City of Palo Alto (ID # 4657) City Council Staff Report

Transcription

1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4657) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/29/2014 Summary Title: Appeal of 1737 University IR Approval Title: Consideration of an Appeal of the Director's Individual Review Approval of a New Two-Story, Single Family Home Located at 1737 University Avenue From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council decline to hear the appeal of the Individual Review (IR) application (file 13PLN ) for a new two story home at 1737 University Avenue, thereby upholding the Director of Planning and ommunity Environment s approval. Executive Summary This request is an appeal of the Director s approval of a Single Family Individual Review (IR) application for a new two-story home at 1737 University Avenue. Four or more Council Members votes would be needed to remove this item off the consent calendar to set the matter for a future hearing. Appellant Flora Dong is the owner of 1741 University Avenue, a single story residence located directly adjacent to the subject property along the northeasterly property line. As required by the Code, Staff mailed all decision and hearing notices regarding the project to the appellant. The Manager of!dvanced Planning conducted the Director s Hearing on March 6, 2014, and upheld the tentative approval. The appellant s objection is a privacy concern from a second floor hallway/stairway window. Background Council Review Authority The ity s Individual Review (IR) procedure provides for ity ouncil call up of appeals. When the Director approves an IR application after a Director s Hearing and a directly affected property owner appeals the decision, the project is placed before Council on the consent calendar for final action. The Council has two options. First, it may approve the item on City of Palo Alto Page 1

2 consent, adopting the findings and recommendations of the Director. Second, if four Council members vote to remove the project from the consent calendar, the Council may determine whether to set a new hearing before the City Council. If the Council agrees to hear an appeal, a hearing is scheduled as soon as practical, in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section Project Review and Director s!pproval The Single-Family Individual Review rules are design guidelines intended to mitigate the effects of second-story construction on neighboring homes in residential neighborhoods. The Director s approval letter (!ttachment!) sets forth the applicable P!M sections and notes that the project on the subject property met all of the IR guidelines and R-1 zone regulations to allow the approval. The IR application was submitted on August 29, On September 25, 2013 staff conducted a site visit to better understand the appellant s concerns. On October 9, 2013 staff met with the applicant, Kelly Johnson, to review staff comments. The applicant brought a scale model of the proposal to better understand site lines between the two properties and potential privacy impacts. Initial Revisions The applicant submitted revised plans on November 7, 2013 to address comments prepared by staff on September 30, In regards to privacy, the revised plans included several remedies. The applicant: Proposed landscape screening between the homes; three 24-inch box evergreen trees will be planted on the subject property, Implemented obscured window glazing (to a height of five feet from finished floor) for the first and second floor master bathrooms, as well as for the second floor master bedroom, Arranged the casement window operations to have the openings directed away from the appellant s windows, Reduced the height of the second floor windows by one-foot (with the exception of the stairway window), Rotated one second floor window to create an architectural feature parallel with University Avenue, facing away from the neighboring property, and Lowered the plate height of the second floor, lowering the overall building height. Staff met with the applicant on November 27, 2013 to discuss details of the revisions and to review the appellant s remaining concerns. The applicant and appellant met with staff on December 4, 2013, to discuss the concerns. The applicant s model (showing both properties) was used for the discussion of sight lines and distances between windows. Evergreen privacy screening was also analyzed using the model. City of Palo Alto Page 2

3 Second Revised Plan Set On December 11, 2013, the applicant submitted revised plans that resulted from the discussion of December 4, The applicant: Proposed two additional 24-inch box screening trees, Eliminated a window on the second floor, and Obscured the top pane of the second floor master bathroom window (the lower pane was already obscured in earlier plans). Provided a summary of revisions that were incorporated to address the concerns of the appellant. The Chief Planning Official tentatively approved the revised application on January 6, The approval letter was mailed January 13, On January 24, 2014, prior to the effective approval (14 days after the tentative approval date), the appellant requested a Director s Hearing. Director s Hearing During the hearing, the appellant reiterated the concerns she had expressed in the hearing request; stating that she didn t believe the current plans sufficiently address her privacy concerns. She cited four windows on the second floor; namely, the stair/hallway window, a master bathroom window, and two master bedroom windows. As noted, the November 7 and December 11 plans indicated that obscured glazing would be extended to a height of five feet from the finished floor, in the master bath and master bedroom windows. At the hearing, the applicant agreed to provide obscured glazing for all window surfaces of these three windows. The applicant expressed the desire to retain the stairway/hallway window as proposed. The applicant provided a diagram that indicated that the stairway/hallway window would be located approximately 61-feet, 10-inches from the neighbor s kitchen window. The appellant is most concerned about the views from the project to her kitchen window. Staff s analysis of the distance, taken at the most extreme site lines, indicated a distance of 55-feet, which is still a substantial distance with respect to privacy concerns. The applicant explained that it was the intent of the owner to plant screening trees, as indicated on the submitted plans, and comply with the condition of approval requiring planting of the 24-inch box Pittosporums (as shown on the site plan) prior to issuance of the building permit. It is also a requirement these trees will reach a minimum of 12-feet in height from grade at the time of planting. Architect Roger Kohler, representing the appellant, provided a diagram showing a previously approved IR of one of his projects, which he believed set a precedent. It showed a second floor window located 62-feet away from a neighbor s second floor window. Obscured glazing for privacy at 4-feet, 8-inches from the finished floor was required for IR approval in that case. City of Palo Alto Page 3

4 Director s!pproval and!ppeal On March 24, 2014, following the Director s Hearing, the Director approved the application with the additional conditions that the plans be revised to provide obscured glazing for the three windows in the master bathroom and master bedroom. On April 3, 2014, the appellant officially appealed the Director s decision to approve the IR application (!ttachment ), based on privacy concerns. Discussion The project meets all five of the guidelines for Individual Review and complies with the R-1 Zone District regulations for. Findings for the project s compliance with IR guidelines can be found in Attachment A, the approval letter, which is dated March 21, The letter briefly discusses the findings on pages one and two, and the seven page attachment to the approval letter (also labeled as Attachment A) provides additional detail about the project and findings. The IR guidelines include criteria related to: basic site planning; neighborhood compatibility for height, mass and scale; resolution of architectural form, massing and roof lines; visual character of street facing facades and entries; and placement of second-story windows and decks for privacy. The Individual Review program applies to construction of second stories and is intended to mitigate the effects of that construction on neighboring homes (per PAMC Section (a)). Development applications subject to IR must be consistent with these guidelines (per PAMC Section (d)). Alternative to Staff Recommendation The ouncil s alternative to the staff recommendation is outlined in PAMC Section (g)(2): Remove the recommendation from the consent calendar, which shall require four votes, and set the application for a new hearing before the City Council, following which the City Council shall adopt findings and take action on the application. If the Council so directs, staff will identify a date for the hearing and will provide appropriate public notice in advance of the hearing. Policy Implications The Director s decision to approve the application is consistent with staff s implementation of the Individual Review Guidelines, and with the policies and intent of the Individual Review Process. Environmental Review This project is exempt from the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Attachments: Attachment A: Approval Letter March 21, 2014 (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 4

5 Attachment B: Appeal Letter April 3, 2014 (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 5

6 ATTACHMENT A -

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 ATTACHMENT B -

23