 !he hou$e. Presently Ihe Family Room is $Om8'llhal isoIaIed. The fronI ollhe exisIing lIItached garage (original 10 !he house) is 22 feel 110m !he near edge at !he slcIewail< and extends 3 leel no !he frOl1 setback. We propose 10 afogn Ihe fronI at !he ~ wiih \he fronI of \he garage, buikflfl!llhe addition in !he Ioo!pmI 01 the exisfng paflO now enclosed by a 6-foot Ngh fence, This requires an ex.ca¢o<\ as Ihe enrlt. frOl1 ~ 01 \he house WOUld Ihen mend 3 fee! rio !he 1r0l1 setback. _ The exisliog lot coverage or the house and covered walkway is 2251 SQ<lare reet 011 a 6000 square fool lot : 38%. The aMotion or 26S square !eel. wll increase lot coverage 10 2516 SQ<l81e leet : 42%. .. 1licI\ .. ill arso require an exception. (The ho<Jse is n a $WIgle &lIllY-OV8ffay zone .. hich i"ocreases !he allowable 3S% lot coverage 10 40%.) The bouse is ex~ in that adiacenillooses are 011 6600 SQUare fool lois. The • , serne addltion 10 Ihe neighboring !'louses would be wnhin tile 40% lot coverage . • ArchfteeturaJly, !he Owners are very inlereSled in maintaining !he character 01 !heir Eichler house. Aligning !he acIdltion with !he !rOIl! ollhe garage will alto .. us 10 carry IICfQSS an existing hOOzontal design eiemlllll. K1!egraling new aOO old. The new . erdlYWay wiI be r_td belweeo !he two wio"lgs; this coocep! is seen in severa! 01 \he 0Iher Eichlar mOOeIs ., !he ne'igllbomood. The ceiling 01 \he new Hall is eI tc;Y 10 align .. ith !he exisftng LMi'lg Room ceirtng $0 lIlalllom !he flM door !here .. II be an ·urorol<en ce/IIng plane back 10 !he 10' high glass waf ., !he l.Mng Room (as !here is Pfesenlly). The lafter cetTtng in l/1e ne .. Olflce will &ITow lor c:!eresto<y windows 10 let il J • light willie maintaining privacy from \l)e street. The pr~ addiIiondoeG no! eXceeclIhe FNtOf 2550 squar.feet l!\ll$lI'le same • fooIpikI as Ihe 8JCi6Iing fenced patio and covered walkway. A similar. addiIion .. • r~ compItted at 260 p~ OrJvs; 2Il8 and :i!9O Perf<$icIe 0rMI also ~ a· similar ~ as \hi$ house ilclucIing Ihe propo$8d adCli!ion although !heir enI1Y wabays are no! fuIIy~. just roofed. For Ihese reasons, W9 fee! INS !OIuIion *lislie81he Owners' requiremenls withouI deltimenlal impa(;t 10 !he lmm~e nei{/IIbofIIood. ThanK you for you" consideraflOfl. PIeasG call , yoU have any questions or need additional WO!<IIBlion. 415-856-9659 • • t '':':~'''.:'::': '? ': -;; : -' ".-_"_ r • ' ."'. -,>" ' . • "--.-.".- Appfocafun No. 9S-HIE-6: 230 Parksirlc Drive Home Improvement Excq>tlon 9S-HIE-6 is approved for the location and eoostruction c( • 450 square foot, .ingle·S1D<J addition 10 an existing one-slOr) single-family bouse. The addition would result in 2,S40 square feet (4a) c( lot coverage. ",ten: 2,400 square feet (40$) is OIhen>'ise the maximum allowed. The addition would be located 11 feet from !be !roD! property line ",bere I 20 foot selba<:k is required and 6 feet from the side property line 1IIbere an 8 1001 se!bact is required, as per attacbed plans, at 230 Parkside Drive, R-I(743)(S) Zone DiMrict. Pol" Alto. Californi2. Proj<ct appr<ml is based on the following findioS' and is subject to the coDditions lisred belo..-. FlND!NGS: I. There are exceptiooal ()[ e<lraO<dinary c ircumstallces or ccnditions apprlCable 10 the property involved IIIal do DO! appl~ generaJly to property in the same olStrict in tl1ai lIlis lot is smaller than .djacellt lots (6,OOO square feet instead 0( 6,600 square fee.) and canoo! acccnnmodate an equal amooDl 0( square foo<a&e as adi"""nt lots ",ithout e"ceding the maximum allowed lot coverage; 2. The granli1lg 0( the application is desirable for the preservation c( an .. isting archlteclUnll style or neighborhood char""",r. 1IIhich .. 'OUld not ochetwlse he ac:complW>ed 1l>rougll the strict application 0( \his chapter in IIIal !be architoctural integrily 0( !l;e original Eichler boo", and SUlTOIlndIng Eichler neigllborhood ",ill .. main inlllet. The addition ",m .Iig .. wilb the existing garage, lIIh ick projects ;!>ree fee. into Lie front setback, and win a!Jow !he existing borizontal orientation 0( the bouse 10 he carried across the !root facade. The ceiling c( the new hallway will a1ig" wi!h the existing living room ceiling an<! will create an unbrok •• ceiling plane .xtending bock to the existing glass wall in the J:'Ving room. The ceiling beigllt in the new o(fice will ailow for cl<feStory ",indo,.., 10 let in Iigllt while maintainlng privacy from !he street. The minor two foot encroachment into the side yard is needed to continue Ill: plane 0( tile e<isting side wall. Breaking !he existi"g plane by placing the side wall an lkd.rrtiooal tw., feel b.d; {rem the side prcperty fIDe would OlSrupt lb. architeclUnll styl< c( the orig ina! boose; an<! 95HlE6.1g ,::-"--~--~----;-.: .. WHarnih:Yl"-\~ P_O.hlCCSO N,,~,CA9-Lm ..n.;;' .. ~.24-0 .u.:;. :t!Q.2:::.fI:iFa'\ --..., ,,' , :.-."- Apr~ 20, 1995 Page I : ... l, The granting 0( Ille appncatioa ",ill not be detrimental vr injurious to property 0< improveme ato in Il!e vicinity in that the addition will not encroach funber inlo the front selback than the existing boose and wiD DO( violate the daylight plane or signifocantly impact the amou nt 0( sunlight available 10 !be aaJaCenl parcel. An other zoolng requ iremeato such as floor area ntio, beight. rear ..,lback and parking have been met. The addition will maintain the architectural style 0( Ibe existing house and oeighborhood and will DC! substantively increase the inte", tty of the use on the site. COND!TlQNS: ( - .~.-::-..~,~.;' . I. The proje..'1 shall be eonstructed in substantW comprlllllCe ,,'ith !be approved plans, received January 15, 1995, on me m !he offICe 0( rhe Planning Department. USA GROTE Zoning AdminlstrlilOr Apdl 20, 1995 This ~ does not constitute !he Home Improvement bcepfu. ~ whie. app Tieafun ..... made. If the apprJCation is approved and if DO appeal from Ibis decision is filed by any person, flnll, 0< coq>Ofl!-Don afiecled by the dec ision on 0< by M.ty I, 1995, you ,,'ill receive. copy 0( your bome improvement exception in the man. If Ibis appflCation is not decided 10 yO\lr satisfaction. the decision may be ~ 10 the PJanning Commission by filing a "'rittea appeal with the Planning Department and City CIeri on 0< be~e Ibe aro. .. -mentioned date. cc: Joseph M. Colonna, Planner Kates Cune. Marcinlk, 4046 Be. Lomond Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Gabriel and Edith Groner, 230 Parhide Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 PI1ynis Hilton. 220 Parbide Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Mark Christine, 202 Parkside Drive, Palo Alto. CA 94306 . CIIarles Rundell. 231 Parkside Drive, PalGAIto CA 94306 95HIE6Jg Apr~ 20. 1995 Page 2 : ", / ---:; ..... 0 ,>- ,.-;) ATIACHMENT 3 '"" City of Palo Zoning Administralo< and Honorable 01y Council Mambers City of Palo M<>. Caf~ SS/.Pil21 Pill:'~ 250 Hamihorl Ave. Palo Mo Ca. Dear Madam Adminislra!()( and City Council Members: I wish 10 appeallhe clacisiOl1 011/;8 Zoning Admi:i alo< in 1.JIo!lling 1he Exception 10 Palo AIIo zoning guidefines for 1Ile proposed Ho mprovemElnl reoquesl al 230 Parl<slde Or.( This is 95-H1E~ and aIIow~ Vle oon of a 450 sq !I single SlDry ed<frtiOn " an e>is1ing one SIo!) single family house for 1I1e cooslTUC1ion of an o1flce for buSinessi use. The ed<f~ion would resul! in 42% 101 cove<age where 40% is IIIe maxilTMJrn allowed. The addition would be 17 It from 1Ile Iron! property for 1Ile tuft Ieng1h 01 Ole hoUse ""'ere a 20 IcioI se'lback is requirt'd in Ln R·t (743)(S} zone dfs!tid and Ihe Palo AIIo Zoning Guideboolc stales 1fIaI a ho<izon!al extension 01 toni yard erlC:'oachme!1l Is fim~ad 10 1/2 the tI\dII! of the existing houee J am appealing 1he flndings of Ole Zoolng commission because: The Handbook stales !han Excep600 needs 10 be supported wilh evidence flal: I. 11>e prope!ty Ax which I1e exception is req<J6$red is unIqUe, or "Bfe is something extracrrlinary about "e improvements on I1e property. I. I C!o noI feel fla: fie reason 1Ile zoning c:ommlsslon gave for eXlraordlnaJ)' circ:umslances is .,fad wile! Ole HandbooI< ()( law intended. The Zoning CorrwJssion claims 1fIaI1Ile reeson for tie exceplion is 1hal1lle Grone<'s 101 is smaner 1I1an olher lois so they should be allowed Ie build as large a hou:se as someone w1ll1 a larger lot W "is were accepted as a precedent in Palo Alia • anyone could cover any amoonI of II1eir land up 10 90% FAR using Ihe ralional flal a nejghbof had a large boose and lhey shou!d be able 10 have an equal size house on lheir smaner piece of property. 2. The Zoning ComTJSSion in fleir second paragraph of findings states flat fie size of . Ihe proposecl oons1rUCIion is necessiIa!ed by 1Ile archi!eclural style in VIe neighbortIood. They claim fIal !he proposed adOmion needs 10 be anigned wi1l1 Ihe present line of 1Ile garage and connected by a covered hallway{ where an open ennnce area IIOW exists) 10 1I1e fronI Q\Oing room which is 10Ft high. They claim Ills is consi$1en( wi1h Eichler design. I very much disagree w1tI1 Ills idea. One of !he main feaJures of Eichle< design was t> construct hou ses which were large l>oI cf+d not appear overfy large for Vle 101 when viewed from !he tOI1t street AllIIIe Eichler homes in this neig/1boIfIood had 8 II ceilings on 1Ile street side buI had 10 • cemngs in !he back of the house where the Tniing room ... as !ocaled. f lI1e;e was a to It cemng on the fronC of Ihe house tJe roof was almot;l ... ilhoul exception slanled 00111 nward 10 8 • aI !he side. This prevented a neighbor'. home from being shaded and Ihe house from Iool<ing oversized lor !he 10(.. -------'~-----'" ,., ...... _-""_.----"._--.. --. ------".' --,-------.----- ",.-' ' . . . The Grooers coukl easily slay within lIle ~mils 01 40% lot coverage by keeping "e p<8SOnt open hall entrance I<> lMir tome and p<6seNe \he Eichler style by slanting "eir mol al an angle from "e Center 01 N building 10 !he side. or !hey could /1ave a nat roo! as it Ihe 100m adcrrtion builll>y!he Arcl1itect Mr. Carroll RanI<il1 a1 372 ParIcslde Dr. This type 01 construcOOn is conslsten! willi Eid1l", s!yIe. flO( I1e !ype """",Sec! by 11. Gron ...... Mr. CIIarles Runde~ was /1elpM is poin1ir.g out "is d6'/lalion from Eichler style a'ld it .. as Ihe basis i:x his ooiection 10 Ihe exception. ~. The Zoning Commission "etisioll Slates !hal \he g<a!1!lng 01 1M Exception wi~ no! be detrifllMl8I or injurious 10 property or Improvements in \he vidMy. I disagree with "!$ --I strongly. My smaller hcxJse is on lIle nor1h side 01 !he Groners side .. aft se!back 016 ~ r /1ave several oldet .. ees w/1ich were planted when !he lio'JS8 was buill These nes. especiaDy a large tu~ bearing plum tree will be severly shaded and Ilelr space encroadled upon by 1M proposed taAer lIlat ofllillar) buikflllQ. I have lost IIvee other tuit trees{ peach, d1erry. apOOo!} from shading and Ihe plum tree is Ihe aNy Iruit tree I have left Other I1an !he street "ee. it is Ihe aNy bad< yaro Iree I have Tell The whole outlook 01 my side yard wm be changed il!he tee dies. The tree Glso pro'lides some privacy from "e neighbofs side yard which is only six feel from my small side yard. It also hides !he power ~ne which IoIIcws!he property fine on flis side 0I1he house. On !he other side oIlhe house flere is no sunfoghl as my ~.ouse is 5 it Irom lIIe neigl1bo<\n!j house. I will be presenting evidence Irom an altlo<is! as 10 the effect 01 the /1e1ghl oIl!1e proposed builcf"'!! on my Irees. The proposed addi1ion has another delrimental effect The building 111m extand out beyond my frone fence. This will look very awkward 10 say Ihe least The original Eichler fences .. ere lIeIY awopriately placed 10 Cteale an appeal1ng appearance from 0I!e !louse 10 Ihe next My !louse w[l out 01 synchrony(sync} from Ihe res! due 10 I>e o_-sized add41ion pooposed. , .. illooI< vwy bad in .,1. respect because ills on an inside aKW. AI of these f8cIors wiD have a dalrimen!aI effect on my p<operty's value and since my boose is my main asset ) .... be ecooomical1y effected when I come 10 sen my home. I do no! teellhe oIher neighbors wiD be impacted as much as r .[11. J wish 10 Ihank an 01 you i:x your kind oonsiderafion 01 my appeal. Sincerely, -'/!" I,'", /-i; ,1-7'7--.. .,c¥ ~,,<.a_·.:::. P/1y\f1$ B Hillon 220 Parkside Dr. Palo AIIo. Carll. -,-----~ -----. ---_.-. lOCAJ!O!ll OF FROPERTY; Assessot'l PaJCEI No. ______ _ _ Address 230 PodS-sick. Dc Nama d Properly o.mer (if oII1er!han appe!!an~ ~ h e Pmpe;t)'Ownor·.Add .... )30 Po...-I{s::/e-11,----- C. vQn~r:~- J%16A.fJu Qy I:i.l-I-/., b 1:O>1~;-.. 9 4l<l <;_ Z-op I1I8SOOS BIaIod rn !he altaChed len ... (in dupI"ocaleJ_ Dale ,,/27/,S _'>igna!uTe of AppeDart --,P,---,-(>0",/<-<J",,'!ta=---.:o.~·.:..1 ('-"p'--'h:;=--'""""""' __ :----- PlA'INlNG COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIl: Dale ___ ~ __ _ CITY cOONcII-DECISION: DaIe ______ _ Ramo"" _jOl CondltIoni; t_ 2- Ie. ~ I\ppr~---1len1ed __ _ Oenied ___ _ By ~ n., .. L i?>. h7# 6y: -3"- By: #< 12/89 -. ~-..... -' ...• . ... ATfACHMENT 4 (with sis attachments) 230 Parlcs.ide Drive Pol" . .tJto, CA 94306 Ju." 7,Im Usa Grote, Zonins Administrator and staff Memt>er. or !he Planning C<>mmission and staff Memt>er. or !he City C()IJOCiI and staff ~ofi.~~d '~I.f~ • CIty olPalo AIle> 250 Ham1110n AvelUJe P.O. Box W250 Palo AlIa, CA 94J03 Jte: Home Improvement Exception Appr""tioo No. 95-HlE-6: 2JO Parkside Drive Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: This is. rebuttal to Mrs Phy![\S Hilton', lIppealletter or April 21 regardiog our above referen<ed HIE app!ication. Oet .. lslOilow!he Sutnma1y W. will be happy 10 discuss IfUs and reloted lII8IIers with yoo at t1Je Plar'.lling Commission and City Coo.'Icil bearings SUMMARY Prior PIa. Approval • AI OW" immediate neighbon suppon Our plan~ .. ith !he .,.cep!loc arM,.. Hihoc II!1d Olle 0Iller neighbor. The Oreecmeadow Architectural Jte;ie .. and Coo.-enants Committee, 1bt Greerunea60w CommwUrj Association Board of Direc!On, and !he Ccy or Palo Zoning Administrator agree that 0tIf design is compatible ",ill! 0Ih= in our aeighbo<bood and recotnn>end O'lO.tructioo. • The PlannlrlS Commissioc and City Council fla"elOOn<! repea!edry that the Zoning Administrator has Ille training. ~ and judgment ,equired to in!<1pret and lIpply zoning reguIatiom. Dtscriplioa 01 '" Additio. • OJ! proposed adallioo would mend into Ille fiOlll and side setbacb only as far IS our house does already. Its 1OoIprin! would be similar 10 that ar ot"'" .eoroy houses, including 1bt Lim house IIIitII it. ,,,,en! additi<>n, at 210 Pa!bide Drive. The addition would occupy an area where we now bave I covered entry walk and a cODCrete patio enclosed by • ~. • To provide good fighting and ventila..'ioo, and conlinui'.y with tIle rest ar our house. ror addition will have • ~at ,oolwith • 10 Ii oeiJing. Several Greenmeadow booses, including the Urn add"flion. ..miG. is positioned sirrnlar!y 10 ours. have fi,t roof. with 10 It ceilings 11 tlle street elevation. . ->, . o • Our 60 It x 100 11101 is smaller, bolllabso!utely and rel.tive 10 house size ll1an adjacent and nearb~ lois. F 0< tJ<ml!lIe, Mrs Hilton has the saJ11<' hou .. plan 0<1 • 63 fI x 100 ft: lot When our house W"4!o built 40 years ago~ the lot COI_/erage was 3-8% even . though the usual ma:<imum a!lo.,ro,telol W'tr1OS' , .. a. 33 or 3S~' With our I',.oposed additioo the 101 co~e will be ~2%, but Ill. usual maximum atlowabletot coverage in Gtoenmeadow is DOW 40%. The maximum a!lowabfe F .A. R will not be exceerled Objections Raised by MI'f Hilt •• • Mrs HiltOll states L~at I!es property is 10th. north of ours and Illat her plum tree is her only bacl<yard tree and be< only lhlit tree. Both st"ement5 are wrong. H<r prOjlerty ill actually 10 !be southwest oC OUr!, aod, at rrurumum, the also ~as I fiuit-bearing tangerine tr"" in be< ba<:l;>ard. • M. ... Hilton is ~ tbat be< 40 year old plum \roe ",ill be io lhe shade of our J<lditioo, and will be damaged. On I ipring morning, Mlell the sIlaoows are longest and d!rected rilost ",wan! Mn Hiltoo', property, !be addition's shadow • .011 be approximately coincident with !be existing fence', she:low The plum tree is about 25 It tall, so nearly all oCits !eaves and fiuit are alwaY'io fun sunlight above OIl' houses An iruIepeodent, proCessional amorist reported to u. that Mrs Hilton', plum tree will not be damaged by digging !be foundation ~ our additioo • Mrs Hiltoo is aI.!o worried tllat our additioo win impact her ee<>:lomically. Realtocs oonlirmed tbat our addition will ~ the value ofber property • In • lett .. to us. Mrs Hillen ":I' tbat "'. will have six be1rooms and 1<>0 mud. office space. Our IotaI !lome offi<:. space will be wen under SOO squar.led. The added offi<:e will be coo'lertlbfe 10. bedroom ~ o lOla! of lOur bedrooms at most • II is clear frO(fi Mrs Hiltoo's .. riJiogs and her refu"; 10 discuss our plans with os LOat the objects 10 ~ addition 10 our house, and is ~-ying 10 use the HIE opplic:ation'appell prooess 10 prevent us from improving our property. Please deny be< appeal and confirm tile Zoning Admlnistra!OI". appro,," of our fiE application. MRS HD,Tm.~S INTERPRETATIONS OF THE 7,Q~G RE,(ilTl.ATlONS Ms Grote is an obJective, independent professional woo provides well reaso""". practical justificatioIl ~ approving our HIE application. The Planriog ComrrussiOll and C'rty Cooncililave found rq>e>tedly that the Zoning Administrator lias the training, experience and judgment required 10 interpret and apply zoning regulatiollS Mrs Hilton offers her ewn interprelatio<>s oCtile zoning regulaliollS 10 ~ ber own end .. W. don't belie>-. that Ms GroIe needs Mrs Hilton', advice about bow to interpret and appl) !be zocing regulations, and "wbaI tlle HandbooIc or law intended • lUST THE FAgs. MA'AM Some« Mrs Hiltoo', objections to our pI .. are f~uaIly wrong. and atl are invalid 2 ~ --- One ofMs Grote'$ princip31 findings is thal corxf,tions apply '" our property that do no! apply ge<>eruly 10 property in the sam. district because our lot is smal1er (only 6,000 "IU"'" feet) than ~~ IoU. Mn Hillo. claims "lfthis were ,<<---pted as a precedent in Palo AIIo, anyooo eou!d cover any amount of their !and up 10 90% FAR" She imp"OS thal we plan 10 make our bouse "o,'ersj zed" and that our project .,ceeds tM maximum aIlo",ab~ FAR. The facts are: • Whoa tbo Grooruneadow tracI ...... built by Eichler in the ]9SOs the lot sizes were ~ Und ~ allocated 10 indMduallots W2S pooled \0 create • community center and p&I< that ",ere jM.iTclulsed from Eichler by the community. lbu .. <ir=""",oow lots are small relali .. to otl!<T Palo Aho lots • Wbe!I Greeruneaclow was rezoned about a year ago \0 limit bouses 10 one sto<y, the usual maximum allowable lot coverage ..... increased from 35% '" 4O'!1, to COOIpO'tS&te for our inability \0 butld ~l'ward •. • Our bouse plan, v.ith 1650 sq II of J;ving spaGe (no( meNding garage and entty walk). was geoeraIIy buill on 6C x ]00 lots alo08 Padslde. How .. ''''' Mrs Hiltoo', bo<JS< at 220 Padsld. ~ is the same plan but built 00 • 63 x i 00 lot (somewhat under 6,300 sq II 1>«""" it is DO • cl,rv.). and OL~er houses with tM same plan are built 00 7,000 sq 1\ lots in Greerune.<k"., On Parlrside, house • ."ith 16')Q sq II ofliv'.ng spaGe (just 20 sq It more than ours) are built 00 66 x 100 (6,600 sq ft -600 sq II more than ours') lots. TypkaJly, 1650 sq It and 16')Q sq II houses alternate along the street TIlus, wile!! it was built. OIJI" house oe<:upied a greater portion of ~s lot than Mrs Hiltoo', bouse, !be Runde~ bouse a<ro5S the street, !be bouse 00 the otber side of ours. most bou ... "" l'adslde Drive, and many 0Ihen in GreenJIlUoow. 11 is clear thai OW" property is both absolutely smal1er than most 0100 property in tM same district and smaller relatiye 10 bou .. size lban most otber property in !be same district Also, ~ is smaller than adjocem properties. • Our existing lot coverage is 2283 sq II. 1'hat is 380/.,« 3" (or S%)~ than !be 35% (or n"/o) standard when tile bouse~ Wtth our proposed &ldition, lb. lot ""_ will be 2541 sq It. That would be 42%, or only :2",1 great ... than the current 40"/0 standard. 1bus, the extent 10 wbich tbo comemporary standard is exceeded wi!! &ctUalIy be ~ from .. tat it ",as ~'ben the house ..... built. Th< prECeclem for allowing. bouse on our unusually small lot 10 exceed !be standard coverage ... s established wltea our bouse was butlt 41l years ago. • We understarid that the purpose-of the exception appticatio[) process is ~ review proposed project. and 10 allow exceptioo .. wiler. warranted. About a YOM ago the City .wo,<ed an addition \0 the Lim hom< at 2')Q Parkside Drive. Their bou .. bas !be same plan as ours on • similar size lot. and t. ... li:>o!print of their ad<fttioo is ideaticallo ours except fa< nUIlOI' differences in the entry ""'y. nus, tber. is • recenl nearl>y precedent fa< an acl<fitioo hl.:. ()(JB • Mrs Hiltor, stat .. that our project will .. ceed !be maximum alIo", .. b1. f .A R. The lot coverage would be 4:2",., but it \lIoold not exceed the ma:umum allowable F.A~ Mrs Hilton refe,.. '" our &l<fttioo "connected by • covered 4'way (wbere an open entrance area DOW exists)." At prosen!, our entry walk is QP<!l '" the sid~ (oow tbere is DO ,t"":lure",, ODe side). but it is =N, DOt ope!! 10 the sky <OS migbt be.ir.ferred from Mn 3 .':,-'. Hiltoo', CQmment. Our plan is ro add an addition t<) tile side of L'le present entry walk, and 10 make most cl the existing CQv~eQ entry waJ'k into a &an that provides good access to the new and .,.;sting roorns, Both the additi<>n and ball will have 10 it ceilings ro. tile reasons sta:ed clearly in Ms, Grot,'s lett ... of April 20, Mr. Hilton states, , AA the F1Chler bom.. ... in tbis neigbbomood bad I II ceilings 00 tile _ lide but !lad 10 Ii ceili1lgs in :be back of ,he hou .. wbere tile ~ving room Was located.' Although DOt important. DOt 'all" have 101\ ceUlIl8' in their tr.ing rootT>-' 'All ." bad ! II ceilings OIl the street lide" is literally troe. but mislea<fmg The borne at 2?O Parbide 00,. has • recent aMlIion with • flat lOll ceilinS on .'le street side. and aJso essentially the same IOOtprint IS we prOVO"', Furt."=ore, several bomes in our neigbbornood. especially so"", 00 Scripps Avenue, have !lat 10 II ceilings at the street eleval:i<J. with DO 111: ceili:!gs in froll! of them, and several others 00 Pafiside Drive ted Creekside Ori"e!rave dealfy ,isr"ble flat 10 II ceifmgs. Mn Hilt"" states, 'The Groners could easily stay within tile limits of 40% !o( CQve"ge by keeping the present ope!! ball area.' As explained .00-", the so-called "open ball area" is actually • 00VI:fed emry ",alk Because it is CO'{ored, that entry walk is olreMy coonted toward tile 101 CQverage, Enclosing this spac. as • ball actually results in • small Del reduct;"" of lot CQ\'erage because the overhang at tile fron! door will extend less than four feet and will DO{ be counted. Mn Hihonrefers 10 the 'flat roof IS in the room addition built by L'>e Arcbitec1 Mr Carroll Rankin al 312 Parl<side Dr." The referenced room ,dditio. was llQ! built by Mr. Rankin, but by the previous owner ala time when the aIIo"ablelot coverage Was'S"I' {Of Jl%) and strlct1y enfurced foe additions, That additioo was built as a "mother-in-law room-\\ith an outside entra.."1Ce, vvitb. I roof separate from the enl.ry \\'3lk cover, and DOt integrated imothe reS of the house. Our reasons for .101 ceiling are not as "P!'ficabk in thar situation. 10 IiIct, Mr. R3nkin says that if" it bad bee. up 10 him Ire would have enclosed tile enlIy walk and made tile additioD somewhat larger, as in our plan. Mrs HilIOD say., "My smaller bouse is 00 tile north side of the Groners sid"",1lll' Mn HiltOD', _ that her boose is \() the 00!:!!l of oun is or i,nponanl, perhaps critical, misstatement of fOd because it implies that our house blocks sunlight com;ng !rom the soullL Actual!y, the r.v ..... is true, As shown on our plan. L'le property line bet-o,_ us runs DOC'.hwest I<l soutb=t, with her home 00 tile sw.hweS\ side on the Iin£ Be.:.u", her plum tree is between our boo ... and "mlight comes mostly from the soutb ard west, \0 the <"lent that sunlight is blocked nom her plum tree it is mostly blocked by beT bou~ noc~. To con!irm this .. e made several observ.tions 00 May 6, • ,.,nay d.y, At 110 1,01. shadow. were IoDS and al about • 45 degree engle with respect to • Iin£ parallel 10 l'arl<side Drive, Shadows cas! bj our house «l"ered roueR of the fence betw ... our boose and Mrs Hiltoo'., but did not reaclJ ber plum tree, The lower few feet of her plum tree were in the fence', shadoW; all the tree !eaves were in full sunlight, D.!ring tJ-", day the ~ T T f r -.- .' " , .. " -- " ',': ,> ~ , ~ '-... '. .- sIladows ~.onened. tileD lengthened agaiD .. they rotated oorthward. By the end of the docj shadow. from our bou~ were ~wa~ from I<tr. Hillon'~ and the 10",.,. few feet ofher plum tree were in the shadow ofMu!!!!toD',l!O<J,.. The plum tree',leave, were in full sunIlgbt !hrougbout t.~ entire day. To determine the etrc<:t ofour proposed addition. ...rucl! will cast • somewhat longer woow, we obser.ed the wOOw cast by t1le Lim ~ at 210 Parkside on .... whi<:' hi> the sam< height. orientation. and relationship 1<> the a4iar~ ne;ghbor as OW" proposed addition At 1.30 I. In the neighbor', l>o!tle bru..<b ~ and other sltrubbes), wltich are muck sborter than M,-. Hilton', plum tree. were in full su:illgbt If Mrs HiltotJ repeated til ... simple observations Me would reaIiu that s!>e needo' WO<tY about "'" plum tree being in the shado", of Q\If proposed odditiol1 },fro Hilt<>n states, "the plum tree is the only I!uit tree I taveldt. 0\heJ than the street tr .... it is the only back yard tree J flav. left." She;oems to have b"gouCII about "'" IA!!gerine tree whi<:. o.<:rhangs our fence toward the hack of our pro;>ertie>. W. a",,,' clear what she means by "baclc yard" as we ",ould consider the ar .. between our !wo ~ I sideyard, but what about the cedar tree in front of the plum tree and near the street IToe; In h..-letter ofMarcll21 10 Ms Grot .. Mrs Hilton refen 10 "I cedar in the eroatyard." I<tr. Hilton wooies that, 'The building .. in extend out heyood my eront fe""e. This will 1001< very awkward 10 say the least. The original Eichler fences "'ere very app<opriateJy placed.,," She does GO( say Ilu;t ",c .tr-:ady flave. fence across the Ironl ofour property, in tine with our gange, lila! e<lcIoses our "!Toot patio", whi<:~ is actually a crocked aJOCTete slab, W. plan to build the addi600 wllese the patio is no .... DO !Brther forward tbron lila! {'Very appropriately placed"} fence, and no faI1her sid.,..ay. Ilwt OW' Itou .. is now. Thus, we arc making 1lO -QUtside room-into an '-mside room" with the sameuont boundary lila! has ~ .. o<ceptal>le 10 Mrs Hili"" until now. Ymally. Mrs Hihoo is cooccrned tlJar, "I will be economically effected when I come'O seD my bome." She <:ertainly will be ecooomical!y a1fec!ed, positively so' Everyone .... e baY. talked 10 who and_and. real estate ~5 us thai Mrs Hili"" should he actively eocouragiog our planned sub<t<ntial bome improvement invesuneDl, IlC4 lwassing U5 - b..-cause it wiD increas< the value of her home. ARQ[!TOCfURE Thoughout h..-letIer Mrs IDea offers suggestions b" impr",ing our architectural &siS" W. must reopoad by explaining .. by we prefer our professionally designed plan. Because site lias refused 01' ignored our many off.rs 10 cfiSC\lSS our plans ,.1tlo her, site probably does I!()( understand lila! we, aod especially our architect, Ilave worked on our plan for countless hOIl11 since last fa1!. t."-t .... ltav. carefully considered many ahenwives, that ... e It .. "" cooscient~ adh..-ed 10 E'1Chle3' design principles. lila! OIlr design bas l>eea re>iewed by expertS, and tIlat her oflband suggestioos are 001 r.elpfUL /~ ., , , :-~\ " i o . Our architect is Koren Cunen CK.C.) Marcinik ofOreenmeado,,' Architects, an experienc«l arch.~ect,. wbe • Spocializes in Eichler !»u .... and mO'oed 10 Palo Alto', Oroe=dow ocighborbood loiveinooo, • Studi<4 ,r .. 91o<l<s of QJincy Jooe<. <lne of the ""ginal Eichler architects., and has .. , ext5lSive !ibra1y ofbi. ,.1Xf<., • Designed the remooding of several Eic~ bomes in the Greenmeadow neighborhood. • Serve<! on the Gteerunead<>w Ccmmunily Association Boar~ of Direclon and on commit!ees, used her arcllitectunl slciIls wbeu performing other voTurJee< wOi'k in !he neighbod>ood, and mows both the homes and the peopk in the neighbomood. KC', design ",as reviewe<l by 111. Oreenmeadow Arcbiletture Review .nd Convenard. Committee wbicl! coocIude<l t1Jat our additicn would be compatible witll other bolt''''' in .1I!e ncigbbo<l>ood and recommended approval of coostruction The Greenmeaoow ~Community Associaf.oo Boord of Directors unarumoosly approved the ARCC. n:commendaboD:. AI! of our nearest neighbors with !he exceptioo of u ... Hihoo and Mr. Runde!! signed • politico in suppcn of oor project,. am! severt! wrOle supporting lette" prior 10 the Zoning Administrator's bearing As!i!r as "'e mow, I 90';" appro",1 of anV1hi1l8 is excepticnal l FIMIIy, the Cicy of Pal<> .0\110 Zoning Administratoc and staff; after reviewing our plans and bearing Mrs Hihon', coccerns. conclude<l tIIat 'Tbe additicn wJl maintain the arcbilectural style of the existing bouse and ocighbo<bood and ",ill DOt substantively increaso the intensity of the use on the site' Is Mrs Hiho. right. <>r are the professiooals and our ocighbors' THEPWMTBEE !.t" Hilio. is clearly coocemed .bout her plum tree It produ<es I great deal of delicioo. l!uit. am! .. " 100 would hat. Ie bave arrjthing bappe!lIO?_ &t. according 10 Mrs Hihoo. the tree is already 40 ) ...... old, and plum trees do 001 live furever. The plum tree seem. to us to be in its declining yean. rwo of its mojo< ocaoches iie dead, as are several smaller branches. Also, lnnches are iIltertw".ned and many point in inappropriate diJa."1ioos. Altboogh we ... not experts. we lhink that O>Juing off the dead branches and pruning tile tree nexI winter might belp invigome it W. offered to 00 tIIat fu< U .. Hilica, I>uI she ignored our offer. W. areltighly sceptacIe about our additico b,,;rning the plum tree The tree is ,boo, 25 feet I3lt II> trunk is approximate!) as far ~d as the frO<!1 of our present frontmost room. near ",iler. tbe addition .. ill join. ano a1>oul b1r feet on Mrs Hilt",,', side of the fence. Most: ofil, branches are ab<we our existing room, and DOce would be toocbe<l by the additioo. ""cept posslb!y when ,.eighed dow!: by fiuiL Nearly all c< it. leaves are above our ,ooffine, and would be aIJoo.·e the additico', rooIIine. 50 most of it. critical figh!~ 6 > ':'. ---__ =-9.. ? __ "~--. -~ , '.' . ! "-' '''~' -.f o ab.orl>ing parts are """ ... in the 3Ilado" of either Mrs Hih",,'s borne or our>" Apparently the tree was pial-jed as I young sapling after the bouse$ were in l'~oce" :So, it grew up and <wee tllt shaclov.. cast by the bui!di~" W. think it should be abl. k> suMve OUT addition. tspeciol!y because (as explained ea.-!ier) iI is k> the southW§! of OUT adcfltioo, urJess it !ail. clue to old age and oegIect We r~ suggest Ill •• if Mrs HiltOll ,pent he< energy and IDO!leJ' on her tree insteod of 00 he< liuitless appeal. all or us lnd her plum tree wool<! be b..'tter off" To r.;o;d darnagillg either OUT naple tree or MIS HihOD', plun: tree during coostruction. we aslcod the ad-;;ce of. professiocal arbOOcu1turisl. Mr James lI.t ~~ ASCA, PresldenI ofS" p" M<CIenahan Co, Inc" cfPonoIa Valley" Me" McC1e:W.an sta'e< in his !etter, I copy ofwbiclt is cnclo5ed. that he antici~i!t .. that 00 injul)' to Mrs y.iltoo's plum will result from digging the Ibundation ~ ()Uf ad<frtio<-'. • .-.d be recommends 00 pre&elVaIioc measures" W. bad DOl met Me" McC\enahan prior 10 his recent \isir. and he bad no reason k> provide "~1hing but his honest answer" WHAT BECAME OF NEIGHBORL Y CO!l~nrN1cAnoNS! W. ha.. repeatedly and hquently attempted k> c<><Ilmunkate "ith Mrs Hihon about our plan. both Won tl .. Zoning Administri!tex"s buring ard since" W. had hope!.o show her our pions, walk through the change< with bee, sIlow her bow w. currently use our space, and discuss her coocerns face.lo-fitco" Wbes she declined tl1at. we reso<tcd k> sending !etters back and IOc1lL «Api .. of OUT correspondence are encloseJ Please note the fo!kJ"';J18: • OUr repealed att~ts 10 comrnurticote, • Our 1iru1e attempts 10 deal will! her concerns ard 10 explain the situ.tlon 10 ~er, • Her shifting objectioos ' eacb time .... respond k> .some .. ie raises o.hers, • Our offer 10 prune be< plum tree" Two common threads run through a11 of Mrs Hilton's tommu.nk4ttions -her concem for her plum tree and her fear of change" We beIleve all the rest ,the zoning regula.ions. architectUral design issues,"" -are ~ herrings.be uses IG justifY stopping our l>Toje<t" For example, IhIlough she raises tl1e is",e of I I O-fool ceiling. as does Me" ltundeD. nearly all of her CODC'OCllS apply 10 I!1l adattioo- Mn Hihon', appeal offers no valid reasons ~ overrufing M. Grote', decisi= In case her lett ... on •• own, doesn' make tllat clear .... e bope our rel>utUI helps" Yours truly, Gabriel F". Groner 1 -.. -::-", j • ..i_.E •• ''''C'-L~'''''''' .... Jt.l..TII:" J '--'_EHCe: ~ ,..jI,. .... S-'T1IIo:I""~ .~"'.~i34:1 S. P. McCLENAHAN CO., INC. ..... O.JC\JLTU .... T. II M.u;,.,.~ 1IOo\l) . ...oIllP":"OLA ~ .... u..[Y. c .... ~;l1I MR. CABRIEL GRONER 13. Por1<.~ Orive Polo Alto, C.... 94306 Dear 1oIr. GrOMr: TE1.£PMONE (415) 11211i~.7e, PU t,,'SI 8$4-1287 May n. 1995 DAVIO ,-, 14001111£ .JOI"I'IOII ... """'c .... ,. .... " As requested ... J inspected t.he proposed constrlJction iIIrea at t1".e rigl'lt front of house \1) detennlr.e lmpac:t on the neighbcw's f~urn t.ree ~ The COf\SUuc.tion .rei: is. pre'$~ntty co"~red with c.oocrt\~ and cu.ates I poor enyirorur.ent fol' root growth beneath "he ,tab. f'o4.md.ation footing., .. to • twenty lnch nO-) dep\h .. -.111 encroac.h n<:I clos.er tJun within eight feet (II) of, the trunk~ At this distance ixIttress roots will be pt'"'eservecf and no injury to funct)or,al roots 'is antk'ipa'ed~ No tree preservation lneillsures ilS recommended at tNs. t~me_ Should you have any questior:s ... or if we tn3y be: of further assistance in these concerns, k!ndly contact our eff .... ce a1 any time. Very trvry yours" S. P. JMMc:pm ~.-C Pre -- ident -J A;>ril',l995 W.lIavl: been good neighboB 10 "'"' aooIher I<l< nearly 11 ye.n, and w. bop< '" coo.in". that. W.1ried 10 fisten 10 and undemand the concerns aboot our additioD that you expressed .. ben we spoke • few ,.~'" oeo, and WbeD you spoke in opp<Y';'.ioD \0 our propose<Il'fOiecl at the hearing W. q,ulclc!y glanced II your letter wilen .. e were in the hwinS room, but probably missed some of yoor point. in :it I>«&lse we c!ool lav. I copy oDd ""-, had an ~ 10 stud] it. Alt/".oogb our planned addition may sliglitly impact your feeling of openness .. ·bea you "-e iD your sideyard I\tlCI 10 your garog .. we dODl tbink ~ ","ill have 0Il)I signi5ca.'1I ~ On :_ your plantings 0< your privacy. Foc txlI!lIp!e. it wool cast • larger shadow 00 your prop<rty !ban already tasI by the fence betw .... us. The .dc!ition .. ill be furward of your plum !Tee, wbkl! .. e also ~, and .. ill not iilterfere wirh iI. branches, wbk' w1lI al1 be above Of closer 10 yoot property tban tlle addit;oD. Our new slab will be 10 feet or so from tlle tree', truek II its closest poinl A/L.'>ough tlle cooslruction " .. ",\<.,.. may hit • pl\lm tree roo( .. -tu1e digging I<l< the slab, we will osk morn 10 be careful aboot !bat. and we don) expect 0Il)I dam.ige lO your lTte. Similarly, the ada.1ioo ,.;U DOl imerfer< with 0< damage your ucIar. The side window in tlle .dcfrtioD will be sirrular \0 tl1o<e in our bedrooms. but ",iD extend bigho!r_ It will be "!'P"site your gonge;:it will not 1001<. out upon eiIhe< your Clef .... or the room in fi"ont ofll'.at. Also, its view v.iD be blocked by 11-.. f""".just IS your >iev.~ ofour bedrooms and bathrooms are blocked by the renee. 11. added height is only I<l< figJrtiilg and arcllitectural reasons; :it provides added views of yOur-property only 10 someone slanIlinB o. I ladder, and ev .. !he1I only of your prage. The addition w1lI h." •• side window b<~ n<>t ~-1evel fi"ont wiodo .. ~ be<:au", the former is coosiSlent ",it. the desiga of aIIlhe !>ouses in Ihe neighborhood, wher .... the laner is DOt We plan \0 iv. in our home I<l< the next 30 or so years. "" you need., be concerned aboot bowlllOll1er 0""""" migbl use !be additioo. Our house bas only three bedrooms. so ...... 'I our aew office (a pIa<:< "'here Gabe earns his ~g, end therefor. I oecessily, not aluxwy), is ~ 10 • bedroom, it would !hen hav •• &oW of JOur, tik. many other houses in our neighbornood hrthemJor •• we do lIOI intend 10 have tenant •. w. hope this .ddr ..... most, if DO( all, of your concerns W. are disappoint..! that you fOund it necessary 10 officially protest our plans. W. again urge you 10 discuss your coocems and our plans with us Please lei us know ,,·he. iI .. in be CO!l"enlent for you 10 stop by. Sincerely. S~, .bIx.. < .-... .. " "'.; . Mr and Mrs. GraJer 230 Parks ide Dr. Palo AIlI>, Calif. Dear :Mr. and Mn. Gr..-.er: April 8, 1995 My oppositim to yOW" building exC2pI:iaD In cmsideratkn t,-the P1annlng Qmmissicn was not .. pe!"SQ1.1 cmsider.tia> <r a rellection m our neijhborly relationshlp. I feel that the whole atmaspbE.-e at the neigbbahood m Parkside Dr. would be adl....-seIy affected by this and other I\rture violations at the Qty at Palo Alto BlIilding Guidelines and the 8uildirog Code as expresied in my letter to the Z<r.ing AdminlstJ"atcr. By exoeedlng the FAR (Fkxr kea Ratio) "bouse beame too large for 121e lot they lite cxn!J»'lng c:aasing crowding. lack at privacy lor owners, in<reased papalatm density, increased mise etc. 1 2m SIB1! yaa woak! not like it if the neigh!xr In the opposite side at your boose built to wi thin 6 It of your prtlp<!rf:y line. . The Palo Alto Building GuidelineS protect the neighborhood fr= !he irqlaci d "",,"ited houses. With an the boo ... en the street exceeding the FAA our neighborhood waald begin to resemble a Cmdamlnium a:rrptex a s New Ycrk City Street and not a private neighborhood. 1 feel at Mr. Rundell is arrect In his assertkrl that Ibe height d your addition is not In keeping with the Eidlter Design Charad.~tics. :Mr EidJ.ter did not ronsb"Uct flat roofed 10 b)t ceilings in the frant dhis bullding1i where these 00iIdings were on a eront yard en<:raac:hment. :Mr EidJ.!er w .... 1n <XirIlphllna! with the Palo Alto Buildlng Code in that his {rOllt yard ~ts were limited to 112 th" WIdth at the House. His roofs were generally slanted In the frmt if tbey exceeded & r""t heijht. By slanting tbe rool there woald be I8s \IioIati<.rt at the Daylight Plane and the boose woald seem less inb"llslve I.,.. massivl> and not.s OV1nized fir the bt You prq>OSEd additial wjH ctme up to <r in frontoCmy frmt yard fenee and lb. t wI1l adve.-seIy impact the appear anoe d my property. In .dditial to looking bad It willI ftel ~ my property value mD<e Iban it will. effect that or any at the other neighbors. The landscaping at both of our houses was created with the original design 01 the Ei<:h1a-Plan. Yrur Maple Tree ",ill be effected ty the bs of light an<! by having its roots disturbed. There are 5 I"'i"e pine tr...s 00 Ibe left side of my li-att yard and if I were to build into a Cnln! yard e!lQ"oadvnenl the crowding effect would advorsely effect the appearanc:e of the whole neighborhood. not just the immediate neighlxr •. Wh~e you claim that my have no inteotial of """,ing in the near future there is nogt'aran!ee c(this. \\1-.~eyou <:!aim you are asingm/y S or your ertra rooms as beci-coms your h<XIu is the sarne Ilocr plan as my hou..,. My h<XIu has three bId'~ pi"" a roof !:etween the garage o.nd the kitdlen whim was been used as a bedrcxm an<! is MOl a gu ... t be<koom. In additial you have C<IM!I'ted y_ garage to an orr"", and now plan to c:m~t it to a be<!r oom because Palo AI to allaws only 500 sq. It. c( office spa'" in a resic!eltial horne; nus is essentially a Sth beci-cxm and the new o:r"", JlrOPCl6ed wID. In effect be a 6th b\drcxm • 0IIke space is """i1aNe at a law rental ~e in Mt. V_, probably at a lot Ieos1ftat the Ol6t d cms!rvding the proposed addition. Rental cI office.pace is '1'"" Dedoctible the same as an office ill yow bane and less ous",ptible to an audi t by IllS chan a deductia:l b' office spaa! in ale's borne. . I am sort)' that I did net h""" the opp<rtunlty 8. you did to talk to neighbors and inDumoe them en your behalf. r work J'oll time and my elderly parents who Ilve in Monterey are bo!h ill. my moth ... is bedridden and requires full time nlUSing care. J h""" been .pendi.,g as rnoch time as possible with them, I sin<:<!rely hope the Zoning Car.rnissim will adh..-e to the guidelines they have established b' RI property because it is in Ille best i'lta"est of the neigh!xrbood Sina!re1y, Phyllis Hilton -"-;/ ,.'r . , .. :, ,- o April II. 199$ DearPbyIlis. Tb&rII< you lOr your let1e. of April I. W, approciote1earning more al>ou1 your COncerns Rather tI-.... writing let1en 10 one ar.otber. we suggesl that if ",'auld be mo<e efficienl and etr~'10 meet in person so "'. can show you bow we lre using "'" hom<: no",. sbow you and ",aIk througll our plans. and gel your nactlons ,,"lroctly. We Ire aD busy, but SO<M ti~ 5p<ilt logetl\es ""w might save time and fi'ustration Taler. We donl wan! OreemneadowlO 100Ic like New Vorl; CiI)I any mo<e than you do. OUr addi.ioo will not iDcre ... the population "ensity, increase noise. or nduce anyone's prlvacy. Although wr addition will e.cee4 Ibe 400/0 al!o"",ble roverase by 119 square ~ it .. iD NOT c:<ceed!he maximum al!o .... 'lble Floor Arealtatio. Furthermore, our addilioo .. il7 not be any closer 10 OW' mutual propeny Ene than any other pari dour botJ ... whkh "'" buill ~ ~ from the propcty nne 40 years ago A flat-roofed addition with • IO-roo< ceiling nee<!nl1oolc tnltSsive, intrusi .... or ()ut of place. A!; Gibe explained ., the hearing. • highly quali.~eJ professional designed OUT .dditioo 10 be in keeping .. iIJI!he s>yIe and scale of other Eic~Jer homes in !he Mighbcrhood. W. did DO( decide 00 a I O-foot C<lung <iil'.er Ilililra,ily 0< casually, but only aller oonsideri.'1g alternatives and concluding that it was hig.>,Jy advantageous &>ldes. mucIJ of our additioc will be hidde. from your w.v.' by yow plum and cedar trees and from Ib: fronl by OW" maple~. W. strongly believe that our adOed space, imp'""ed '<:UTt appeal,' and otber inl"",,, remodefmg will impact yOIlr property \'alue~!y ~ the 10-/00( mUlg of your hou .. and 00" are no( ~ "";.sible fi"O<G the SIr""'. there are I number of excepeioos. One notable e><ception is Ih< (l1I'.modilied as far as w. kno' .. ) Otto boose at 4012 Scripps; irs fu~ width is far fOrward on the lot, L,d ils IO-foot sea;on is quite mible. Anctha exceptioo is the Giffen bouse at 245 Greenrneadow Wrj (also unmo<!"~ IS far as ",cknow), with its garage at 10 ~ and lI.lUR .. idtlllOrward Ex<ept lOr rev.,.mg the beights dit. garage and fi"onIll105I room. its design is similar 10 ours. Bo!lI of these houses fit we; inlo Ih< neighborbood, and .. liner look. ~c or mtrusi".. furthermore. 10 ket ceiling. of Jleighbcring houses at 202 and 190 Parltside, teVer>I 00 Creekside thai are turned 90 degTees wiL' re.pe<110 ours. a.,d o<ber> on Par\side, are all visible lTom the street. Tbe city ofIicials at !he hearing repeatedly !old us !hat the beigh! of our additioo and its daylighl plane ere 110( tbeir cooside!atio<>.s. AlIhough ,. .. <anno( guarantee t"'t w. ",iD live bere indefinitely, lila! is surely our intera If. ~\ "'e would.' go 10 the effort and expense ofremocleling ""rhom<: Jlegarding bedrooms. our house will ~.vc It most four, eve. with tbe addition The room betw= OW" kitcbea .. ,d garage is our Jiunil)llrelaxationlaudio->isual room. Our remodeling .. ill open it up more, thereby making it mo;-, difficuh 10 <,"",./1 into. bedrOOlTL You probably know better than we thaI the room the Hornbergs buill into the garage may ha~be<!n , bedroom II one time; wbe. we beugllt O\lf boo", it ,,""S L<x!i,.', studio. w. originally used it lIS In clIice, but recently e"'''er1ed it into • $\OJage room,. l'Iitlt eabi!>ets Eke tl!ose we put into the sarog' and , work benel, Thus. it functions Ilk. part oflhc garage. even though separated rrom tbe rest of t.'" @arage There is 00 n.c!'anI. beating in thaI room,. and ~ is far fi"om the other bedrooms. bathrooms. elc. Although """" O!hrr family could use it IS. bedroom, tr.at would require removing the stO<1lge Ab'.neu plus otIIer remodelins. Now our boo .. ha, three bedrooms The addition could be converted inlO I bedroom making alO!al oflOOr. Regarding office space. eac~ of", ba.s an offi-~ lfyropriat.1o hi, or her work. Edie bas .. office iD Sunnyvale ia wbiel! !he J<eS clients. At borne !he ~y uses part of, room for doing p&pe:work. Gabe,.oru all boo" of the day and nigbi. any dO} ofLIIe wee\ doing tomp\It ...... la1ed eonsuI'Sng He tomrnunicales '>lith clients by lelepbone, f.., ck:, and visits 1llem in t."-it offices. and on!) 'try wei, sets <r""" IX coneagues in hi, home office. h is much mo<e convenienl for him to wm 1\ borne !han to m>! an office, ",en if the cost is higher. C-abe's new otlk. will be II ~ 16 feet. [,-en if the storage room "'ere used IS an offic., ond !be room Edie uses , portion of were included as offi<:. S\lace, the 1OIa1 would be well under .soo square feet W. are sorry 10 bear aOOt.~ your parMI •. W. had similar experiences with ours several y ..... ,ago W. too work at leas! Mllime, bull<>Ok the lime !O «plain our plans '0 our oeigh/xn because our remodeling project and good communiea6ons are importam to us. We ",ill continue with that po-oc ... unl~ our addition is approved aM built. W. asoio urge y<lU to meet with us so we ~ discu .. }OUT concerns in perwn, silo",' you our fanuly and storage 'ooms. and perhaps clar\lY 0<J.r plans ----~.--- .--;--- 11 Apr'II995 Dear PhyIftS; .. .. -.: ' ,', ,,~.;, o , •. ,- , "~ •. : Ii' ,~_.' ':.''-. .' I wovld also ike 10 extend !he oller the Gr0n9rs have made, 10 SGhOOuIe a Iiv\tlg room mee(rng between )'01./, !he Groners and myselllO c!iscoss your concerns abou1 their proposed addmon. Jo my experience livir.g here, the many oppoIIUn~ies Greanmeadow neTghbors fin(! 10 ",'ormal!y discuss issues affecting them makes the clfjerence between !his vert Slroog commUllily and Oll'\er neiglt>o<hoods where the residents are close i'I proximlly orJy. Yf;JU( ie!!ers Show !hal you have done a great <leal of researcl'\ inIo Ihe applicable codes, W !here are a lew ~ems I woul<l fike 10 Jry 10 clarl)'. The proposed adcfrtiol\ win not caUSOI1he house 10 excHd the FAR ( .... hich is 45% 01 the first SOOO SQUare feet 01 lot size, .. 30% 01 \he remainder), orJy \he lot coverage of 40%. The addilion is weD witltln the oayfogl"( plane wNch SIaM af 10' at !he side yaro pcopoerty line and eXlenOs upward at 45 degrees 10 !he maximum heigh! (n Greenmeaao...) of 1 T. The Grone<s' maple \Tee and yOUf plum and cedar Il'ees are 21)-30 feet laII; !heir daylighl win noI be affected by an aMdion wl'\ich is orJy 10' high. IIhinI< r you wil11oo~ Bl the plarn; with us, you wllJ see that the family room wh1Cll WI your house is being usecl as a bedroom (between the kilc.'IerI and garage), in the Groner,,' 00.-will be ~!e\eIy open 10 and part 0I1he new enJry hall so !hall cannot be used as a bedroom. Also, the part 0I1he garage whk:h was partitioned before the Groners moved in is completely fined by garage-!ype blJilt·jn storage, worl<bench and IOOIs and cannol be used as a bedroom Of office. The Groners haw carefully considered their opIlons and are QU~e se(IOUS ;touI building an a6d"Jtion lor !he use and purpose Illey have already staled. It the proposed addition were 10 exland 13' Iofward !rom the existing bedroom W1sIe~ oilS', there would be no need 10 reQUeSI an exception. and therefore no need 10 b<ing the proiect befO<'e a publ"1C heaMg, even' !he /1eigl( 01 the addition were raised 10 the 1 T maxim\lm. Page 22 01 the Palo Mo zoning guidennes Slales !hat an exiSting wan encroacNng i1Io \he required side yar" can be eJClended lor up 10 20'; therelOfe the side yard el"ICfoachmenlln heJ wovld nO( require an exception. We 1l8ve $peri rnonIhs working 10 acheive a design wI1i<.'fI will provide lor !he G<oners' nHds and be archi!8Clural!y e<>mpatible with \tla neighbo<hood. I truly befJeva Iha! the neig.'I/lo(s who lIIl'OIe &rod spoke on !he Groners' beha. did so because !hey have reviewed \he plans and are satisfied wijh !he design. no! b9cause 01 any undue inIIuence. If roo have any OIherquestions. please caR me 881850-9659,01' let mysef or the Groners 1a>ow 01 a eo<wanier( fime lor us 10 go over !he plans together. Sincerely, Karen Cunen MarcilU'l< ".( ""'.' \;f;J e .,. g:' --.... l I! o II !] ~11.8 1~'5 ~IY <g:5 ~.8! ji] :Ul ~:Cj i]~ 8 ~L, .1I.g S E;:.E g .¥l ~ 6 A.~ h to .2! l:!.il e ... ·§ .8;g i~ ~i ~~ ~ &..!l'3. i< S ~ >.q -~l ~ ~.II 1lw~ Ii!: it! S!"t ~.Il 8 '" .g H~l .3~ H9:1S ,i.h .,. l'l<Jl 21 g:1j ~ It!i~ $,.",,~.~ ~ f ].ah 08g.E~ 4 "i ~ ~·tH ~!~l J ~ . ' .' I , f ·'1' . " ,. ,-.~' n "'" ZO~ING ACMI~ISTRA10R HEARING Aprn E. 199) 230 Portsld] Drlye . ~S·HIE·6 lis. "ote. ZontoQ Adminfstritor: · -.,- AITACHMENT 5 O1Jr fir-st Hell is an applfcation for a Home Impro;,oemel'1t Exception feir a siQ91e-fa~t11 residence ta a110w for constructl~n of ~ 4S0-squarerf~t single story addition. resulting im 2)539 square feet, O~ 42 perceRt Tot caverage, where t,400 s~uare feet or 40 pe~cent is ~therwise the maxi~m .1 lowed. r. additIon t. that, the additIon would be )o<ated 17 feet from the frent propertl line .here • 20-foot .etback is no ..... ll1 required and six feet frQ~ the side property line ~ere an 8-foot setbac~ is normally required. Is the applicant ~ere for a Fresentatio~? Gabrfel Groner. 230 'arks;de Orf~~, PaTa ATto: ~1 wife~ £dit~. is present, and o~r arc)1tect. KC Mlrt'"it, 15 bere a1so. wnat.e are plannlcg te do is to add an office and small bathroom wher~ we n~w ~ave an enclosed vatio. V, ire als~ plann1ng tD make ~u~ existing co~ered entrywa, fnt6 a ha11wa, that prc~ides a(ess to t~ose rooms and to our existing famil, room. As part of the overall remodelling pf~5ect. ~e irt gQing to convert what is now a~ office ietG a guest room and do some remodelling of the b.t~r~oms. ~, &r~ ~e ~ofng tk1s? Our lids have grown up and ma~ed out. fjne Qf our cats dieo, so why do ~e need more space? Wel}~ our alder siblfngs are retiring and ,lan on trivelli.ng more. OtJr chlldre.A ire startf~g their own families outside of t~. We would like t~ ~ave the~ all r;s1t ~S. Also. our (.milJ room ~as ~ery poor ac(ess. It is onlJ t~rou9h our tltchen. and we "WOuld lite t.o ~ave another e&ltrante into it that is more (onvel'llent. II d"eci-dinq bow tc do tills. 'lie lIIere not arbltrary Of" capl'"icious. We -.rent about it .ery caref,ll,. We .sked KC t. do the design for os. She is not on 11 0 >rnll qualified .rc~ite<1 and neIghbor. but she is an EieAler enthushst .. and Uafs is an Eidller "house. She and "her famll.J moved frma San francisco to-Gree·nmeadolt to 1 he-hi one of thOSe homes. She has studied the wDrks of Quincy Jones t ~ne of the ori9i~al Eicbler architects, and bas an ext~nSl~e library of .is ~rks~ some of which is ~ere today. Sne lias done remodelling for .other hOllles h OUI'" neighb<lrllood .. and s~e has done a lot ef volunteer ~ofk for the t~eenmea~ow (Ommunlty. So she not 001, tno.s the bome. f. the neighborhood, bot she knows the people and the\r iaterests, is ~e'l. ~ief11~ our requ\rements ire tne space that I ha~e indic.ted~ ac<ess to the ne¥ rooms and famil] roOOl, wit~ i good fl-ow-of hlteriar space. We want to extend no further forward tr.an the front of our garage~ no further sideways t~an our bedt·oorns go ilready. and to stay witt.ill an etisting, enclosed patia. ~e want to p~eserve our landscaping and not foterfere wit. t~e landscaping next door. We want the restilt to look likE i custom [lc~l.r bouse i. the [;<~ler ol,le and tradition, compatible wit~ the c~aracter ~f the ~efghbor~ood~ not a ~atch job. We want to wse ~ndows to provide •• tur.l light and good yo.til.tion. K£'s de.ign met .11 of those parimeters. She then looked at ~irlous ITter~atives of roof lines. because part of our house is at eight feet and part cf it is at teA feet. 04/06/95 ·1· -.:- -/ ~ ... ~. __ ~ c'_.~ _,,:_ ";'~:-.... ';"'~:~.,,, -e: .. Sa W'3. llioked it an illt-efght-foot iilddition and" at an ;addition. wh-:re VIe hallw.a,Y ViIS at len feet to pro\ljd'e an unbro'hrl ceiling connection to our !xistfng entrance~ We Ilso looted at an addition that was III at ten feet. TB~s list design f5 the Q~lJ one that maximizes the ~se Qf natural 11g~l. elfminat€s t~e awkward transition that we now ~ave between the froDt of our ~ouse ind the rear. and pro~i~es good interioy ~er.t11ation to • new ;.t.rior back bat~room. It is the one that .1.0 look. best frOM the street and frem across t~a street~ To yerifl that t~1. house co,forms t. the scale and c,aracter of other h04.lses 113 the neighbor-bood. we asked t~ nave it reviewed by the Greenmeado.Arc)itecturil Rey;!~ and Co~enants Committee (ARCt}. They reviewed it, a~ t~ey approved it. The] recommended c~nstr~tlon. The Greenmeadow Board ~f Directors ipprvved that committee's report and ~as .150 recOmmended t~~t we 90 ahead~ Ve cbecked ~t~ our neighbors. Ninet1 p~rc~nt of our neighbors Signed I petlt10a saying they ~ad no objettions. i YiS fTinklJ aston'shed that so man! people wo~ld sign an1t~fng Ifter li.lng 18 Palo Alto for is long as we ~ave. Some Qf t~em support the ~rojett atttvelJ in~ feel it vould he an asset to the ne;ghborhcod~ Some of t~e~ have take~ the trouble to VTltt letters. Ve lIave talt,eQ s,ome pnoto9raphs~ T'15o is i. .,:i~.., of Qur home froo acro-ss. the street~ I ~cuTd like to poimt out that tne front renc~ t~at encloses t~e patio is t~e f~nce ~e are guing ~p to_ Tbere is i ~agn\fice~f maple tree iI front wlllch we are. (If (:ourse, l.eepirt9. ar.c! it will 'aide most of the addition. So e~eA if it ~ere not well designed~ yau ~ou14 not ~e~ lt~ There are ,'ctures of three ather ~ou~es on our bloc\ that ~ave t~e same exact foatprfmt ~nd !xtensiODs i~te the setback that W~ are prGPosf~g_ Ther. ~re three other bouses~ also on our blocl, that are ~s \fgh or )fg~er t~an the additiQn we ire plannfng~ So in summary. I .culd ltte to SaI why we tttink the pnject SllOlild be appr[)ve-d. There are ether 'houses il the ne19hb~rbo~d, including one that ~as a recent add,tion this year, that lIave tile same (ootpri!lt. same lot coverage and extend into the fr{)nt setback to the same degree t~at ~e are propasin9~ and at t~e same height. OUT addition will be aligned vith our garage .. hid! is already bun t into the setback. We Ilready have a concrete patio and six-feot fence arDund the iTei Qf the proposed addjti~n~ We ~11 not encloie .any mere area t~an we alreadJ ~ave~ and we will not use any lancs(aping or green space. Sasici111, .e are ma~ing a" ~utdoor roo~ fpto an iAside room. Our e~trancewaJ is Ilrea~1 cQvered, and t~at ~11 become OUT ~allwaJ. The ~ale~ ~ndo~s~ doers and details ire con~istent .ith other ~omes 1! the o.ighbo,~ood. A te.-foot-'igh addition is typic,l of III of the homes i. the nejghbor~ood. Jery few ire on11 at eight feet. The project ~.s b ••• approved and recommended b~ the Greenmeiildow Arc~jtectural Revie~ and Covenants Committee and the treenmeadow Board of Directors. Fir.al1" and perhaps most fmportantl,. the project ~as the support of the wast majorit, ~f our 1mmediate ne1ghbors. ~s~ trQle: l~u ~a~~ 5ubm,tted some 91ctures of 210 Parkslde DrJve. Is t~fs prettJ ~uch ~af you are expecting this addition to 10~k lite? PIs. )lar(llit: Except for the verticil wind"ows and the tllgh part of the 04/06/95 -l- ,-.. " .. • .., ..'''-: ~ -~' roof,-~i~~ ~il1 ~~me five feet across the entrance~ " prgner~ ~t fe1t it would be more {~tesrited into t~e rest of ~y h!luse .. ~s. ~rpte: And you will hive this small offset here where t~e fro~t doo~ ,,;11 be! ~s~ Marc~Rjt: res, i setback. ~s. Srote: We wtl1 ~Q~ hear fr~ ~mbers ~f the public_ Mark (brisOn!, 202 Pi,rhide Drive, Pll" Jlh: I 1 he about two doers away frOB the praject. j have liyed there sfn,! 1956, an original owner of the tr~ct bome. The ~ome next to me has t~e additfoD t~ey they ire taltfng about. and just a~ut every Dt~er home 1! that nei9~borbood ~as the same thing_ It ~as an off~et of ahQut 17 or 18 feet, glwing them iinot~er rooll ttl be IIIsed" fOf it bedroom or "ffice. JIIy bouse is not like that. It has. gar.ge f. the front. with t~e rest of the house behind it. ·Oear ~ .. Colonna: I am writfnq thls letter to you ;1 regards to the Sabe and Edie ~roner 230 Parks ide Drive remodelling project~ I am verJ ~~(h 18 favor of the n~ addition. I have looled at thefr plans and ~ent Over t~em vith Edle. She 0150 ~.s walked .e through their house and poInted out all the ;~fove~nts to b!. I see no negative problems. onl1 good ,l.nntng and VeT} mUCft 11 c~aricter with the entfre neighborhood. (S1-gned) Orfgfnal Cwner,. JIIIark thristine.ll 202 Parks ide Drive. Pale Alto.· J taug~t sc~ool 1a Palo Alto for 40 1ears. [~sed to be it Jordan. (i.audible ,ooment.) Charles Rundell. 23] Pirksfde Prjv~. PiTG Alto: I Jive directly across the street fro~ G.b< .nd iis wife. I a~ strongl~ oppo<ed to this project. J just wa"t you guys to ~tick to your gurdeline~ of the 40 perceRt. The <it1 ~as rwles and regul.tions on bow these things are supposed t. be done. T.is is encroa"ing on oy daylIght plane by about t~ree feet. if I •• not mistake •• from the 20-foot setback. ~e is going 11 feet. n.at Is • d.y1igM ,hn. issue. if I a~ Dot .ista~en. "s. Gr~te: Actuall1, it 15 in encroachment i~to the front setbact, not i daylfght plane fS5ue. "". pundell: It is a daylight ,1ane is.sue also .. if I am not .ish\eR. ~s. §rpte: IllS is Dot located ~t~ll the daJljg~t plane. Mr. Rundell: I bave a lett!r from Pbyl11s Bilton. the nelg~bor. She ~a$ writteR a two-page letter opposing t~is addition. I can onl} ec~o What sbe ~as ~jtten. Although the treenmeado~AssO(latlon has approved the blaeprints, ! vant to ~~~W ~hen t~at approval happened. Was it before Dr after two oelghbor. opposed the propos.l? 1 thi,\ you shou1d ovoid doing thfs~ fou \now .. t~ere are onl} so many fichlers II the State of (alifora' •• lo~ cannot get them ia (h;cag~ or a"yw~ere else 1. the CDuntr1'. and I reilly think: ,*,1:' sho~ld just Tea",'e the.m Ule way they ire .. They receRt1, proposed t~is one-story he;9~t li~it~ lhat 1S great. I like that. They just don't Jook good it too storfes. f do.'t t~ink yoo shoiJld modify thell It ill. linless it ls -construct he. Tb's is not II,)' idea Otj06J9; -3· .. ~' .. ;:." .. • / j ,- ,-, @ 0 tf & <onstructive additfo~p [urge you guy~ to oppos~ t~is reQodel. Thank you, f!!iJlIs Hilton. 220 Park'ide Drive. fi'. AHo: I a. the neighbor on the •• rtk side of t~e Groners. Ori91"1'1, I tnousht they wore going to baye I ••• 11 addit;o.. r did not rea!iZ. the impact, tn. fact that it is going to be t.ll.r a,d is 90in9 to go i.to the daylIght ~lane .nd is going Into t~e front area lctt t~e le9~1 setback~ Tnefr garage ~as Qrfgi~a'ty an exceptioQ to tbe le9al~ The ~andboc~ 5a~s that r~garding the front y!rd set bact, lOU can exceed t~e leg;l setbact, but on11 by half l~e widtk of your hoese. I believe that is the ~ufdeline. It also say1 you are nat supposed to i.trude on the daylight ,l.n •. Jhe d.ylight plane starts .t th~ legal setback, r~ther than It the propertJ lfne~ So t~ey wnu1d be iAS~dE the day1ig~t ,~ar.e. On the side. the ~ouse was orfgi"all1 an e)c!ptio~. The handbook says t~.t the side lard exceptio" is onl1 supposed to b< 2G feet total. I ~nDw that Eic~!er built those bouses with more than 20 feet. It is an area ~ere &lght f~et ts the legal setback. Those houses are six feet. I think tke rei son t~at ~e got Ais houses apprnved was that ~~ had hauses Dicel) irringed so that people~s bedroom w1ndo~s ~ere offset by i larger i!.l"'ei Dn Ue "ther side Qf tha neighbors. Th~ bed'·coms 'Were net faCing the nelghbo~s~ bedrooms. The patio ireas were Dear the frcr.t rDO~, and t~e famll, rnog ~ad wider areas~ So wit~ ,ts overall ,lan. he really toot i lot gf exceptions t. what the building ~andbook recommends~ He took the maxfDU~ llready and added DnA J feel that .e s~ould fellow the guidelines that haye been set down by the city_ ere ChrfsHJ'le: As 1 said. I 'have beeR on~ of the original O\llriers, and ba~e lived ~ere sinc~ 1956~ I have seer, many of these p1aces c~ange lite thel are trying to do. some Qf the~ not for the better, 1~ (~angtnq the ~arage i"to • roo~ and not looting very lice, is far is ~~~ing it ~oot lite an Eichler borne. {)ne of the thIngs that upsets ••• lot, .1t~ough HIs may not ~'ve ·an~t_fDg to do ~t~ it, but I tnink it does. Some of ~s j~ the neighborhood ~ouTd 11ke to build a second story. but our &reenrneidow rules forlilfd' that. So far, Hat is the 'Way it lias. beeR. Times "tIa".le cr.anged, ind there ire a lot of people ~~o have children. ] do not ~ave my two c~11dren at bome. They ire grown up and gon~~ I am tnerf by myself. Times have c~anged. where you cannot move because ef the expen~ of buying a Dew ~ome. The onl1 thing you Can d~ is to build a secon~ story. Unfortunate11, fg Sreenmeadow. you cannot do that. So you either ~ave te not do it. Dr ~ove jf yo~ can afford it. I. this Cise. t~ey ftad an additional ,ieee of land SD that the] can bUll~ another room. It is not gOfDg t~ be any farther out than the one t~at is next door t~ ~e. so I cannct see ~at the problem is. I t~tnk it ~o~ld add t~ the neigh~rhood and to the [ic~ler home. Toank you, (11"'eR tIlleR ~arcillk. 4046 Ben Lomond Driv~ Pilm Alto: J live i~ Greenmeadov and a~ the arcbitect for this ~r~je(t. Ve knew t~ere ~ere some concerAs about shadows and daylight because t~is addition is te~ feet .Igh at the fro't, and the hou.e right DO~ is on11 ten feet hIgh at the bac~. So J did so~e shadow diag~i~s wbich you can ~ave. J did not find i situat~on ~here t~e s~a~ow of the house crossed Farkside Drive. Also1 most .f t~e time, the Sll·foot·bigh fence ~~ith is on ejther side of the 04/06/95 -t- '.-. . .-, I .- -+-~ '-t ~- bouse ~~ treates the s~~e shadow or I bf9ger shadow than the house will o •• Ither cf the neighboring propertle •. ~ •• 'rote: I vo.ld Ij~. t. cl.rlf, for t~e record th.t there Is no .fflcl.1 d'1Ij9~t pIon. i.tru,fon by t~j. ,ropo.al_ There's. std. setbact fssue ind I 'recf setback iSSU@t but there 1s no iAtrusion fntD t~. d.,lfght pl.ne_ er, RuMell: They told me t~.r. w.s 0 c.ylight plane Iss"" frOil upst,lrs f. the Planning Office_ Ms. Grgte: There is 00 d5ylig~t plane fssu~. and [ a~ sorry you got the vrortg hformatfcn. You ire ... elcome to conls up ar,d loot it thes-e ,1arts more clo.el,_ Mrs Rundell: ! ~dV~ seen t~e plans. Ms~ "a!&l!i!: These are Xeraxed photographs of ~ouses fa the neighborhood. T~is is ~30 ParkSlde .;th the addition drawn in. ~t~ One of the !lrge trees ia the frant w~ich wilT be biding it. Teis is I ~Quse w~lch h., no addition, but the roof line go., "P to 12-1/2 feet .t the front. This is the hcuse t~at ~as added onto last yeaT, I very simi liT prej~t. his is the house acrcss the street, a \o'er)' typ]ca.l hOlJse fClr the neighborhood. and it is als. 10-I/Z feet .t the ridge ot the front of the bo~~. Alse another similaT ~ouse a blo<k iWiY. I took th;s out 'f t~e boot b~ QUinc), Jo~e$. Who ~as the D~ig;nal architect for the bouse, talking about )Is re,lde.tf.l bulldi'gs. He says, • •.. po,t .nd beam to e1fminate bnneCeSs&r~ bearing walls. ~ign ceflings, glass sliding doors~ 'ig~ gloss lookl.g for aut.lde c.lor .nd foliage, ,1.n. that penolt spaces fl flow from one arta to another without waste or trafff( problems.- Those '~ere ill elements of 'is desfgn that ~ feel aTe ~er1 important and are the basi, for t~!. <!esign. Ms. SrQte: J ~ave an addftfonal questfor.. fhe plans call c~t ~ood siding to ~tc' t~e existing fence. rs t~is t~e e.lstfng fence nere1 Ms~ ~arcfalt: There is an e~istfng fence there~ I thln~ lt is going to be re~llt. byt the fence fs there ~! that Joc~ticn~ ~. Cftlonna: It s~ows is eight feet, but sf~ feet is the ~ax;mu~ fence belg~t (or I fence facing the street~ Seven feet would be allowable on the propert, lfn. it the sides and the rear. Anyt~lng facing the street is sll feet. Mr Ryndelf~ She was talting about the arc~itect~s idei ~f including ope~ spaces~ and that is e.actl, ~~at they ~ave rfgnf now_ Tbey ~a~e i be.uHf,I, closed-il patio. I think they should leave it tht way. It is porfect the Yay it is, quite fran11y. ".'Groner: I have i~clDded some p~Dtogr.ph$ of our beautif~l pat~o. whjc~ is basltal1) a cracked ,ieee of concrete_ Ms. ~arcfait: Th~re are no ~ndows imto the fnterio~ of tne bouse. Tnere is ~o ~a1 t~ eQjoy t~is space except is you walk by it. JIIs_ Grote: I want t~ mentl0n for the recard that \.'e flave receiwed se~eral 04/06/95 -5- . ._ ';0',,:; . i , '. ~----->~-,--- '/.,::._.-i' , __ -,_~-.. _ ... :: . i.._, :" -' " .' '~.----..,-. ~.~:::!, -":.~ ____ ~ ~~':';C:Cl-~;;;';"=-, @ Jetterl fl suppo~t of the project~ rat"'" lengthy. o ] vill summarize the~) as some Ire There is • letter from the President of the Greenmeadow Assocfatfon: -The BOira Qf Directors of tn~ Creenmea~ow C~mmun~tl Assoc~atjon ~as rev;e~pd and ilcce,ptii!'d tfle rec:orrmend"ation of the 6reenmead~w Ar;:hitecttiral Revlt!w ind Covenirlh Committee that the Pf"[)pos!d addition to 230 Parks ide Drhe Is I. te.ping wit;' t~, seal. "d ch"racter of the n.;ghborhood.· (Sfg',ed) Sigrid !C. PilllslYt Presldel'lt .. :and also by Eiar,Y Rafter. Me. Rundell: Is there. date on t~.t? ~. Grote: it is dated ~.rch l(, J995. Mr. Rundtll: Is that after the origi"al hearing? ~. Colonna: T~e original date of appl!titi~n is January 25, ]99S. "5. Marchit: The Groners had e~ery i!l,tentfoc of bringing their p) ans to the ~~C. There was I delay i. g~tting it reviewed because I was t~e (~air IOf the ARC€:. ] did ll{Jt waut to review i pro-jec:t Ulat 1 Plad .... or1.ed on, so I ~ad t9 call someone else out of retirement w~o had been on the committee for ten years, ind ~ave .i~ review the plans, ilong .... it~ t~e ather members of the committee~ The fact that it was n[)t re~iewe1 until after t~e request for the ~eiri~9 .... 1S made fs not redlf, rele~ant. It just bappened t~at •• y. ~s. $rote: T~ere is a petition signed by 22 ~eople fn favor af the proposal. There 15 also i l~tter from a nelghbor, CarclYB Cobervlc~, 1. ~fc' s~e says she is i~ support [)f the proposal. She thinks it is reasonable and It does not exceed size .. fie'ight or <fesf'9" (If att1er bames il tne neIghborhood. She belle,e. the the HIE should be granted. There is I letter fr~m Mark Ct1ristfne who spoke today ia support of t~e prDposal. There Is i letter from Marion Mande1l and J~seph Mandell 90f~g on record' fill sUi3port of the proposal. Tb€y bel feve the imy;'ovemellt would" be an .sset to the oeighbor~>c~. Another neighbor, Nancy ~Gr,. is in support of the proposal, saying that t~e dp.slgn ~aictafns the stale and look ~f the other r.ouses fa the Ei(~ler neighborbood. There is nothing that differs from .t.at ~iS already been done la the nei9~borhood~ and the plans should be approved. There is anot~er letter 11 support from [mlly Yong and Raymond teung. The addition is II keeping ~th the scile and st1le of (fc~ter ~omes and will not cause prDblems for anyona f. the neignborhood and will be an asset. There ire t~o Jetters il oppositfoc to the proposal. ~ne is from {~arles Rundell ~o spoke today, saying ne does believe it will be i detriment t& ~he Deighborbood to approve this kind of addition. There is a two-page letter from Pbjllis ~iTton, ~ho als~ spoke in ~ppositian to the prQject, stat10g t~it s~e has conterAS about bui11i~1 Dver the lot coverage by two percent. and Hilt she feels that iI twa-foot encroachlTl€nt illto the side yard would jeopardize an cider plum tree f» ~er backyard and .ffe,t t~e lIght i. that are.. Soe belie,e. that the project should not be approve~. If there are no other comments, and J wtll <lose issue i written dete~;~at1on witbi, ten working 04/06/95 -6- .~ .. the public hearing and d'ays frOID today. I I I 1 I " . ~.', .. . .•... ".~ .. -'-. . . . ~ i- . , • &. :"""-~ \ --. -•• , '. '. '7AA17QW @ IO~t.? AM,~. fol ~'7 A1...111VOe:: -' 45" ~VtJ'~ A'Z-IMLrf1.t ~ 45" e:. , t " .' , ,~' , . " ~ J < /.<1/ ,./ " . ' " - -' -? . / evtL..O'lN0 ~~ hi (1J -;;l.t-l'? A£.. .. n-r~ %. ~lJ»'? AU H V114 "" €) 6~/11 • -.' . -. ATfACHMENl' 7 • S. P. McClENAHAN CO,INC. Aa .O.IC U L"tU. j.T I " .ut"STJtA~ !tOAD. ~oc..", yAU.t'f. CA -.c:a .. YR. GABRIEL GRONER 238 Parks~ ~ive Palo Alt<>. CA. 9U06 bear Mr .. Croner:. TU..D"tfOHE C.'5. 32e-171' 'U ,.IB} .&.4-t2.., May 11. 1995 .P.NlE.S .... Cr.,EJII4Io< ..... "I\.I..~J .... _D<I ~r , __ "nlOI\jG o.o..",c" MOQl!lE .JO>1'" ~, McC .... ...-.N As requested .. I ln5pected the proposed' coostrLJCUon area .at U',.e right fror.t of house to determine impa~t on the "eighbot"~5 PJum tree. The construction area is presently covered with cooc.rete and creates _ poor environment for root growth beneath the l!aO. Foundation footirtgs .. to iii twenty inch nO·) depth., wU! e ... ~c:r-~ch no closer than, .. ithfn. eight feet (Ill of the \runlc:~ At this distance buttress roots ... iIl be preserved and no lnj1Jry 10 function.al roots is anticipated. No tree preservation measures IS recommended It this. time. ShOuJd you have: any questiOns, Of' U we may be of furtf'ler assistance in these concerns, kindly contact our offK:t It Iny time. JMMc:pm ATTACHMENT 8 (7 letters, 1 petition with 22 names in favor) 230 Parbide Drive Palo Mo, CA 94306 Mardi 24. 1995 UsaGrOle Zccing AdminiSlnltor City of Polo Alto 250 Hamil!oo Avenue hIo AII<>. CA 94303 ltel' 230 Parkslde Drive (97-H1E~) ."",,p[>c.oon for Home Improvement Exception Dear Ms. GroIe: Accompanjlng this letter III< two items in support of our abo'e referenced Appuca!ion: • 1ett« li:om the Greenmeadow C<>mmurnty Associ.tioo Board of Direct<n, and • petition signed by the vast majority of our nearest ncig."bo<> The Greenroeado,. Community Association', Arohitectural Review and Covenant. Committee ~·ed our plans, and found ou< plsnned aildili<ln '0 be consistent with the cIeSgn and scale of othen in the Greenmeadow neighborhood. The Greenmeadow COt1lJJlWlity Association Boar~ ofDirecton unanimously approved the Commit,,,,,'. report and the presldenl, Sigrid Pinsky, wrote the accompan)ing letter. We explained and .nowed our plans 10 many of our nearby neighbo<> ",ho then signed the ~g petition wbit ... al", "The und=igned n..ro~ neighbon of Gabriel and Edith Grone: """cno objection 10 apprO'·a1 of. lIome Improvement Exception for Ille" addition planned at 230 Parbide I)riv.. Palo Alto." Many felt more strongly in support of our applicatioo Illan!his simple statement imp"" Of the 19 bousebo1d. (COl including ours} !hat noceived ootices aboot our Applicali<ln, members of 17 (89.51.) signed tile petitioo. In addition, Dle!11beB of the three !lCl<!-nearest households signe<:l tbe peticion Thus, 21 of23 (91.30/ .. including us) of the homeowners in our immediate neighborhood explicitly support 00< Applia6on. & you blow, only one individual has objected. We look ~ 10 JCeeting with you and explaining our planned project 00 April 6. Younlruly, Gabriel f. Groner Edith Grooer ""'~ . /'. C) '.,"ml~'y 303'ARKSIDE D~IVE, PALO ALTO. CAllfOI\N1A &4306 TElePHONE (4151494-3151 March, 24, 1996 To: The Palo Mo ?laming Depat!menI The Board of Oirt¢lOrS of !he Greenmeadow Communlly Association has r ... i.,. ... ed and aa;epled IIle recorr.meodalion dille Gr~ Atchileclufa: Review and C<lo<enanls Commillee 1hat tie proposed add\!ion 10 230 Par1<s1<!e Drive is in keeping wi!h tie S<:ale and charade.-01 tie neighborflood. GREENMEAOOW COMMUNITY ASSOCIATtON,INC . . -, .(' :--32 Ti09a. Ct. Fillo ~l tij. CA 943L:i.C: Mar'ch 1(' .. lC;;95 ~ ha· ... e revIewed th& I"lilns 'fer tne Sroner .ResiCQoc-e-at :--;0 F:il.l""ksitie. ~a"lr;'9S AI .. l. A2 .. ! .. and A3 .. 1 .. ..,ere ,"I"e.oo=.red by Gr-·esnmeiidcw Ar~hit~c~= and are ~ated Ji4~/9S .. J beliEY~ t~at these plans Are describi~ an additlQn ~ich wjll oe c~_tibIe with Clther homes l",i:1re in the &@enmeadow nei9hborhr..-od. I "'II!'CClllmend the -d'E"a;ign. be i!cceoted for construct [on. n~ct c{!f~ Sar.ry L R&9 "ll""y!::: 1. Saft r hi tee: C9270 Ta dl9 01'1 of PlilG Aha Zonina Admlni.t,..tor R-a_rdillllllln A,pr,lic .. tmn (or a Home Jrilpnivem .... t Exception for the Propl!rty located .t 230 l'.rt.side Drive! The undcriig.'ied ~ neigbbors 0{ Gabiiel !nd fl[1~ Oroner have .0 Dbj"-.;,ion 10 .pproval ,of'. IiomC 11tlp'f'C t';mc:nr: I!JtoopUCtl rer t.1HI:tr ilddiliQtl pl.n~ ., l.:)Q Pa.r\; .i~o l)rive,. Pllt" Aha Signature CJ.,£ A. ~ jJ...., ~ , Add .. ". t sp ~ ... fv.,~, 'L"-.1£..# _'0-",,~"-,,~_ y, ~- SigT-.ature&~ Signalurc :&; ~h SigM!U!e ~ I . , , ---f-...l..i!i~~!....::I!"4L--Add,.,....ll1 JtuJ,:.t ~: ,q1:2:{,.M..£.~'=P~Yc:1~-Addr ... f1iJ A~,~ ok., ~~lI--l:tl!l'+LJ,~~~"t.!;'. "Address LJfJc:lAI/!p!Jf·;r!m }J;&'; r.,)-: . i , __ ~;::.tr.:,eJ,4.:Ill.t..UMt>JL-Address JEJt...:...~ ~J I /~J ~ -:'!' .l ~!..l",.._h---~~I---71J- ~/} /-2".1 ' -p I" Signatw-e ~ ,,'t"'&-a>;> ~ oQ_v Address / <YO In-? #..!;, '(::'!:'-':~ _ , ' SignalUre '~~tltt9t;.. c"'.4 " , -~:: ',.-.. T. the Oty of Palo Alto Zoning Administrator Regarding an Applkatiou for a Home Improvement Exception fDr Ihe Property Located al130 Parkside Drin: 111< uncler>igneQ' oeo,-ry tleishbo<s of O.briel Ind Edi th Groner have DO objection kl approval of. llome \mpfovemenr baptioD for their additioo planned at 230 P .. -kside !)rive, Palo Mo, l J ': ~ 1--Md, ... _<r:..:~~/:.!f--.J6-<~,~"--.!L.n..r..~~~.l~QyX-__ SignatuT~_~~;:'~~:::==::::::'=-Add, .. s '(0 2.:Z ,~ t.~ / Address 1'1 0 P0w-4"'-<-Dr SignaltJ'" ____________ Addrcss _____________ _ ~;~natu'e ___ ----_____ ArldrcS5 _____________ _ ""-. GREETINGS • ~ FOR n.ICDIG f"dE 'I'L~ TO lIE1IR OUR CASE • I lULL BRIEFLY ElCPLlUN, -IIIIA~ WE WANT TO DO AND WIlT -_ WE WEN! ABtYJT DESIGNING !'!IE PRO..TEC'l! -WIlT WE Si:l.tEVE THAt TOO SBOULO }.pPROI/'E OUR APP WBA~ ;ADo AN OFFICE AND SMALL BA.1"IiROQo! IIlI£RE WE !<OW H1\VE AN &NCL06ED PAfIO, AND • MIlKE OUR EXISTING OOVERI;D ENTIa 1fAT INTO A R.>.!.LftAY i'IIAT I'I'O'IlDES ACCESS TO t'IIOSE !lOCHS AND OUR FAMILY AClCM. • Ar TIIX SlIME·, no: WE 111 LL MIlKE Ml( SMALLER OFF! CE INTO A GUllS! AClCM, AN!) WILL REH:lOEL OUR SATBRCX»IS WHY ;-SPACE -OUT OF TO'IIN, OUlER SIBLINGS RETIRING/TAAVELI~ -CHILDREN -PAM! LIES -OU! OF 'l'Ot1N -OCtiPUTER CQ<SULTANT I 8CM& -> OFFICE • ACCESS TO FAMILY !OOOK BOW ~IllI< "r IQI()If BOIl UNl'IL WE VIsnED NEIGHBORS WHO ENCLOSED 'BUR 1fAI.KIiAY • ASKED It-C. '1'0 DO DESIGN -QUALIFIED MCl!In:CT AND NEIGHBOR -EICHLER EN'l'BOStAST -N:lVED noM SF TO LIVE IN om: -SroDIED QUINCY JONES, ORIGINAL EICHLER ARCHITECT, AND HAS I:XTJ:NS IVE LrBRA!U' -DESIGNED RDfOOELING OF OTHER NEIGBBORBOOD HCMES -ACTIVE IN COl+! -Q( BO"'!~!), <:Ct!MI1'TEES, VOL!.NTEER - ICNOWS IIC1G:S AND PEOPLE • ~Im:MENTS -SPACE -AS ABCVE -ACCESS TO NEW !lOOMS AND FAMILY ~ VI GOOD FLOW OF UlTERIOR SPACE -EXTEND NO FARTHE R FORlfARI) THAN Fl'tONT OF. G\RAGE AND NO FARTHER SIDEWA)'"S fllAN BEDROOMS -Fl'f VIrgIN EXISTING ENCLOSED PATIO -PRESERVE u.NDSCAPING, ESl? SPECIMEN J. W<PLE -RESUL! TO LOOK LIKE CUSTQ( EICHLER IIOOSE IN EICHLER -STYLE AND TllADIfION, CiCMPATIBLE VI CHARACTER OF NIID, NO'l A PA TCII JOB ", -USE WINDOWS TO PROVIDE NATlIRAL LIGHT , GOOO VENT -OFFICE Ca~"'iRTIBLE TO BEDROQ<I • TRIED DESIGNS t'1IJ'.% MET REO'HENTS, IltJ'l ilIff ROOF LINES -ALL AT 8 Fl -1lALL1IIAY AT 10 FT 11/ UNBROKEN CEILING ~CTIOO f~ J;XISTlNG EN'l'RANCE, JCI!'CJIEN AND LIVING ROQ<I -IlJo.LUIAI }.NO OFFICE BOT!! AT 10 FT TO MATCH OTl!I:R ~ • LATTER DESIGN WAS nu: ONLY ONE THAT -HllXOOZES USE OF NATURAL LIGHT -ELIKnIAt'ES AlP.a.J\RD i'AANSIrICl{ TO EXISTING 10 Fl !lOCHS -PROVl:DES GOOO VEN'I'ILATIOO OF 'I'I!E NEW, INTERIOR UTa • •• AND n LOOKS 'rIlE BEst ~ t'iIE S mEET • VERIFIED 'fBAT DESIGN ~FORMS 1'0 SCALE AND C~TER OF O'l'IIER HCOSES IN THE NW -REVIEW BY M1IX, CllECKE 0 '11/ NE IGHBORS, uxi!a:o , PHOTOS -ARCC -APPROVi:D. REC a:t<S nuxT 100 -elM SO UNANIKlUSLY APPIID'J'ED MJ<X RECCMlENDATrOO -NEIGHBORS: 90' SIGNED PE1'lUOO INDICATlNG NO OBJECTIOOS SCtG: ACTIVELT SUPPORT ,PROJ , SAY IT WILL BE ASSET SCtiE WI10TE LE'tt'ERS -PBUros -SEE LIST" CONCWSlotiS -WIN' OCR PROJECT SI!OOID BE APPROVED • 0'l'IIElt I!OUSiS IN '!'HE 1iHD, INCLUDING LIM BCOSE. HAVE THE SAHE: fOOTPRINT AND LOT COVERAGE. , EXTEND INTO '!'lIE rnct<'l SETBACK • ADDITlOO WILL BE ALIGNED W/ GIIRAGE -ALREADY auILT INTO SE'J'EIAO( • ALRE.ADY I!I>.VE ~TE PATIO , 6 Fl FENCE AROUND N1EA OF PI<OPOSED ADDU'IOO -WON'T ENCLOSE »f'! I«:lRE AREA, WOO'l' LOSE »f'! I.ANDSCAPING OR GREEN SPACE -lIE ARE MAKING AN OUTDOOR ROQ<I INTO AN INHDE I<OCM • ENTRY WAY IS ALREADY COVERED • SCALE, 1IIlIIl<lWS, DOORS AND DESIGN DE'L'UL CONSISTENT W/ O'I'IIER !lOME S IN t'HE NIID • 10 FT ADDIrIOO IS i'YPlCAL OF ALL HCOSES IN \'HE NI!D -VERY FEW ARE 8 FT TI!BOOGIIOUT • PROJECT APPROVi:D , RECt;H£NDED BY GM ARCC , BOAF.D • PROJECt' 1!1.$ THE SUPi'OR"r OF A VAST MAJORITY OF NEIG!IBCRS PIlOTOGRAPRS IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED GRONER PROJE1::T AT 230 PARKSIDE DRIVE 1. ~R IU:SIDENCE AS SEEN no-! 231 PARKSIDE NOTE: 1. FENCE ALIGNED '111m GARAGE ENCLOSES PATIO 2. F!!()tIT L1U'IDSCAPING mAT WILL JOl:MAIN AFTER Ca<lS'1"I<DC'lIaI 3. '1'REE S WI LL OOSCURE ADDU 100 2. GaCNlR IU:SIDENC!I -ENCLOSED PATIO 3. GRONER RESIDENCE -ENCLOSED PATIO ~. GRONER ~SIllENCE -COVl:IU:D ENTRY WAY 5. GaCNlR RESIllENCi: -AJIKIiL\RD TRANSI'fIOO BETWEEN B F'l , 10 FT ROOFS 5. LIl( RESIDENCE AT 210 PARKSIDE RECEN'r ADO Ina{ WI~ SAME FOOTPRINT, EXTENS I CtI INTO BE TEIACK AND lOOCH BE IGBT AS PROPOSED BY GRCNE RS 1. LIM RESIDENCE AT 210 PARKSIDE RECENT ADOnION WITH SAME FOOTPIUN'I' AND SE!'BACK AS _DBY~RS e. WIESE IU:SIOENCE AT 208 PARKSIDE SlIME FOOTPRDrl' AND BE T8ACK AS PROPOSED BY CROtlERS 9. M&CIIl\M' RESIDENCE AT 2!1O PARKSIDE SH4E fOO'l'PIUlI'l AND SE T81.CK AS PROPCSED BY ~RS 10.BOSINGi:R RESIDENCE AT 240 PARKSI!)E Sl!OIiN NEXT TO GRONER RESIDENCE -NOTE 10 FT BEIGHT 11. RUNDELL Ri:SIOENCE AT 231 PARKSIO! NOTE 10 FT REIGHT 12. 'l'URNER RESIDENCE AT 251 PARKSIDE NOTE VAlUED HEIGHTS I • RECEIV!f:I> APR 081995 /J/~~~~ .;2cJ.f2 cT~ A. /?/L ___ --7'" ~.~ a~-/ / , -, ' 40 II Sea looIOIl<! Dr. Palo AIt<>. CA 94306 Marcli 11. 1m Zooing AdministrltD< C"II)' of Palo Alto Planning Department 250 Hamilton A_",,-Sth Floor Palo AIt<>. CA 9430) Dear Zooins AdminiSlniloc W. support !lle (Jro ..... lpplication b I Home Improvement E«option fur their property located It 230 Par1.:side Driv. ~ Groners bave ""mea .. ilh I neighboring architect 10 4esign an addition tIutt is in keeping with the scale and styk of OIber Eichler homes in our "';glIbornood. """. the ... ceptions tfley "", .• requested are similar 10 others a!ready approved and implemented in our neighborhood withoot causing pro!Jlems bCl)'Olle. We beIi .... tlla! !lle Or"..,.. planned imprOVeD>en! will be an asset.o 0Ul" neighbo:OOod Yours tnJIy. :D.~7 EmilyJons ," Zoning .·.dminlslral<>r NA."'C~-HOOD KJ\RP 2:11 PARlCBlM; A'''£''. P..u..oALTo.CA 9~ .f 15-493-3595 Marth 18, 1995 City of Palo Alto Planning ~ 150 Hamilton Avenue, s.\h FIoo< Palo A/tG, CA 94303 Dear z,;<ling Administr.ator: .... ' a Gre~w T~ and "<igbbor, I support 11", .pplication for a lionre Improvenl.OI Exceptioo mad.: by th" Orooas at ~3O Parkside Drive, As I tmdersland iI, IIkly fu,,'. been worlUng will, an archi1"'-"1 (who is also I Ik'ighbor) \0 &slgll1h<it :><!ditioo \0 m:Unuin 1M scak and k'Ok of lh.l oth.-" bousos i.~ this Eid-.kr ndghborb.>od. They hove ~ r ... k .. ed by th. ""rchike_al R~ Blard 0( Ill" Gr<enn"'adow As:;ociation and appr""ed. ~~ is IIOlhing in weir plans Il,,,, 611fas !rom .. bat Ms alr.:>dy bee"" clo<re in !he oeighbWk:.oo. r soe II<' r""""" "Ny" .... ", dosigns and plans sbould [.:( be ~J'l'fO\'<J inuu<dialcly_ St>:h. additiol» 001" ;0., .... 11>0 value 0( our surrounding p<~ Pk_ give !hem Ilk> ~ aJ'lll"""'als at your e .... liest cooven;"""., Zooing A.dmini3traIor City oCPalo Alto Planning Dep>rttnent 250 Hamilloo A "".'Ie, SIb Aoo< Palo Me>, CA 9430\ OeM Sir or Madam. REeF." - 250 Parl<:side Drive Falo Alto, CA 94JQ6 March 30, 1995 W. _d like '" pIlU on ""oro "'" SUl'!"'" for tlle app!icillioo. for. Home lInprove""'!lI &ceptioo for our neighbors. the Gronen. at 230 Forbide Drive. (We ~v< two hous<s away, at 250 Park'ide.) W. feel1ha1 tllcir plan will fit in ",.n. in me and st:Ik. '111llI1hc oIher &hlerbomes in tbe neigbbodJood. Thcze an: at Jeast !hree otbet homes "" tlle block which have simIlar exterior oddilion.<. Their improvemeDl wouid be an asset 10 !he neigbborhood and ",e.,.. alway. Vre.sed 10 bave resideDts maintain and improve their borne .. wbi<:1! are. Wt all, forty years old. Thank you for root atteDtion. Sina:rely. ~~.g~c Manon B. Mat>dell ~P)/~ Sosepb D. Mandell -. cay I'Iaoain& Dqll Cmc-Ccmcr Polo All<>, CollI: ~ PIamDac Oopt 241 Pa."bid< Dr. Pal. AlIA. CaJi{. 9-!JOE A;riI6"m 11"'------..... I an lI1'itiqas I :IICar aeighbor rLGabe and E.die Groner. 2.10 P:uUidc. 'cannot:.anmd W t.carin, CD tbeir RqDI':It lID ft:IIXXId their homC' and .'auld tile '!C! il5e !!Us 1catr 10 ~ mJ' ,;c.". llliCetD:S to mt !bill dod< pn>jea pn>p>so! " Ra'O"zbk c... iI cIoes IlOl =<04 .. _ ","gb< or dc5ip aOhc:r_ aIr<odr ia tho ~ They retaiIIcd .. arWtoct rn.. the .,.;~.iI<> is dcsipin, "" __ ., _1IJe EicA/c! SIl~ IDol tIIe]. _""" 0Wf0'a! IX !be nei&Jll>o<llood ArtJ, __ ..! Ro\;'" COIIIDIiJ!<e 'thiMlIJey oboWd II< grantedpcnnissimllO """''''''' :' .--"~-. ~~-' . , .. . , .... :-. ,". ' ... . ".,'., " .. ATI'ACHMENT 9 (2 letters opposed) Zoning AdministratOl' Oepartment of PI.anning & Community Environment fifth FIoof'· Palo Alto City Han 250 Hamilton AveOOl! Palo Alto, Ca 94301 15 February 1995 Re: H$e Of Optional Public Hearing Per 230 Parlcslde Drive 195-HlE-6J Dear Zoning Administrator; This Is A Written Request Asking You To Conduct a PuIlDc Healing Regarding the Request (or a Horne \mp(ovment Exception at 230 Parkside Drive. I find !he request for Excetion unacceplable and would be a de!rimen! to the lmme<IIa!e neig!\bortlood. Thank you for sending me !he Notice. ~J2~ Charles R RundeD (415) 856-6018 ,-.: " , • ~-~--. , .,' RECEIVED RECEIVED Z<rung Administrat<r t;1. II;: I9'.l5 • ~: ~ Dept of PIannlng &; C<mmunity Envirmment ~) J:r.j~ 5th FIocr, Palo Alto City Hall 00'AA'T\1EHrCF ~J..,.ARTI.iEmOf "'_'''''''l<G 250 Hamailtoo Ave. Al<OCOMMUl<ITYD~c. ; Palo All<> Calif. 94301 COMM""""!lE1IaOPI8T March 21, 1995 lie: N_ of He8ring fer Hom<! ~t Exceptia:l at ~ Par!:side !D be held ~ • 6 at 8:00 PM. Dear Zoning hlministrator: I am writing =ning the requeot fer a Heme \rqR"wm>ent Ex"'Ption .1 230 Parkside Dr. I am opposed 10 the prcposed Heme lmpravemen! Exception as it !l<lW stands. It appears that the requested plar.s involve mae than two sepa.-ate exCl!ptims to P A zcning guide! ines: I. There is ... 3% FARwh ... eas only 4Q<1. is &Ilowed 2. Th .... i. an _sian of the fron t yard encroodunen t in additlm Ie> an existing setback. The addi tional extensim in greater than lfl the width of the building. The Groners may not be aware that their g-..rage and orr"", in the a-iginal building ... hid!. was already an eru:rooching wall ( 11 ft from propor!;f1ine Acarding 10 page 21 of PAlo Alto lDnJng Guidebook p 21 a h<riz<lltal exten!im of front yard enaoadunm.t is limited to 11.! the ,.->dth of the existing house. The proposed extensim wwld be 100 lit of the existing hoase frontage. S. The Sooth side ... all of the proposed extension is an addi tim to an criginal maoadunent. It is Ii n fran the property line whereas 8 It is required in oar ares. The Soulh side wall will be en I:ql of the Pow ... line easment of 4 It in their yard. It wiU pot a large old..-plum free in II1l' back yard and. cedar in the front yarcl,in seriazsly jeopardy frem lack of light and from disturbing the roots during anstrnction .. Trees ...... e planted acarding to the criginal EichJ ... planned neighlxrhood. The p-t:1jlOS<!d height 0( the b<rik!ing and exira coverage of the lot will be oo! 01 make the b<rllding look 0<1\ 01 P£'~ioo. to the size of the \ot. It will shade II1l' area and restrict priva<;y. In summary the prq>osed """'Ption requested at 230 ParJcside is in e!Jed three separate exreptions to the Palo Alto zming gu;delines. 1 recanmend that Palo Alto .ming guidelines be followed until revised l<r evaycne. • . .' . -";. ':";'~'" -"', ' . Ardlir>!ct".lrally I !eel th.~t the l.nlding is oojectknable m thaI it dlangl5 the ambIa><e c( tl,e neigblxrbood fr<r:> a quiet area wl t." .mple yards and tr .... to • mre clutlered street wlth buildings protruding alm:>st 10 the street. J feel that the privacy clll1Y side yard on the south side cl the prq>erty Wt>UId be ~ a!fected by the proposed side ~ whid! is larger than existing windoorlI on the side cl the house. J .... oald not object to wln.:Iow. '"' the fraJ! cl the bouse being substituted for the!ide ~ • J bqle that the plannl"g ammisior. ,.in o:ntince to in.ra-c" ,""sting gtIidelmes eladdated in the Zaling Guidebook. The han&ook states that an Exception needs 10 be suppa-ted with evidence that: 1. 'Ole property fIX' whkh the a<Eptioo is req\J.t:Sted. ~ un1'lUe. -or-(here is SQl'!lt!thing ~ .bcut tbe imprOlrtf8Ilents an the-p-ope-1;y. Nothing in this case supports this c:oc tec.ti<m... z.. Base:! QQ the unique char3deriGtie of the ~ty~ the str.c:t applk.ati«:!. ar the tr.fin.Mce .. mld produce & project net in keeping with the nefghb:rhood cfl.Mader a the eCstir.J' ardU~ iDtegrit)· o( the strr.D:ture.. s. -ne ewceptim will oat: be-detrimental \0 SUlToundint" prqMrty ""'-'Den cr l'eSideots. On the o:ntrary. adhering to the zoning: ordinan<:e .... ooid produre the m<re pleasing effect cl a more spacioos froot yard and less duttere<l appearana! cl the boosing OMi'lex <il this street. An office is not • high prloriliY in .. residential area and would prroably be con_ted to .. bedrocm by future own ..... If the bouse changes ownership someme ... ;th 5 dl~dren ""''''' IlXJYe in to utilize the rIVe bedroa!lS ( or 6)an<! t..'>a! .... m dermi~ affect the priYa<;Y cl anyone ocwpying my present bouse, bearnse the lots are criginaIly small. Over aowdlng in the neighbcrhood would effect everyone. I definite1Y feed that this addition and others like it wlli adverseti affect the character cl the neigh!lo<hood. Sincerely Ptv~~ B f'-Li~ Phy\hs B Hll ton 220 Parkside Dr. Palo Alto, Calit ATfACHMENT 10 (12 additional letters in favor of) 6-2~95 Page 12 . ~. '\ ~-, Ralph ~ ¥eredith Whitaker C003 scripps ~venue Palo ~to ~ '~306-C53S US/H4-1133 Palo Aleo Pl&l'U1ing COUanission c/o ~ Cblonca~ Senior Planner Planning D<ipart"",nt ~ity Hall 270 Hamilton Av~e Palo> Alt-o <::A 9430~ Ite: Appoal of .Appli<;:at.ion :for R-l ZC-ne Variance Gabriel and Edith Groner 230 Parkside Dr1vv, Palo Alto ~4306 ~: . W$ are 30-year residents 0: GreenmaaOow, membQrs cf its comztaJ.nity association .. and neighbors of QcU:,e and £:die Groner ~VQr since thlir,i" arrived in t:bQ n,",ighborbood and :became actiVQ in ita affairs. We livQ a short blocJc away,. at ttl .. corner of Scripps and Parkside. We unqualifiedly support the Gronere--application. "fO-r a. var!.anee in lot. covvragQ.. in front: eetback .. and in sid ... lot: setbaek. We base o,n: support on insp9Ction of tbe plans; 0:1 familiarity ylth the architect ... ~.c. Harcinik {also of Gr-ecmmeadow} _ a.nd her l.o::ao-alty to the desi.gn conce.pts of Eichler homes; and. on the l:no"'"l\ldgea.blQ,. constructiva spirit of ~. GPOn-e~ family in its life here. As to lot coverag'Q. it:. is a fine point... in our opinion .. between .an Clntry ha11way that is enclosed {and therefore C!OIUntad. in lot: coveraSQ) and a narrow &!ltry ·court· tbat remains partially qxtn to the s):y (alld is not counted) Tb.at dea!gIl ditf.r~ takes the Grooera .over 401 ........ and leaVQ8 a neart>y neighbor"s recent r&lDOdol und9r (0'. As t.o e:etbacks .. the averag. lot-in Greenmeadow-1 and GreetlIJ)Qadow 2 (a t.otal of 243 lots) 'WaS -penalized-500 e.q. ft. back in 15154 .. with Cit)"" aWroval, BQ t.hat Eichler Homes could provide a 2.S-acre community center (park. swimming pool" and nursery school) to f~t"r a neighborhood cObeal~~nQas ~hat largely persists today~ That planning ittllC1Vatio=l probaJ)ly acootJnts for the Groner&' 6-ft. (rathe.r than S-ft.) sidel~ setback. It S9~ms to us Palo Alto Pla .. :ming Commise ion --: , May 1935 that.. a thoughtfully deaign04 and t:aet.ful addition lNLy toe allOW9d to Lollow tbe original line~ espoeialiy &in~ ~ha add.it.:ion most .cloc:.ely adjoins the garage (not the living q1arterc) of thea b::~,.uIQ next door. As to .ffects of th<e Groner remodel on tb .. g:t:'O".l1th and bealth of_ n.lghbcra' plantings" .... note only t.hat the Gron~r reaideoce ia .D:QI:th {not south) o-f th9 Phyllis Hilton property at 3:20 Parksi&iil Drivli. Solar exposure of Ma. Bilton 1 a treQG e})o1J,ld generally be unaff9Ct&d; :in :fact ... the crowns of those mature tAes are already abo;!. tbe Groner root linea (both ~ at tng and propoe ed) • We belie"" the add..ition will be a plus tor the Grocers. And eince 'We know theyTre keeping their gorgeous Japar..osa maple out in f~nt: ... we I rEI contiClr;a.nt that the re:n0t3alod house and yard ~ll set a n~ standard for its neighbors to matcb. L/7/JA ,~~ -)J7Wa'alit-.f£J./.u;tab~ ~H&r&dith Whitaker Xr a .Joe Colonna City Pl~nn!n, Commission City of ,.10 Alto 250 Hamilton 'do Alto. GA 943.01 DeaT Kr. <:clonn&" :DOugl..., J~ l'fec'ham C~.i.;-;.;::~:'t..--:~.:f': 290 P&r~s[de Drive Palo Alto. CA '4)06 Issue re&~rdi~ b~11dtng ~!~~ Cabe 6; Ed! th CRONER. 2)0 Park~i6e DrIve Pale Alto~ CA 94)0$ Ne!ghboy~ of the Groner's b.ve filed a ccmplarnt regarding tbe bo~e est~nsion ,lanned .t t~e 'rocer~s. The subsequent bear tog deelded in favor of the ~rooer'.; bo~ver. an apgeal was ma~e agair.st this nl1r-& b,. upset. l'let&hbou. This letter is to-5upport die Groner's .. lan., tCi bulle!: onto their home t_ • &.!Inner ",~n$u.rate with tbe ~lghborbocd .~ch!te~tur. and under th~ exper~ ~ldance of Eichler architect. ~~c[alilt I.C. Marelnlk. Since., bome b45 an .xtans[on to the bouse ia the same sanner as applied for by the Groner·. I .ee no reason Why tn_. p~oposed construction sbould not &Q forward. Unfo-rtun_2telJ'~ t$e upset ce[ghbors an unvilling to reviev ~e plans and are unvllling to discuss the issues in & aad!atlon (orua, I f~11y sup~rt tbe Groner's proposal for construction and I ~o no~ fe~l tb~t the plans will b~ cut c! ~hatacter for thIs neighborhood. Thank you. 190 P8!'k5ide Dr Pal<> Alto. C .... 94306 June 5. 1995 Usa Grot .. Zoning Adlnmistmoc City of Pal<> AIIo PIa.'lIIing DeparlmenI 250 lhmilton Avenue. 5th FJoor- hi<> Alto_ CA 9003 Dear M5 Grote, Planning Coounission=, one! City Cwncl Memt~. w. would like\<) e>q>ress our 5UpporI f<x the Grooer'. Home Improv= f>«'ptions !Cr their home at 210 Pvbide Drive W.1><' ....... that theic remodeling pI", .. ore 91el1lhought 001. Their additkKI will be like o<hcrs in our oei$bborbood in S!)'Io and ';'e, and will be an Uset 10 !be DeishJ>OO>ood. PIeast 'Pi""'''' theic plans. SCncen:1y. YaqunPei frf~~ .< LlslGrote Zoning Admi.';.strato< city of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo alto, CA 94301 WALTU V. HAYS Attorlley n~d Medi.atoc }~, P.ar1l:sidt Oi"i1rt: P,lo Alto, CA 9-1306 o HIS) 49}-C,88' FAX (415) 856-0'118 June 5,1995 Re: Groner application; 230 Parkside Dr. Drar Ms. Gr<>le: I am writing to suppo!! your approval of the Home Imp<ovement Exceptions foe the Groner •. My wife and I live down tM street from the Groners, 013» Parkslde. We understand thaI their p<opooed imp<OVements will be romplerely in keeping with tM character of tM Gree""",.dow neighborhood, and We therefore d<> no( understand If., basis foe any opposition. We Will no( I;e able 10 attend the hearing at the PlanI'Jng Commis$ion {or City Council. if that becomes necessary}, but we request that you include this 1etter in the file in support of affirming your decision. Thank you. Stncerely yours, (q~~sv /kt1~ ""- , '-.. " '--;'-~ ,-~~. "._ r,,-~· ,--- --.... ".--" " -.",,~ . "~' .... - ~ . ItllS LHI6t ~~ rJr /k"'~ ~""I'£>I'f G",-pj",,} . l'tmJo Fift By filE" ,t1Jl> 6'.t!a. 6Ru..'ER.. tJ30 !kJ.s,'bE ~~~ ~Lo k.w. ~ Ntf .... ~ M~ M:J A..n) !l.U,"',A O?,fr.;>Jr:.o>J. ~ u."~ WGt::. AT ;J~ fMKs.z,.-~vE" ht. OllER. J7OIGMS. OR .r: • ' Ho""~ IS-oNE B!DCJ< ~ rrlE /:ReNE/? s.. W.; J./Itv,; eulsr1>,;n.JI,guF I,JTEfh~<;'T It! euft ~"'fA";oJ,V. ,TS ~tVvfll<" Atll) HO<v .... I ~ fIlA,oJrA< ,,~. WE 14M,. TJIcftc<.~l...r hi!) CAfl.Ef=c' ... .y ~IG",~ T~~ s.."E Pll"ITS w~<-'f ~J2'S" "-110 tMI'RQ1c .. £",n: TH-E 6R.,.vER'S ~ ~I(" T" MJ4Kf". tJ.. ~£ AL.So V'is,1<=",=> n>.r ~""s.:-.,-"" $££ }/ow ·r~ .:;Jl4I/«-:; IX'VL}> I"n.~-r~ W,nt "'iI£'~ HeR ".,1> liS 1-A~S4(>."(r,fs THEy M>W ~}I;"r_ uk ~r..~"" Til, , ... ~5"v.£oJl"5 AA~ ,,","'L~ ~SI6oli<:> ~ e..nr Tile 'lhtRloR. ..... 1) EY'1ERI<lR --ANb rMr f"mFt !ilL"''!> weLl \<ltrll r"" (J14SW,.'G-..... :') ~'hlacA..'Nr;. 1*.<'£<;'. S;",I~ ~~w6Es IN CJCTER..,R ~ltF!iVi !k<>J Mll.c\.~"> J!<J~ ~p.r ~ Mfll-/r"'t>.. ~E ,AI ~ ~ 8<.00<. S;"CEflL: L'I yo va .. , ;:;-<. u.,£ ~.~,~~ ~i.- -' .. .rune 14. 199$ Ms. Usa Grctt Zoning Admtnis!r.llOC 0Iy cr Palo Allo 2SO Hanul101l A. 'c Pa!<> All<> CA 9<tlffi Dear Mo. C-roIt: Dr. R.~rI c. O., .... ~N /'liM O'clJ.,.,a OAbrurllll J71 0"","", [Jri", Fa(,J AI"Io. CA 94]06 --' .' , ,~' We are writing Ibis letter as residents of Grecruneadc-q. (:1.-JIJ1m uni ty ia P"olXl A'IO and as neigh!lors c:J Edie and Gab< Orooer, Aflef learning c:J !he Or"".,. prop.>s<d improvements 10 dleirbGme at 230 Farkside D" .• '1,e y,;ailed J:ur silllS l11aI their remodeling: ,... ul\derway_ Wllell..-e beard !hat ther~ .. ere =sons for de!.~, ... asled n= L"" plans for !he project. We Illen .. ",'ked !he Parl;side blocl surroun&ln@ Ihe Groocr ~.lenct 10 as""'" the ewtside appearance cr the oeij1bbcrin, bc"<ISCS- Orai\\.mg en some desigQ and archiieCl.urallnirung 4100 t"-PCrie~ •.. c ,anted 10 tel. a sense clthe!low the new front ele>atioo "oold r~ in 'oi'" the oei~bbcri."1 properties. W. DOled It..al She nea' 10olline. ,,",bile addi n.r: arcru focturo!:l interest.. .·ould cause 00 . infrinGement 011 1M SUIroWlding landscapes. I. oor 'Ho .. ·• laStCful n:mOOchn, add. 10 Ihe _<betic cr. neigllbOO\ooli 00 \!I. same street at le.st one oIher "",de~ has urxlef~ a s!mitar ren:JOder. Tbt resWl blends in "'ir:h [J)c nci,ghboring arclJi~1Un: and' m DO "ay intrudes "" Ihe coI>esi\'eness cllhe area. W.-,. sp<bn wllh friends ,.boare oear neigb!lors cl\!le Or""", 10 soflCiltheir ".",rld opinion. and bave beea ..,.,red cllheir entbusias!ic apP""'ar 0( \!Ie ~ pn>je<:t We know (JOm oor OWl experience <llaI me quali!)' or life for !he Orooers "in be enlmnced imrncaswabiy by \he improvements \hey are planning. r. tum, me qual;!} or hre of Ihe neigbbori>ood and. llltimalcly. Ill. citY'.'ill be s'irnilarl) llnprO'·e<t We urge y"" 10 recommend lila! \he plans for !be ,emooefin! at 130 ParI;si.le be 'pplU'\"ed by \he City C<JoJnciI at !be..rues! p05sible "I'i""'uni'Y- Sincerely, Stephen C. Schopbacb 200 Par\s\de Drive Palo Alto. CA. 94306·4.530 June 14, 199.5 u.a Grote. Zoomg Administrator and St.aff Members ol tlw Planning Commission and Stall' Members ol the C.ty Council and Stall' 250 Hantiltnn Avenue P.O. Eo .. 10250 Palo Alto. CA 94·303 Dear Ladies Rnd Gentlemen. ""'?-: .-.. ;--,-- I am I MlghborolEdie end Gat-e GronpJ' and have kno''iI ... n them since they moved to our Greenmcadow noighbo<hood. I am •• rltiug to support the Groners applicatIDn Co< a buildini pe,mit &>t the kDowing "",,,,,m;: I. I have reviewed the plans and fuel they are in leeping witlo the Eichler neighborhood design. The Groners sought an architect. woo is familiar with Eichler humes and mad< it a design goal that the integrity olthe Eichler style be preserved. 2. In Greenmeadow lA'e have an A.."Chitectural.Review aDd C-ovenants Committee which is «.Imposed of members of the Greenm,eadow Community + This oCommitf.t>e reviews plans for re-modehng and landscaping proJec1..'!l and tben recommends &cceptanoe. denial 0< m<><lllkation \0 the G"",nmeado", Eoan! ol Directol's. The GroDen plans were submitted and approved by the ArchjtecturaJ Review and Covenants and the BoanI of Directors. 3. A similar .ddition \0 the home ol Mr. and Mrs. Kelvin Lim at 210 Parkside Dr" on the very same stroot. was p.reviou.s1y approvEd lJy the elly and b3S bt;'~n built. The Groners have made every .ffcrt \0 comply ;vith both the neighbO<hood and the city zoning regulations. I urge the Zoning Administrator. tho Planning ColllIllissi<>n. and lhe C-itJ Council \0 approve the building pennit lOr the Grone ... witbout further dt-lay. S'mcerely, SlepheD C. Schopbach i~9-::' , " ./"-,-" -..~ 170 Pad,ide Drhe Pale .>JI<>, CA 9430 June 13 I99S TO: Members of Ih!: Palo Nro City Council i'ianni.'18 CooImission Ro: 230 Pa1bide Drive, Palo Alto o ~~ ~i't'dJJ" -. ..: This Jetter is "Tilt.,. supporting the planned ~dditiO!l by Mr. and Mrs. Groner 10 their I>ome at the atxw. address. O!hec """"" ill the immediate oeighbo<hood have done similar ~tioos ...rue~ have enhanced rather \ban dettacted from Lie Eichler structure. The plans, whick have already re<eNed appr<WO!. are in \eeping with the style and SInJCIure of the other bomes nearoy. The mJljority of the neighbors StJppOr1 this i!dditioo and gl,en the Ingle from wbieR lite light lilt.1S intn tlte area I clUlllO( sec bow tl1e addition ,",OlJId endanger Ms. lWlon", iJ'U I feel the Council should approve IlUs ,"';ance. 170 ~<i<!e on,. Pal., Alto, CA 9430 June: IJ 1995 TO: Members ofClle Palo A/Io City Council Pt.ann.ing C.ommi~oD Re: 230 Parkside Drive. Palo Alto ;:: rG" _-, •• ::: ,;. "., --:.."."7 ::: This letter is _ suppOOlng the planned addition 1ry Mr. and Mrs. Gtooef 10 their home at !be.oo.e ed<keu. O<hct homes in the immedlat~ neighbo<bood ~ <lone similar additions .. ·bich have enhanced "ltber than detracted from !I1e Eichier structure. The plans, 1OI!ic. have already received -Wow!, are in toepiog with the style and structure oftbe oilier llomc> nearby. The maJorily oftbe "';ghbors support 1Itis addition and given the angle from ...ruch the lighllil'lcrs L~to CIle area , cat!DOt ..., bow CIle addition would endanger Ms. Hill",,', Ire • . 1 feel CIle Counc~ should ~ Ibi. """~. Slep~.~ C. Scbopbach 260 Pukside Drive Palo Alto. CA. 94306·4530 :.-14. 1995 Lisa Grote. Zoning Adminislralor and Staff Members of the Planning Commission and Starr Members of the City Council and Starr 2.50 H.millon Avenue P.O. 80s 10250 P&I<> Alto, CA 94303 De&< Ladies and Gentlemen, " I am. a nei"gbboroC Edie llDd Ga:be Groner and !lavEi knO'ilo"U them since they moved to OW' G~nmeadow neigbborhood. I am 1lfritjng to support the Graners appocatio.c fOr a building permit m ~. I'ollowing reasons: I. I have reviewed the plans and tee! tbey are in keeping with the E"1Ch!er nPighborhood design. The Groners sought an architect woo i. .. lamillar ~ E'lCbler !lomes and m~d. it • design goal that the integrity of the E'lChl.r style be preserved. !. I.e Greenineadow we have an Architectural Review and Covenants Committei! which is composed of members otthe Greenmeado .... Community_ This CQmmittee reviews plansf'or re-modehng and land.'icapmg projects aod then rE-COmlIlecds acceptance. denial Of' modificatiG" to ~e C"",nmuOow BoarJ of DU-ectors. The Groner-a plans were submitted acd approved by the Architectural Review and Covenanlo and the Board of Diredonl. . 3. A similar addltiGn 10 ~. home of Mr. and Mrs. Keivin Lim at 2W Pork";,1e D.:, on the very ~e street. was previously approved by the cit)' and bas been built. 'rhe Gf'1Joors have made every effort to comply witb both the neighhort.ood and the city zoning regnlatiGns.1 urge the Ze:-.ing ."dminlstrator. ~e Planning Commission, and ~e City Council to approve the building permit'" the Groner. wi~out further <k>l.y. Smcerely. Stepben C. Scbopbach • ''>.''':+-' '. ~ -. ,=--. . ~, -', -•• < .' : ,. .~ , '- . - ,.:-.~ ... ': -':.:" ; -~,}-, . -. .,-, "-. . ":--" -;:. _:" -' . . -~', .-', " , ,,~. ' " . ." ~ -. '-.' ,'. ,:.:" ,,: -'. "-':, :, ..' -~',.--'-' "".,:. ~ .' -' -.",' '<~:,.---<,.~.~[:-:., ~'~ .. < -, -"! ~;:' -. "'::,." ' :. '> , _'.''.'. ___ "'c "'--" -. --," --'-~--.,--. "-' .. " "", _., ;~ ,,--, I • Attacbment 2 Additional information submitted at Jane 28,1995 Planning C.ommissioo Hearing. AI~· ~SI) (ilon:: ZOAJI"'~ AbPfIA)lSr1lArca.. 6ry 01' tf;UJ Ihr.:, . ;l'S"O NI9n1IJ..rcM A v£.. --r=Jl '-" IJ /-7'<> ,ell <N ~o I ~ . , £ -' .. -,> '~. ': :,.", ~~ogl' aer.5Ib~ ];,(ICJi 7R~ ih.ro, CA ,?~3c Jllf'le.. 10, 1'1'15'" Re: 7}:ofEft'y II -r ,f30 /Jlf!J(: 6'A'~ foC;>"'~"1' F0t2.. //::we IrlfP~II'E!I7J "k, /Ih .. Orc""k.. - Jls c/OGe.-by ~J.60rs 2 -the c~~ fir ~~o ~t:XSJtX:,.~ I~ tJLl7i1.Xi /0 Le-r ,/0" rA.lO¢ WE No Oe1ec:.710AJS -ro 7116 '?t/IPm./) C;l1?1..J~£$ Jiltzy WISt • 116ft«. . IIJ 7iu.f"~t>I.,II.(., /1' 'See..u 70 ;I-;IL 7J//J7 rdE. Il~ 7- WUH F£/lP(/~~/t:J,i1 70 &NUoS& IS /iV(v;o/ erFEV"I.lUJ; ., eN!:J..OS£b ~ 1:3'1 '1lk!~ Currur ~6TiAJy F,KOf,;11' 1"11'110 Fc;}< :so ~'.s liXAu.y M;) loss .0;:; ~ SPh«. 'itt€-tl~ /l'Avt;. .4~/li's ~ ()l~. -UK"'I,-i}w ).Jf:.J<;1f~ UrPI ",,o/41i!B,(rf" 71<1.c>E..-W "T'/t£ll! Gl:eiiQ,/mVlIx>k j/opre. Owt1er$llIp, 1"hu¢-pkrffX?d CIlIi~U, sy Il "l::eblC. G,t!.ii.V)I#Uf~ .II.tiZf/rrec.r; CElZ7'IiJP,-( h:>o/<: UKe" 7hy I COJVslsre.<;r tt/lrd ;f/AllVr.-9II-'/~($ ,,~ IifIVJiJ9NC1AX; rile t oF OeM .. j(/o~L ).}SI4!1POL;/oot;. --' . . " . • c . t\llOl ~.'Ie ~bi"1 f'Ik,;"...r~,,;t-r;1/. CNf 'II~ ~ .fn. ,',. c~·· "c"';" .t"or &',er'» £h,w.t; ~:Jo fttW;tfi /7f1i,,( • .,.11:. ''''·'''1 ... ~,-.... " J J)t'I; t' Ak. l2, c~~J 7/!1 ~"<>hnJ ·")<I!tf J ~ Ao"e~,;"er-> lilt:, y J,Y1>~ Jwl'l 1:h ~A£(j-J......, t:.k ~ V71f/".s; {},Jr £iWe-e h0>e r bt"e.ee I' $~ ... (. /}~.N."/"" l"'1J~"; 11>e. ? 4/ .... Jt ptcr., 1.q~ 6~(/1t~;.:>11~( r.T 230 P.uJ;sick P'1;V(, In /113 "-l.£ /)h»"~ H;r nOrte .;, A. W'~M~ -.Mil)r, .. ~n";>l~, to titf 1l/1~1'£;S" I<0l"~ ,ot""d/e.h~ ~ (P-Vr 1M dper (~<..;fj IYh "hI w.tf/(f4J.f.ij .,.,t1>l4r<,.E '-'~4 &-"11te. /«><4 "/. fk h""l<K we ~ "'-, J,,,,,~ .~.o/~. kI>f'J;m{ (w,r/!vd :-v-;,r:;~ w,'(h '" /0 (~ 11f, <.ttJ.,,1!.. • We P/l.t "" {vii. ~/·,..t: 6/ -me ,.:JA';-fter~ ~!h..~",J. r)""" (v,.. 10 (m. a.&'''J-. )o~ N'''' Wc,t:{C ~ ,.r.,nfi,jAJ--f~ > awl' "1J.h~.r'> -rnta or g~~.,. (lOr-~ f}r ~,-fiy. % <ya-k"t-. ~ CAlIM.rllity. N'J''''~tJ V~I~-":<; +-~r "n.~ ~ t.4.., VIl.Ve TC timet-c"}<l~ -uu 0,..1,/;"4 }~O( 6"'«(,{ c.~J. ".I~(t!C -tAr "'-(Lv CArtt<fFrvdi?>1 ~(g.w.-6'. /Jly dlV<Uj:> r<M:. UO. GII€$7)"'tc,J.CtoJ ~""dl .:(4)o(t<<1'i1'1l! tt""l'!''''-b; ir.O/.o a.. '}ffltGoC ~ b~ -n ~r" ~~ ~'r "fflf • .JI'~()~.t. VII'7 1he -hill', flf(J hoor-, wdk 11trw<!A -78/Tckf.ecl. P~f!.t oil:!. lit.., JFl.~('rtJ-' ~'}j ;/~ (ir -tM".«d4 ... "tI ~ ~ ef -t1?e fWtoevr'lr<t('J. fit (193 -rh,,< ~ tAho 'fC>lHetl' (;oJl" SAAr L1Il" pftf'.lid wrrh -th de4t-n """A ~~4"~ ej -f1>e ad Jfti;." -p" ~e(;~ ...d:'1,M f1!c {& (/X-f w..Q,. , :; . ,';" -, < " .:.,. , . We ~ iMt tIAt ~·""er;~~, ~ r)(.".,ddu. i!{LJ ('&/iVI (; "" d!R k p;.t "'-4 ,1e4IJ) 'if -fr, -tJo.p Y1efJ-A ~ r r I!OQ,f . anI wry oa~e. We.. vra<---f1ie N41IrrI~ ~11!1fW, -to /lec.rto""",£ -fo «t Cffy 6-,. .. o:p -fiW ?h. ~hlU'.r <'i~aJd,'!J tf~ k ~evd. MU.-he) d.fe<. }qGR.t. """I ~ /}~cJd rJ-tw r Z)o p~;k. • .. , r ..~ o fttN"bttl a..w u- a .... ,. ...... SIN l''''' • ....c: ........ 0 ..... ~", c:.e..I-, .. ¢t"..... "' ......... .34 , '>. l \ ,;-•.. - L - liE: R<>mcdellnt of J30 l'.,.ks!.:le ":)r .-~ , 40n 1Si>!1 1M""" d p". hla All .. , CA .1l06 TO; Th& ~, CommIssion and City Council This 11 to-s-uPp"'r1 tb.~ bome imp1'O"\'ement and re~deling P""'je<>t ."l;>'lliltecl l>:r !'<lie and Gabe Groner. A. a ", ... ber Qf the O~.nm.-eB:d.;) ... ~titectur'lll. ltevie. Comnt.itt~. I have Nvf ... "" the ~J;on. for tl>. ,,<ldjtioQ 41>4 t".1 that tl>e h .... lffll! l>e 1I"'te In 1< •• pin( .. itl> tlv< '1tMt' _os on rarl\;si<!. Pr. A ... l<Jnr ~ .. "4o,,! <>t: (lr.~,,,,,e.& .. (.r.n.. ... 195:) and hi<> Nt ••• 01 .'!Ale .S"nt .!nce ua it '" als<> .r ,"y oplnlQn ~t Ill •• d<litjQIl ..m .. <1<1 nl". to tJl,e 9""Perty ",,<I .t;l>.\!qll~"tly lo the surt'O""dinr "<!ie-lobo,hot><!. A. t1'" ~""",~'. hOlM sho,.. peAt tute .,,4 l'1'l':. <>! " .. " ••• hlp now , ." .",.. tl>.! they ,...;U <II> ... ~rything foCs>lble rl> ."'".nc<> tlle .ppeorane. f>f tlletr 1'''''P''"ty on<! J .... 'lld like to QUe. tl>e", 19,. $Uppot't in tl>lS ."d"lV"">'. Sine.""l:r • }~K-:\ &A:'" A~~':r Si-t><ll., < t/~r'l~ C/e~"" E P-. ® . --." # .. I'1t<' . -;:F;.j'/Z<""e. fi7",..-v7r- :)JU /"",/. P~T.i/ ~ I'''-'i'f;<-~ ~ 17<. i<.eC ~.( io:.)""~ I'~~ &!J,f';" P''''~ ,; • t. t~ e t . .' ~ .. 'VJ'T,{t!r -5'&'7' '" ,,;.r /' ~ )""1' c.tZ 1k:j4". t"y rl y.( '" S,t"'././ i e ..-9£//! k "./, wfo"r)4< tv""",r-N/7/ ,r J ~ /7/ .. -/f'r".,,,, .. ,(t'/-i) d <.-. # f' ,t ,...,.<"1 -. . /~ . #1J' fr<t.y k ~ I'/. /1,. .¥-/r .. -,/ S 74 r"",J r;V .,( .... -<p~/M //", •.• ,;;-/,,< #> i..(<.... "...."' ...... ~./,/,P.N """";"V fr(;)7 /e j? &;.1.. /..r < ., ."' .... .tf /If C ¢ /I"/""'?; t £.,.. ~ P4 7/<'-<!"n77"? c.c"f/,rr c.ks?~· a.? ~.4Y< St!.: .. v?¥' :?/Q.~.J ../. /.~V( jM 11 01 /Jil< rfitrv 7RN-(MIN.q'.-) ~ tuJ' ;r C/."",,,,,,/ ~"" rA~ .ifF" o-/' /11~ s<t~ ~;t .. --~ /-v'. Z/ d,.>,,;'-/ I'/J/" (-(;//;'-.. C,f~' r I""'J. /71(r'-... ..-vCe-;P/---.;::;:;... ~DalC <>" -til) 11-':,/.{£ "'" .10" c;{ . TA'fi>.. h-?S b~<,,..-~ •.• ..,// h /.11-:>-",)' /J./d, -/d...v<. ~ #// vA:. -- = ~._ ~ ,-, -f'- -·,f -,' -~ . .... ..---<. -. ---- 'k<c~.JlI;--"-E.j P.~ AIIGPllnning ~miSSioll Meeting 1.3 JUDe 1995 • 'ex f<;,. pc "-':\-, " re: Request by Groner fnr bUilding permit • Speaker: Doua: Mecham . 190 Pukside Drive, PaIn Alto, CA • My hvme, vn the same street as 6rener's heme, has a room built vn the frvnt vf the heuse similar tv the 6rvner's Plan; tv date there have nvt been any neh!hbVr ebJectJ()ns. • Due process and due diligence has taken place withm the Greenmeadow Community Association, with approval by the Architectural Committee and the Board of Directors, as well as with the City of Palo Alto. Greenmeadow consists of 2'70 homes. • • • ~ ," _,-; :,_If.; :,: ',/ . --, .-" - $ 0 The prvpvsed deslim will enhance the 'Value vf the cvmmunlty while I'"etalnlnathe architectural ambiance. r:1d1lel'" slYle 9 and meets c()mmunlty bulldlna <;()ntl'"{J1 a()als (there are no twv swrv h{)mes -yet -In tJl'"eenmead()w). T() nvt enhance and add value to ()Ide.. h()mes W()uld ha'Ve ara'Ve <;()mmunlty oc()n()mlc <;()nseQuences. The proposed plan adheres to the principal of responsible growth and older community rejuvenation without compromising the community architecture. The building process included community consensus and collaboration The (lnll' dissensivn has been two neiahb()r-s ()f tJ("(mer-'s Who seem to have ever-<;hanQina Issues and wh() have refused to discuss the plans with tl1e «3rvne~s ----_..--........-..,'-...,....' ....... ;,..b_· - rl~" - -__ : : o'-r: "" -, ..... ~' ",-- '.-. llr. J:>e Colonna Ci~ Plannrng CommissIon City of lal0 Alto 2,SO Rail ton r.le Alto. CA 94301 Douglas J 4 :MeebaJI 290 Fark51de Drive lslQ Alto~ CA 94)06 SIAn. 04 JUD. '9S ae: I$s~a ~eg~rdtn& building ,lans For; C6be & Editb GRONER At; 130 h:r1c.i1.de Pdve P~lQ Alto~~. 94>06 Naf,hbor5 .of ~h~ ~rone~~s have filed a complaiD~ regar~ir., tb~ home extenstoD planned a~ ~he Grope~~s. 1be subsequent hearing decided l~ £&vor of cne ~rone~~.: boyev_r~ an appeal W5S made agaInsc cbis ntlirlg fly upset. nei,gt:.bors. This letter is tQ support the Groner's pla~~ toO build onto their home in .. 1ta..Me.r cOllU:!eI)surate with th'! neIghborhood arch!tect~re and under the Expert guidance of Eiehler architect specialist I.C. ~rcinlk4 Since my bome bss an extenslQQ t~ the house in tbe same manner as applied tor by tbe Groner~. I see no reason vb,. tbe proposed constructi.oc sbould no·t go f~rward. Vnfcrtunstely. the upse~ neighbors ~re unwilling to review the plans and are unwilling to liscuss the i5sues [n a ~ediation forum. 1 fully $uppor~ the Groner's pr?posal for construceion and I do not feel tbat the ,tans will be out of charact~r fQr thE. na1gbborb~d. Thank. you. S!771i/ couJ(:;lJ~ ftecham Attachment 3 Request by Appellant for continuance of Planning Commission hearing, dated June 21, 1995. 7)~~ .s:..~: J. wo<-<.lc/ ....L-k«-reo y~~ <>- ~L!n? -I .. h '" "'-"" U2..--<h< H-~ /".A. ~J ~fi ~ tv.a.£.: ~~ 28-; J'1CfS aft-7-50 Pl'1 ~'>'? r-'l~~ ro ~ ~'yi--=-qp et ~ ~~ -r "7"~ <f:}-cy-r-,o-..... -95H/~_& ~ ~ G:,~ ___ ~d.4.,~ ouL ~ 30 Y04...7 ~ ~It'e.. _ My r"",.,.,., ~ r7<4-~ u...<..";;;,~,,,, .:.. +<.J J >L-d ~o/ r"",~v~ 7 fjqUrQ>' ~ I-f-u, ~ ~ /-!~cI? ~"CI ~_ ~Aj 09. 1l...w& ---t-c r'--./2:..y-pc-d--t-V1J-~ ~s-n-. C'~ ~hCl.-\;sl (W~J1) '7) SUF..oa..1 kt£L f';'~. eX 0.(,0 ~ gJ2..~ c£,,-C?<O""51 To .ry~~~ 'Y-~1?tc! -7 . Uu Gr.9~ _ Y j'-<-d ~ v-~~ , . !A ~ t.<-~ J l-v,q C "-<&7~ • .ll Woe, ~~ I4c. ~,~ U.>'-"" P-';J "-'>---<ik/ '~"f-~<U"'~J ~ -~ .f-l.~ tJhe-~ j~ ~ ~ <:., • Attachment" Response by Applicant to request for cootinuance of Planning Commission bearing. dated J= 28, 1995. 2.10 Parkside Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306 1UM21,1995 '-'0" RECEIVED JtJN2B199S • ~~~~d<C..w.<J ~~ \\e: Horne Improvement E~D Appliatio. No. 95-HlE~: 230 Parbid. Drive Dear Memben of the City ofPakl Alto PIarJling Commission: W. understaIld thai as 0(4.30 P }.{ yest.rd.!, • mere 27 hours beIOre our Iong·awaited ~ with you, Mn PbylIi. Hilton. the appellan~ has reque.ted I C(",Ii"uance .., she can lind .. arborisI and others wbo willleJl you thai our improvemenl will damage her plum tree. We urge you, in the stranges! possible lenns. 10 deny L'lat req~ and to pro .. "'" wnh tonig!Il', hearing, as scn.duled Mn Hilton t ... had ample time 10 obuin • ",n shade ... study and an arborist's "'port that ""I'\><Irt "'" pOOtion. These are not new issu.. At. the April 6 Zoning Mministrate<'s hear'.ng oor archiTect, KC. Marcinilc, presented ber SUD shadew stu~y, ar.d. copy has bee. in our file since Ibea In her April 27 fetter of appeal. Mn HilIOD stales. 'I will be presenting ... idence lTom III arborisI as 10 the effect of the beight of tlle propo<e<! buJding on my tree.' Why doe> Mn Hilt"" ne<d more time to obtain thi.s e\i<!ence1 PerIlaps it doesn't exist. Seven! "eels ago neighbors saw Mn Hilton wnh • man who 1001< photographs of her Ifee and O<Irbouse. Sbonly t1lereafter I man ..... erely pruned her cedar tree. "tock IIad blocked afternoon sunlight coming from the west of her plum tree. W ... sume that an aJtori5! came 10 her bouse 10 give her advice about her plum tree and 10 pr<Mdc ... idenct lOr "'" presemation. Di<Io\ his evideac. support her appeal? W. do 001 ....arlt 10 damage eit1ler Mn Hilton', plum tree 0( 0Ul" 0"''' maple tree. To obtain good. objective a<hlce, we called an accrediled, third·generation iIIOOrist .. 1>0 "i. had no! met Wore, asked him 10 bolat hom rrees. and 10 give us the report .. e included with our June 7 letter. Hi> repon. whiell saY" !bat OW" coostructloD ",ill not damage Mrs HiltCtl'. Ifee, has been in our file lOr three weeks. Mn HilIon lias had plenty 0( time to obtain I contrary report. H; after all this time, Mrs Hilton needs .. 'lOthes two weeks 10 find an .. 1>orisI1O ber liking, sbe e8I\ do thai before the July 17 City CO<IDC~ hearing She does !\OI need a continuance 0( 1OIIight'. bearing. If the credibility of our ."Meet's sun s.~e aruIlysis, our empirical ob..,.,.1ltions. the Lim', statement !bat their sirru1ar .d<fruon (at 270 Parkaido Drive) does nO! aIf<:C1 t1le Schopb.d', !rees next &>or 10 them, and the Scbopbacli', support of our project are .. 1 in doubt. thea we suggesr two simple and irrefutable obsemltions • [",cpl b • few momenls wberltbe lUn is near t1le bofizor, sMdcws go down, WI up. A 10-foot Il!II bwlding is DO! p~ysically cap.ble ol casting I sTudow ,",'Of' 2 S-foo! tall tree i o • Mrs Hiltoo'loom. at 220 Parkside Dr. is.o .he 5O<Jthwest of our., nO!.o <he DOIil!.s she sialed 31 <he Zonil'.g Admjnistrator'l :'wing and in bet" .-\p,il21 lett.,-. Cb.<;. I city map. IJi PaW Alto, where the sun is generally t~ the ""'to. • bu~dir.g <>MOl block 9.:nIii# from • tree \0 iIs >CUth beau,., the tree is between the building and the sun How critical \0 your deliberations is ",-:dence that Mrs Hihoo hopes to obtain~ You !>ave seeD M!3 Hilt",,', appeal Ms Grote's report. strong D';gbborOOod support for our project, and our evidroce that lIIe will not <Iama8' Mrs Hilton', tree or affect her privacy Do you """" 0n<>Iller atborisI', o!ateoent and aootlwr sbade study 10 make. recommendation' lfMn Hilton canooI obtain the "eWlence" sh< s<_'k!. will slle .:rep ber appeal and IinalIy allow US 10 go ·ahead v.itlI oUr pro'.,ect' W. doo\ be6",. that • battle of <he experts woR be fruitful 5""'"16 you decide '0 grant Mrs HiltOil" requeillOr I continuance, we "iI! therefor, formally """"st that you ask 111. City of Paio A.~o a:l>orisIlO examin< Mr. fliheD', plum tree, arn:IlO pro,ide you ,.i:h • report obout its bealth a.'1d state of maintenance, the procedures required 10 pr""ent it from being damaged during construction, and wbeiller our addition W d"""go the tree by .. ~adin8 it. w. will agree 10 accepI the Cay arboOs!'s report without challe.'lge or reservations Wi!! Mrs Hilton' W. applied lOr """eptions in mid January, arn:I were prepare<! 10 st.,1 construction shooIy '.hereaIIe.-. Our project is. sma!! ooe si~ar 10 others in OUT neigbborbood !1lat Wert awrO\-ed quicklji. Our neigbbor. overwhelmingly support .. arn:I 111. Zoning Administrator bas gi ..... iI heT unqualified __ 0'-.1. De1pjt. that, l'o-ln Hilion. v.i(b 6ttl< justif..:atioo. evidence ()I" suppor'~ bas delayed our project by more than six IIlOfIlhs. That delay 'has cost "' dlousands of dollMs., 10<1 oppo<tunities, time away !Tom our frionds. family .nd busin ...... and enjoyment of our improvements. AIso,!I>e appeal bas 1><..,. .xpensive fer the City', ta'l'ay..... Now thaI the end io finally in sigln, MI1 HihOll, "'''0 h.as refused 10 discuss our project willi tither us 0< our architect. and has r"fused med!atioa Mth either us (){ our architect., wants 10 further delay • dis..cussion of the issues, yOOf recommendation and our project. We and our architect are prepared to make factual. compelling presentation, Ionigru Several cl our neighbon plan 10 speak in support of our project IOnig!l1, but may DOl be able 10 attend on other dates. Mrs Hiltoc has already caused us substantial emotional stress and financiaJ bardship at the Cit,i. expense. Sbe'has had l&Ofl!hs 10 find the ""dence she seeks. We and our neigbbon wan! to get !his controversy behind u., • delay ,",ould be unfair. Plea", deny Mn HiItol{, request fcr • """tim,.,,,,e, and go alIe.d with \Ocigbl', bearing as scbeduled Gabriel f. Orooer ------.-,..,.,.:--,-~'-'.,..'.'----. . .. , .. :. RECEIVED ~Z8l99S. """""': .... ~V Co.I'to~ ~rcnm~,t EIII>ONA.RCHrrECfS. 415.",SI·"St .. 4t46 "iN. tOY_ONO nliVE· '~lC)ALTo. C .. • ,14,1.1.· To: Palo Me P!aMing Commission Re: HIE Appeal Heamg • 230 PB/l(Side Drive My cnenrs. Mr. and Mrs. Groner. have been infooned thai \he P1earVlg sche<!uIed lor IOnig/II may be posIponed unIiI\he appeltanl, Mrs. Phyllis Hi~on, can lind B-1 albofisI who will testify thai the GrOners' addition will harm PIer plum tree, and an archi\ecl who wi) draw shadow pudies backing up tier claims. The Groners have a report !rom an i'ldependenl 8lborisI and Mrs. Hi~on has also had an a.'boIisI wOOOog at her place in \he past ITlOMIIl; apparen!ly she has not yel found 1118 answers she wants. Also, I baneve she wiD haV$ 10 look II long lime before she can prOduce someone who will show \he addltion casting I>hadows lIP onto \!Ie laRer \ree. In my experience the sun always casts ~ws down from above. regardleSs of orientatiOn. Please go ahead with \he hearing !OnighI as scheOOled. Mrs. Hilton will ~aV<llrom now unIiI!he CiIy Council hearing 10 continue het search. s-a; o!her neighbors are pI~ 10 $peak IOnig/II who may no( be able \0 make i on eno!f1er dale. Mrs. Hmon was notified by \he Groners of \he proposed aMotion in January. \he hOme ~ wa,s appI"led lor by \he Groners on Jeooary 25, pobrlC notiCeS were sene 0<.( on Mar~ 20, and approval was granted on Api 20. Stle has had ample lime 10 prepare her case. The Groners have been pa!ienl and cooperafrve lhrougho\A. They and I ha-..e made several allempls 10 rea<:!l 0<.( \0 Mrs. Hi~on and d<scuss !heir project Jess formally and have been rebuffed and ignored every time. pru..~~n-u4.~ Karen Cullen Marcinik. Registered Arcl1i1ect • • • --:-. 'h c_ .' \ -. , .. , : !