6 JOSEPHINE STREET APPEAL OF DR/CUP/EA

Project Site: Land Use Designation High Density Residential R-3 Zoning District Multiple-Family

Background  February 12, Application Submitted  June 26, Planning Commission Review and Approval  July 8, Appeal Filed

Planning Commission Approved Project:  Design Review Permit  New 5,046 sq.ft., two-family residence  Attached garage and parking deck;  Conditional Use Permit - Tandem parking;  Encroachment Agreement –  Recommended approval for a portion of elevated garage, parking deck with guardrails, landscape planting and two new street lights

Planning Commission Discussion  Focused on Visual Impacts relative to adjacent properties and pubic views  Commended applicant’s outreach efforts and design changes to address neighbor’s concerns  New structure would positively benefit the community

Conditional Use Permit Findings:  Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance  Provides a parking arrangement on a constrained site to support 4 off-street parking spaces  Does not impact roadway circulation or existing on- street parking conditions Unit 1 Unit 2

Grounds for Appeal  Ground 1: The Finding that the project will not materially adversely affect nearby property can not be made  Construction Reduces Property Value  Loss of Rental Income without compensation

Grounds for Appeal  Staff Response to Ground 1  Finding relates to Conditional Use Permit for Tandem Parking and not the Design Review Permit  Benefit to the neighborhood by providing additional off-street parking in a constrained area  Garage and parking deck are designed to minimize visual impacts  Construction Impacts mitigated through existing Municipal Code regulations (Construction Hours, Noise, Timelines)

Grounds for Appeal  Ground 2: The General Welfare Standard in relation to Use Permits doesn’t exclude from consideration economic impacts or separate “use” from “construction”  Municipal Code Regulations are adequate to cover construction impacts to nearby properties but not the loss of rental income

Grounds for Appeal  Staff Response to Ground 2  General Welfare Standard is quoted from a court case and is not a State Guideline  Construction Impacts and operational impacts are not similar and it is reasonable to apply different standards to each  Construction Impacts mitigated through existing Municipal Code regulations and conditions of approval  Financial compensation between parties for temporary impacts is a private matter.  Planning Commission gave proper consideration to the construction and operational impacts

Proposed Encroachments  Removal of existing landscape and hardscape improvements with exception of rock and wood retaining walls  Portion of Parking Deck and Two-car Garage  New Guardrail  New Landscape plantings  Installation of two street lights

Encroachment Agreement Findings:  Findings can be achieved  Project will not diminish the public enjoyment or use of the public right-of-way  Project will not negatively impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation Site orientation, topography No impacts to pedestrian Findings

Recommendation:  Deny the Appeal and Uphold the Planning Commission decision approving the project.  Approve an Encroachment Agreement to construct an elevated garage, parking deck, and related site improvements in the North Street public right-of-way.

Public Comments  Hoerner’s- 30 Atwood subject to revised garage  Alleavitch’s- 33 Atwood  Elaine Zhou- 42 Atwood/7 Josephine  Paul Ronan- 63 Atwood  Nancy and Michael O’Callaghan- 5 Josephine  Ralston- 12 Josephine  Stephen Buckley- 207 North  Walter and Carolyn Treiber- 201 North Street  Nola Rocco – 213 North Street  Allen Hopper – 8 Josephine Street Support ProjectOppose Project

Proposed Project Change: Revised Garage Proposal Original Garage Proposal New construction of a two-car garage parked in tandem Project modification

Project Description:  Demolition of existing 3-story residence  New construction of a 3- story, 2-Unit Residence 4,236 sq. ft.5,046 sq. ft

Project Description: Existing South ElevationProposed South Elevation 2 Unit Residence: 5,046 square feet Unit 1: 3,965 square feet (top and middle floors) Unit 2: 1,081 square feet (ground floor) Plant Boston Ivy adjacent to garage

Project Description: Existing East Elevation Proposed East Elevation Materials and Finishes Wood shingles for the roof with a brown finish. Wood shingles for the siding with a grey finish. Wood trim painted with a white finish.

Project Description: Existing North Elevation Proposed North Elevation Plant one Pittosporum tree “Silver Sheen” to grow to a maximum height of six feet above the third floor deck

Design Review Findings:  Maintains similar mass and scale as prior residence  Updated architectural design will blend with varied architecture in the neighborhood.  Maintains similar light, air, and privacy by maintaining a similar mass and scale of the existing residence  Architecture design and location of the residence considered impacts on adjacent properties  Ralston letter of Support  Barondes/Brizendine letter of concern Neighborhood CompatibilityLight and Air and Privacy

Design Review Findings:  “Any view from a public right-of- way, including from a public road, street, sidewalk, pedestrian lane or stair, trail, or pathway.”  “Any view distance from primary viewing areas of a dwelling such as the living room, dining room, kitchen, master bedroom, and deck or patio spaces serving such living area. A secondary view shall be any view from bathrooms, accessory bedrooms, passageways and utility areas.” Public and Private View Definitions

Existing Site Conditions: 3-Story Wood-framed building Circa “The Abby” Historic Landmarks Board Review on March 28, 2012 Lacks historic integrity and therefore not historically significant