Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-03-20 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES •PALOAt TOCITYCOUNCIL MEETINGSAKE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSLJ- FREOUENCY9C.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting March 20, 1989 ITEM Oral Communications Approval of Minutes PAGE 61-195 61-195 1. Financial Consultant - 250 University Avenue 61-195 Parking Assessment District - Refer to Finance and Pahl is Works Committee 2. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C0000989 with 61-195 Central Maintenance Company for Custodial Services 3. Ordinance Regarding Oral Communications X51-195 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 61-196 4. Citywide Lane Use and Transportation Study 61-196 and Environmental Impact Report, Including planning Commission Recoa aendat: ons Recess: 9:40 p.m. to 9:52 p.m. 61-209 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recoaa-- 61-212 asndation re Granting Use Permits for Detached Second Dwellings ("Cottages") and Limiting Construction on Substandard Lots in the R-1 District 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recom- mendation re Appeal of Lela Coe Meyer for Property L ated at 1130 Bryant Street 61.214 61193 3/20/89 InAM EMS 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Linda Scott et al. 61-219 for Property Located at 975 High Street Adjournment at 12:40 a.m. 61-228 61-194 3/20/89 Regular Meeting March 20, 1389 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Klein, Fletcher, Levy, Patitucci (arrived at 7:56 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding Palo Alto Yacht Harbor. 2. Jack Brown, 1216 Webster Street, spoke re concern with concrete barriers at Bryant/University, etc. APPROVAL OF MINUTES I YONt Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Sutorius, approval of the Minutes of February 21, 1989, as subii. ted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Patitucci absent. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Levy, to approve Consent Calendar Items 1 - 3. Rafsr 1. Financial Consultant - 250 University Avenue Parking Assess- ment District - Refer to Finance and Public Works Committee (410-03) (CMR:178:9) halm 2. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C0000989 with Central Main- tenance Company for Custodial Services (810-01) (CMR :1'7 6 : 9 ) 3. O$DINCE J entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 2.04.060 OF THE PALO ALTO .' WICIPAL CODE REGARDING ORAL COMMUNICATIONS" (1st Reading 3/06/89, PASSED 7-2, Cobb, Sutorius "no") (701-01) ;NPG) CIO PADS= 7-0, with Cobb, Sutorius voting "no," on Item 3, Patitucci absent. 61-195 3/20/89 AGENDA CHANGES. ADDITIONS. AND DELETIONS MOTION: Council Member Cobb coved, seconded by Levy, to bring Item 8 forward for purposes of continuance. NOTION PASSED 8-0, Patitucci absent. 8. Council Members Cobb, Levy and Woolley re Temporary Housing for the Homeless (1030-01) (CMR:168:9) NOTION TO COMMON: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, Continue the item to March 27, 1989, City Council meeting. MOTION PLSEED 8-0, Patitucci absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4. Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study and Environmental Impact Report, Including Planning Commission Recommendations (continued from 3/0S/89) (1041-07) (CHR:183:9) Elks Club iO?IONs Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Menzel, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation to direct staff to: 1. Make changes at 4249 El Camino Real - Elks Club as follows: Chang Comprehensive Plan designations from Service Commercial/ Multiple -Family Residential to multiple --Family Residential; Change the zoning of the CS portion from CS to RM-30; - 1f;U feet Mit lig cps," fry Wig ems-- ax tom ltilaw # Y 1 nd- and With all actions on th-t Elks Club site incorporate a grandfather clause for the existing Elks Club use (fraternal organization/ community center), allowing such use to make additions or rebuild up to a maximum aite total of 94,779 square feet, but only on the previously zoned CS portion of the site (equivalent to expansion permitted for CS portion under a .4:1 FAR). Council Member Cobb said if the Council was concerned about the jobs/housing im valance or affordable housing, the six waits of difference was insignificant. The differencethe intrusion of a multi -family strip in what was otherwise an R-1 neighborhood was significant to the residents. 61-196 3/20/89 1 Council Member Fletcher queried how many homes would be fronting on Wilkie Way. Director of Planning end Community Environment Ken Schreiber believed it would be six. Council Member Bechtel clarified the Elks Club could remain at the site as long as it desired and could make additions or rebuild up to a maximum site total of 94,779 square feet. She queried the current square footaget. City Planner Sarah Cheney believed the Elks Club could double their current square footage under the grandfather clause. Council Member Woolley asked about the impact on the RN -15 portion because of the need for different treatment since it was adjacent to R-1. Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen said the density would not be affected. There would be different setbacks in the two development proposals. There would be the same amount of area in which to put the number of units with a floor area ratio (FAR) cap, but how it was placed on the property totally depended on the site development plan. Mayor Klein asked about the depth of the R-1 area. Mr. Schreiber said a standard single-family lot was 100 feet deep. Mayor Klein clarified the R-1 strip 100 feet would allow for 3;3 units rather than 44. Ms. Cheney clarified the R-1 str'd would allow for 34 units. Council Member Renee' asked what would happen to the existing access for the Elks Club pending the final subdivision map. Mr. Schreiber said until something from a development standpoint occurred, the existing situation would remain. Ms. Morthway said there would need to be something more than just a subdivision sap for access to disappear, e.g., the new use would need to be instituted on the property. Commissioner Hirsh said the width ef the area was 360 feet, and if the proposal was to make it 100 feet deep, it would be roughly .8 acres. RM-15 would allow 12 units If that portion was replaced with six R-1 units, there would be a net loss of six units. 61-197 3/20/89 Mr. Schreiber said in the scheme of things, the design impacts of the motion would be far greater on the neighborhood. The focus of the Planning Commission discussion was on the visual impact of a strip of six single-family houses with six driveways along Wilkie Way versus the ultimate Planning Commission recommendation of a landscape strip which would allow only access with a use permit and would not allow buildings. Council Member Patitucci asked whether ingress and egress from El Camino would be a traffic problem for any multi -family project on the site. Given the division into RN -15 and RW-30, he asked whether the lot would be best developed if subdivided into two separate parcels one small project with access from Wilkie Way and another larger project from E1 Camino. He queried, with the R-1 strip, whether it might not be appropriate to eliminate the Rai -15 and just make the rest RM-30. With the appropriate buffering, it would make up a few extra units and the density would be about the same. Acting Director of Transportation Ashok Aggarwal said staff believed two drivers could handle the traffic from El Camino. Ms. Jansen believed if the property were split between RM--15 and RM-30, the access to Wilkie Way was appropriate for multiple family residential regardless of a combination or individual development proposal. The split could be such that access to the Rai -15 portion could be accommodated along Wilkie Way and access to the RM-30 portion could be accommodated within the remainder of the Elks Club site. Council Member Patitucci asked whether access could be limited to a certain number of units. Mr. Schreiber said staff was concerned about splitting up sites among several zones because of potential site planning problems. Given the relative shallowness of the RN -15, if the RM-1 strip was deleted, it might make sense to zone the rest of the property RM- 30 than to leave the residual RM-15. Commissioner Hirsh said RM-15 was considered to be the buffer zone between R-1 and higher de.'sity of RM-30 or Rid -40. The proposal would go against the philosophy used in the revision of the multi -- family zones. Council Member Patitucci clarified the site would be accessed from a totally different direction. Commission Hirsh clarified the adjacent residents had the same concerns about height and density even though they accessed their individual properties from streets which backed up the property. 61-198 3/20/89 1 Council Member Patitucci believed people said they preferred R-1 buffers over RM-15. If the site was totally landlocked, the RM-15 argument did not wake as such sense to the existing residents. Commission Hirsh said that was correct. As to the people living in the proposed R-1, the RM-15 buffer was what they might want. Council Member Levy said the question was where the R-1 zone should terminate and the multi -family- zone begin. The proposal was for Wilkie Way to be the termination point and that it serve as a 50 - or 60 -foot wide buffer between the R-1 and RM-15 zones. The other proposal was to enlarge the R-1 zone across Wilkie Way and begin the RM-15 up against the backyards of the R-1. The R-1 zone was protected more having the buffer of the road and then beginning the RM-15 and not having RM-30 against the backyards of the R-1 but to have RCS -15 transition that way. He understood a current R-1 resi- dent on Wilkie Way would prefer R-1 densities. 4n the other hand, the new single-family homeowner would have multi -family up against their backyards. Council was responsible to try and develop a diverse community with both single and multi -family homes in the context of the total community. It seemed the proper boundary of the R-1 was as it currently stood. Council Member Fletcher said if she lived across the street or in the neighborhood, she would not want the development but would prefer the landscaping strip and then look at the RM-15. Council Member Renzel said to present neighborhood was integral around the street., and for some years existing use* had a lot of landscaping. Council could not control what might happen as changed occurred in the future. Everyone hoped the Elks would continue to use the property, but if change occurred, Council should respect the integrity of the neighborhood and make it R-1 to tie in with the neighborhood. Few Council Members lived in a multi -family zone or had it as a preference. As a neighborhood integrity issue, R-1 should be opposite R-1. Since RM.15 was now a transition zone, it was something people could live with. It appeared the parcel, which was 230 feet by 360 feet, would remain RM-15. The size represented about two acres, and anyplace else it would be considered a sizable site for RM-15. She did not believe Council should talk as if it was some small residual. Council Member Patitucci agreed with Council Member Fletcher and the Planning Commission that a landscape buffer was preferable. He had lived across the street from a single-family development which was developed on school property, and would have preferred a 65 -foot landscape buffer and twice the number of units given the way the site was developed. He preferred to see some restriction on the access to the RM-15 portion from Wilkie Way. 61-199 3/20/89 MOTION DIVIDED TOR PURPOSES OF VOTING Council Member Sutorius supported the Planning Commission recommendation regarding the 65 -foot wide landscape strip rather than the R-1. The 65 feet of protection was considerably more than what was available to the adjacent property where the Rickey's high-rise was. While the mature landscaping was a good buffer, the 65 -foot wide landscape strip provided sore separation and a more favorable appearance. There were two apartment complexes at the end of Wilkie Way, and he did not feel the RM-15 was an intrusion. The availability of the 65 -foot wide strip was a bonus. Council Member Cobb asked whether the landscape strip could be used for parking. Mr. Schreiber said no. Council Member Cobb said there was already a lot of RM-15 in the area, and it was already congested. It was clear the neighbors did rot envision a landscape strip which set back multi -family for their neighborhood but rather an entirely R-1 neighborhood. Council should support the neighboxl,00d integrity. Council Member Woolley associated with Council Members Sutorius and Patitucci. Council Members received many calls from upset people about the 'humonr'us„ single family home being built in their neighborhood. all six single-family lots were developed simultaneously, Council Members would probably have the same reac- tions as those people who had lived across from the school site developments. Any landscape access should also be free from any future access f roar Wilkie Way. Council Member Bechtel said the 65 -foot landscape strip was measuxed from the center of Wilkie Way which meant it was only 35 feet from the sidewalk or the equivalent of someone's front yard. While the single-family:; homes might be very large, and there would be six driveways with six homes, the people would be driving children to school, and childrena would be riding bicycles versus people who night not have any children and who had a different type of accean .. Shef believed single family was better than a landscape strip. She supported the action. Mayor Klein said Council supported the Elks Lodge and appreciated its work in the community. Council was charged with the responsibility of land use planning, and was obliged to talk about what might happen in the future. If the Elks decided to do something different with its property, it was incumbent upon Council, to make prudent plans. Be hoped the Elks remained st 4lts present location for a long time. If the site was developed, the 61-200 3/20/89 1 number of units would make only a small contribution to the community's need. Thp important thing was how the development fit into the neighborhood. While he recognized there were other multi- unit developments on Wilkie Way, he believed the neighborhood would end up being a better place to live with the R-1 proposal. He supported the motion. FIRST PART OF MOTION PASS= regarding R-1 zoning strip instead of RBI -15 zoning 5-4, Levy, Patitucci, Sutorius, Woolley "no." AMNIONS:NT: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Patitucci, to rezone the remainder of the property to RM-30. Council Member Sutorius supported Council Member Patitucci's com- ments. With a major hotel complex on either side of the bulk of the property, RM-30 was appropriate. The separation from the RX- 30 with the R-1 along Wilkie Way vas handled without any serious problem by the daylight plane and setbacks and its being immediately adjacent to R-1. Council Member Renzel said if the RM-15 was changed to RI+I-30, it would essentially double the density recommended by the Planning Commission. Tne remainder site was almost two acres, and if multi- family were developed, it would be developed in an integral unit. The issue was how the physical development related to the overall neighborhood and the adjacent properties. It made sense to have the transition zone as recommended by the Planning Commission. She opposed the amendment. Council Member Cobb agreed with Council Member Renzel and with Council Messner Levy in terms of not having RM-30 behind R-1. Palo Alto needed cohesive projects which could integrate with a neighborhood and were comfortable for the City. RM-15 was a little less dense and a little sore likely to attract families with children, which was the direction Palo Alto's zoning should go. He would not support the amendment. Council Member Woolley said a project with two zones was more dif- ficult to design than a project with one zone. Because of the new multi -family regulations which provided for the transition, design was important. The site was large and any project would require careful review and neighborhood involvement. It seemed better to provide greater design flexibility in order for the project to be less obtrusive and burdensome on the R-1 houses. Council Member Patitucci referred to the comment that if the site bad access fres another :street, it would make sense to have the buffering downzonad. Since access from Wilke Way was totally eliminated, the probability was one integrated development which would not be subdivided into two sites. It wadi sense to have a 62-201 3/20/S9 single parcel developed as a single parcel and zoned consistent with its intended use. Council spent a lot of time modifying the multi -family zones to be a compatible neighbor, and it seemed the single parcel should be RM-30. Mr. Schreiber said because of the multi -family regulation change process, staff recommended RM-30. ANORDIONT FAILED 3-6, Patitucci, Sutorius, Woolley "aye." SWORD PART OF MOTION PASSED regarding the remainder of Planning Commission recommendation 9-0. fiesta Lanes ROT][Oz Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation to direct staff to change Comprehensive Plan designation for 4315-4329 E. Camino Real, Fiesta Lanes, from Service Commercial to Multiple -Family Residential; and change zoning from CS to RM-15 for a 100 -foot depth along the rear property line and from CS to RM-30 for the remainder of the site. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Levy, Patitucci absent. hotel QV_94. y and Town 4 Country MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Klein, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation re Zoning Regulation Changes and Site Specific Zone Changes Related to hotel Uses to direct staff to initiate the following ordinance modifications and zone district changes and that said changes not apply to Town and Country Village: 1. Create a new commercial combining zone to permit hotels up to a 0.5:1 FAR with a conditional use permit and site and design review, for application to specific sites in the CC and CS zones. 2. 4201-4227 El Camino Real Rickey's Hyatt - Apply new hotel combining zone allowing hotels up to an FAR of 0.5:1 with a conditional use permit, and site and design review. 3. 4261-4273 El Camino Real - Dinah's Motor Lodge - Apply new hotel combining zone allowing hotels up to an FAR of 0.5:1 with a conditional use permit, and site and design review. Council Member Cobb asked whether the 0.5:1 FAR w3 a economically sound number in a hotel zone. 61-202 3/20/89 Mr. Schreiber said 0.5:1 FAR was identified by staff after reviewing other sites in the area and also in terms of the evolving changing standards for the amount of gross square footage per room. The Stanford Park Hotel in Menlo Park had a .61:1 FAR; the Holiday Inn with its addition which received conceptual approval by the City of Palo Alto was a .68:1 FAR. Hotels were moving from the 700 or 800 gross square feet per room into the minimum 1,000 to 1,200 gross square feet per room. At that type of square footage, a FAR in the range of .7 or .75 seemed eminently reasonable to staff, and mach below .7 or .65:1 would become a constraint on the larger sites. Staff's recommendation was also based on the sense that hotels in selected locations could be appropriate from a land use standpoint and from the City's revenue standpoint. In that sense, hotels generated less traffic than corresponding retail and service commercial, office uses, and generated substantially greater. revenue. Staff believed the 0.75 FAR was not only appropriate from a land use standpoint, but it would also send a message that if Rickey's considered redevelopment, it could get the most appropriate square footage rather than remodeling and trying to live with the existing facility. Plannina Commissioner Christensen believed the 0.5:1 FAR from the Planting Commission's perspective was based on existing numbers on the two sites. Rickey's had approval for an additional 48,000 square feet. If it was built with the associated rooms and parking spaces, it would be at a 0.43 FAR. The 0.5 FAR allowed Rickel ' s to have what it already had an approval for plus some. At Dinah's the existing FAR was 0.3 which allowed it to aleost double its existing space. a s Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to change 0.5:1 FAR to 0.6:1 FAR. Council Member Renzel said while Council needed to be concerned about the economy, the principal goal was land use. The bonus square footage indicated hotel was the preferred use, but the City did not wart the physical development to get out of hand. The Planning Commission reasonably looked at what was successful and allowed for some growth. She believed the Holiday Inn addition would be shocking and she was appalled to see economics be the sole reason for some staff recommendations on land use. Council Member Sutoriva said while he did not like split planning, staff's recommendation was based on investigation and comparison. The Planning Commission's review likewise 1. a reasonable approach. There were merits to Council Member Rsne el's arguments, but be wan not swayed to the point of saying the City could not tolerate a 0.6:1 FAR. 61-203 3/20/89 Council Member Patitucci queried the density if someone wanted to build housing in the zone. He was concerned about creating the right incentives to develop housing in some of the area. Mr. Schreiber said the multi -family zone was RM-30, and its FAR was .75:1. Council Member Renzel clarified the RM-30 was what applied in the CS zone, and it had a .75 FAR. She understood the site development regulations for CS applied but the density regulations for RM-30 in terms of numbers of units applied. Ms. Jansen clarified a proposed multi -family development within the commercial zones would have to conform to the multiple family regulations. For a mixed use development, there were FAR maximums for themultiple-family portions and maximums for the commercial portions. Regarding height, multi -family residential limitations would prevail; consequently, there would be a lower height than normal, e.g., the CS district allowed for a 50 -foot maximum height. There was a combination of factors depending on the development proposal. The lower requirements would prevail. Regarding FAR's, within the RM-30, the 0.75 included semi -depress -1d parking; with detached or underground parking the maximum FAR would be 0.6. Counc i l Member Pat itucc i said Counc i l attempted to put a 0.4 FAR on single family developments. RM-30 with a 0.4 FAR made no sense. ximmurver PISSED 7-2, Klein, Renzel "no." MAIN MOTION Al QED PhIMED 9-0. general Tral f f $c Items MIXO : Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, to approve the staff £accmmendations to take the following actions on traffic -related items in response to Planning Commission recommen- dations: 1. Direct staff to prepare and initiate a process for adoption, as soon as the Golden Triangle Transportation Demand Manage- ment (TDM) Ordinance is available, of a Citywide TDM Ordinance; 2. Direct staff, as recommended by the Planning Commission, to develop a mandatory, separate, Stanford Research Park TON program to be applied to existing and future development in the Research Park; 61-204 3/2O'$9 3. Approve the Category A intersection improvements, as recom- mended by the Planning Commission (Staff Report cMRR:154:9, Attachment II. Table I). with funding through the City's Capital Improvement Program; 4. Approve Categories B and C intersection capacity improvements, as recommended by the Planning Commsission (Staff Report CMR• 3,54:9, Attachment II, Table 1) , with the modifications recommended by staff for locations C-1, C-2 and C-6, plus the immproveements to locations D-1. and D-2 recommended by staff (D - 1(A), D --2(k)); 5. Direct staff to prepare and initiate for Planning Commission review a traffic impact fee, as recommended by staff for Area 6 of the Citywide Study (i.e., the Stanford Research Park and nearby El Camino Real frontage), to fund improvements at the eight locations identified in Staff Report CMR:154:9); and 6. Direct staff to coordinate capacity improvement planning, as necesuary, with Caltrans and Santa Clara County, in order to implement the recommended intersection capacity improvements; and pursue additional funding sources for those improvements, including state and county contributions. Council Member Sutorius said the Santa Clara Manufacturer's Group raised concerns about the *proposed actions. He asked whether Palo Alto was potentially working at cross-purposes or compromising the effectiveness of cohesive Golden Triangle action in the area of TDM. Mayor Riede said the Golden Triangle Task Force had not taken a position regarding a separate Tit program, for the Stanford Research Park. Mr. Schreiber said staff did not intend to work at cross-purposes with either the manufacturing group or the Golden Triangle Task Force regarding the Stanford Research Park. The Planning Commis- sion and staff recommendation for the TDM program in the Research Pork was identified as a mitigation. The intent was to work with the manufacturing group and the Golden Triangle Task Force as well as the truants in the Research Park to work out what would probably be at least a one year effort to develop a amatory TON program for the Research Park. At the same time, efforts were undeervey regarding implementation of State legislation dealing with required TON programs for existing employment. Staff would also expect to tie into that process. He discussed the matter with Golden Triangle Task Force statf and did not receive any indication that the intent was in conflict with the overall TM efforts underway in Manta Clara County. 61--245 3/20/89 Council Member Fletcher said the study focused on improving traffic flow, and the bus stops at the intersections were important. She was concerned about the flooding problem at the Alma/Charleston intersection. On the west side of Charleston headed east, a little rain could flood the bike lane plus half the traffic lane. MOTION PASSED 9-0, Klein "not participating" on Recommendations 2 and 5. Council Member Renzel said in some of the materials, the residen- tial multi -family portion of Byron Street was shown as the commercial area of Midtown, and it should have been shown multi- family. Ms. Cheney said E the nap was corrected in the final EIR addendum. Traynor -Hill Council Member Cobb supported retaining the CS zone because of his concern about economic issues. The zone was extended into the corner and he envisioned automotive sales uses which would be very lucrative to the City in terms of sales tax revenues. However, the result of the extension was an increase in the overall potential housing density on the property from 85 or 86 units to 112. While he still believed it was a good idea tea retainthe potential for automotive sales on the corner, ho was not comfortable with the potential total number of units. He would prefer to have RM-13 on the entire site except for the paxt fronting on El Camino Real. N T1CCt Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Renzei, to change the block of the Traynor -Hill currently zoned RM-30 to RM-15 except for the commercial strip. Commissioner Hirsh said the change would bring the total number of units down to 81. Council Member Levy believed the densities related to El Camino in terms of distance back for the Traynor site and the Elks' site should be similar. The propceel reduced the density at the Traynor site. Mr. Schreiber said the substantial part of the Elks' cite vas RM- 0 so the motion proposed a substantially lower density. Ns. Janssen said the Traynor site was a much shallower piece of property so the zoning was proportionate to the property. The Elks' site was much deeper. Overall the density would be lower on the Traynor property. 61-206 3/20/89 1 i Council Member Cobb said his intent was to return to the kinds of numbers of unite originally recoaaended by the Planning Commission. He believed there was aoae value to the CS zone in the particular corner. Council Member Levy said RM-30 was the City's medium zone. It seemed to him that along El Camino, there should be more dense housing. If the housing stock in Palo Alto were to be increased, it would not be dramatic, and El Camino was the place to do it. Vice Mayor Bechtel opposed the motion. She liked the Planning Commission recommendation to retain the property as CM. She would support returning to the Planning Commission recommendation. Mayor Klein opposed the motion, but would support returning to the Planning Commission recommendation. Strictly as commercial, CS made more sense than the CN zor', but given the potential that the zone would be used for housinj, he believed Council went too far in increasing the density. He was willing to sacrifice the automotive uses to return the housing to a reasonable level. He would not support the notion. COUNCIL MEMBER RENEEL WITHDREW HER SECOND TO THE NOTION NOTION DIED FOR LACK Or A SECOND MOTIO s Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Klein, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation re 4175-4185 El Casino Real, Traynor/Hill, to change Comprehensive Plan designation from Service Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial and to change zoning from CS to CM. Council Member Renzel believed the basis for the Study was related to traffic impacts and mitigations. One thrust was to provide as much aore housing as possible to avoid the need for commutes while simultaneously reviewing zoning as to its impacts on congested intersections The Traynor/Hill site was located at one of the more congested intersections and it had difficult access. The Elks Club property had 360 feet of frontage aloe El Camino and was substantially away from any major intersection. She believed the Planning Commission was correct in trying to lower the intensity of use along El Camino at the location because of the difficult traffic situation. Since existing uses were grandfathered, she believed Council Mir Co b's concern with the existing tax generating uses was resolved. She urged support of the maot i on . Council Member Woolley said given the fact the site was adjacent to RN -30 and the transition zones required a certain mount of distance as buffers, she queried the height of the specific site 61-207 3/20/89 for the CS zone. She asked about other differences between the CS and CN zones. Ms. Jansen said a CS zone normally required a 50 -foot height limit; however, within 150 feet of residential, the height limit would be 35 feet. The CM zone was 2S feet. The commercial uses of the two zones were primarily the same. Hotels were permitted within the CS zone but not within the CM. General business services were now permitted within the CS zone but not within the CN. However, as part of the Citywide Study, there was . a recommendation to allow limited general business services within the CN zone. Automobile services were conditional uses for the CS zone and were not permitted within the CN zone. The maximum size of a number of uses was limited within the CN district which were limited within the CS. For example, neighborhood business services, ?;504 square feet; personal services, 2,500 square feet maximum; retail, 15,000 square foot maximum; grocery stores were limited. There were caps on the ultimate size of a single structure allocated to a single use within the CM that were not within the CS. In terms of housing, the RM-30 density was applied to the CS zone, and RM-15 was applied to CN zone. Commissioner Hirsh said the motion would essentially provide for 94 units on site. Council Member Woolley clarified if the CN portion of the site were used for housing, there would be a block of RM-15 at the back of the property, then there would be an area of RM-30 housing in the middle of the property, and then RM-15 along El Caminoe It did not make sense to her to have HM -15 along El Camino. Environmental groups were urging the City to put its most dense housing along arterials not in the foothills, and El Camino was definitely an arterial and where the most dense housing should be. Commissioner Hirsh believed they housing on the front portion of the property was in addition to the permitted commercial. At the point where it would be most dense, there would be housing and poten- tially commercial as a mixed use. Council Member Fletcher asked whether CN would permit office buildings. Ms. Jansen said yes, with a size limit of 5,000 square feet maxims per site. Council Member Fletcher believed the motion would do much wore to reduce the traffic than the downzoning of the housing on the rest of the lot. i e CM would eliminate the problem of incompatible uses in the proximity of residential. She supportnad the motion. 61-218 3/20/89 Council Member Levy said the issue was whether the property should be CM or CS because it was more likely it would live in its commer- cial use. Council Member Woolley responded to Council Member Fletcher's concern about traffic by saying there was no appreciable difference in traffic between the two zones. Council Member Cobb believed the density was too high, but agreed the site would continue as a commercial use. He believed the existing uses were appropriate. The mistake was having zoned the overall property too densely, but he believed the zoning for the particular strip was correct. He urged Council to reconsider the RM-30 and put more of it in RM-15 in line with what the Planning Commission originally recommended. Commissioner Christensen referred to the current automotive use and the housing to be built behind it. For her, the policy issue was whether the automotive use was compatible with the housing to be built. She did not believe it was compatible. Council Member Renzel said there was no guarantee that the existing CS use would ;amain. More or less compatible uses might end up in the location. She believed Council should ensure a zoning which did not allow incompatible uses. NOTION FUSED 5-4e Lovy, Patitucci, Sutorius, Woolley "no." Council Member Levy was concerned about whether 476 Charleston needed to remain as a potential driveway or whether an exit roughly where 4185 El Camino was satisfactory. Staff apparently wanted to saintein the opportunity for the driveway on Charleston because it was too dangerous for the sole exit to be the one on El Camino. He wanted to protect the single-family next door. MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, to extend the L zone along the R -1 portion for the 30 -foot depth distance from R-1 to the full extent of 476 Charleston. Council Member Renzel clarified there would be a 60 -fort wide and 60 -foot deep L zone and ar. additional 30 -foot wide strip for the rest of the depth of 476 Charleston. The issue had been left open for access in the area. Hopefully the property owner would look at providing the access on the other half of the parcel rather than adjacent to the R-1. 61-209 3/20/89 Council Member Fletcher believed such a requirement should be determined at the time of the application and through the Architec- tural Review process. The present L zone was sufficient protection until then. Council Member Patitucci clarified a 60 -foot wide by 60 -deep L zone would be the entire frontage of the lot yet someone would need to put a driveway through there. He queried what that meant. Mr. Schreiber said the driveway would need a use permit, noticed public hearing appealable to the Planning Commission and the Council. Council Member Patitucci clarified in all likelihood the driveway would be well landscaped and probably away from the single-family and toward the multi --family. Mr. Schreiber said it, could be substantially conditioned at the time. Council Member Patitucci agreed with Council Member Fletcher. Vice Mayor Bechtel supported the motion. Council Member Sutorius agreed with Council Member Fletcher. MOTION FAILED 2-7, Bechtel, Renzel "aye." MOTIo$s Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Cobb, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation to extend the RM-15 line across and thereby creating a more regular looking parcel for RM- 30. Council M4eaber Renzel referred to the Elks property and staff's comments regarding the d&.fficulties of designing with multiple zones. In the subject instance, the irregular boundary line between the zones would make the RM-15 awkward to develop. Absent a planned community, the more sizable RM-15 Bade nose sense. MOTION FAIL= 3-6, Bechtel, Cobb, Renzel "aye." MOTIO*s Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, to approve all Planning Commission ion recommendations (Staff Report CMR:154 a 9 ) on the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study as amended. MOTION PaP$ D i-0, with rein "not participating" on Stanford related items. 61-210 3/20/69 i 1 MOTION: Vice Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Patitucci, to direct staff re Future Special Studies to: 1. Initiate a special study of the Urban Lane CS Area as First Priority to identify and redesignate sites for housing and study parcel configuration, lot merger, circulation and other specific land uses as Priority 1. 2. Initiate future studiee f the East Meadow Circle %iii area as Second Priority. 3. Direct staff to notify the City of Mountain Commercial/Industrial/Transport Study Area., 4. Return the other potential special studies to priority setting after completion of the first studies. View of the Council for two special 5. Refer the University Club of Palo Alto at 3277 Miranda Avenue and Foothills Tennis and Swimming Club at 3351 Miranda Avenue to the Planning Commission for consideration of alternatives Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations. Council Member Sutorius said at some point in the £:iture, the City would need to deal with some type of vastly improved CalTrans or BART situation. He was concerned Palo Alto was not geared to handle an appropriate mass transit junction point, and believed planning processes for the Urban Lane should consider the even- tuality. Council Meter Fletcher referred to the restudy of 1050 Arastradero Road to possibly remove the multi -family residential designation. When Council rezoned 1100 welch Road, Stanford University protested that the site was inappropriate for housing. The housing on the hopte1 site was very well done. Sometimes, the justification for housing could sometimes be made after it was tried. Council Member Cobb clarified the objective with regard to the tennis clubs was to get an appropriate zoning rather than a rezoning into some type of housing. He noted the clubs were swim and tennis, and that the Palo Alto Tennis Club had nothing to do with the two sites listed. It was a good idea to change the zoning from manufacturing or commercial to an appropriate recreational zone. Re believed the East Meadow Circle/West Bayshore Area should be the number one priority because he could not think of a better commercial site which might be rezoned to housing. Council Member Reneel referred to the Urban Lane and its proximity to Stanford! downtown Palo Alto, transportation, and a lot of 61-211 3/20/89 relatively open land. She hoped the City could plan for that area before the planning was done for the City. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Patitucci queried whether staff would prepare a published, revised Master Plan. Mr. Schreiber noted Council's actions were to send all of the Comprehensive Pla;i changes and zoning ordinances changes back to the Planning Commission for the formal public hearings. Staff then hoped to update and republish the Comprehensive Plan document. PTJB C HEARINGS 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation re .Amend- ments to Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code re Use Peraits for Detached Second Dwellings ("Cottages") and Limiting Construction on Substandard Lots in the R-1 District (237-01) Council Member Renzel clarified sower J could theoretically build a 900 -square foot structure, 17 feet high, as long as it did not contain any floor levels. Ms. Jansen said technically the answer was "yes," but a use permit was a discretionary approval and sometimes an applicant was gently nudged into doing something other than what was proposed. One of the purposes of the compatibility language was to have a structure architecturally sensitive to the existing structure. Council Member Sutorius referred to a large lot, and said the main residence sight be of a particular architectural style with a certain pitch yet out;ai1din.gs sight have a totally different style because of vegetation, landscape and the uses to which the lot was put, e.g., swimming or tennis. He was concerned about how the compatibility language would be interpreted if a cottage were being placed aaparate from the residence and might not even be observable because of landscape. Ms. Jansen said the application would receive a test of reasonable - nest and a test of sensitivity. A structure substantially resovei from the existing structure, not adjacent to other structures in the neighborhood, and not visible from the street would require a decreased level of architectural compatibility. If the situation ham 50 -foot wide lots and the area had direct visibility frInt the cottage unit to the main structure and surrounding structures, the architectural compatibility took a higher level of import. 61-212 3/20/89 Council Member Sutorius queried whether there was a mandatory separation from an accessory structure. Zoning Administrator Nancy Lytle said that was correct. The proposed revision would require a 12 -foot separation from all buildings from which the second unit was detached. The ordinance currently contained a provision for a 12 -foot separation from the main residence. Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Fletcher, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation adopting the Negative Declaration and introduced the ordinance for first reading based on the following findings and determinations: 1. The Ordinance will not cause significant environmental impacts as documented in the Environmental Assessment; and 2. The Ordinance is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element, Policies 1 and 3, which state that the City will maintain the general low -density character of exifting single-family areas and protect And enhance those qualities which make Palo Alto's neighborhoods especially desirable, and Urban Design Element, Pali : ;y 1, which states that the City will maintain the present scale of the City but modify those elements which by their massiveness are overwhelming and unacceptable. QRDINAN E FOR FIRST PING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.10.040, 18.12.040, 18.71.060 AND 18.83.080, TABLE 1, OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO COTTAGE USES IN THE RE: R-1, AND OS ZONING DISTRICTS, RLSPECTIVELY, AND AMENDING SECTION 18.12.055 OF SAID CODE RELATING TO SUBSTANDARD LOTS IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT" AMIMEMMITs Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to delete inclusion of the RE zone in the ordinance. Council Member Fletcher asked about the Planning Commission's rationale for its recommendation. Commissioner Christensen said it wade sense to have the regulation be similar throughout the zones of the City. 61_213 3/20/89 Council Member Renzel opposed the amendment because cottages were supposed to unobtrusive wherever they appeared. She supported the Planning Commission recommendation. Vice Mayor Bechtel agreed. ANEED!II T !AILED 4-5, Cobb, Levy, Patitucci, Sutorius "aye." MOTION PAINED 9-0. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation re Appeal of Lela Coe Meyer from Decision of the Zoning Administrator for Property Located at 1130 Bryant Street (3 00) (c :18 4 : 9 ) Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open Lela Cos Meyer, appellant, 2040 Cowper Street, said the variance process existed for unusual circumstances, and was created to give parity and not special privilege. In the subject instance, the property was already put to productive use and an addition could be built without the need for a variance. A reduction in the direction toward her small property could be made retaining the character of the residence especially if the expeneive stairway change was undertaken. Granting a variance should not be detri- mental to adjoining properties. The proposoed variance would result in a 7-1/2 foot intrusion into the daylight plane of the adjoining property, which she owned. The resulting loss of eunlight, solar heat, and open view would have a significant detrimental effect on per property at 1116 Bryant Street especially considering its old- fashioned wraparound veranda and porch which would look right into the daylight plane invasion. The bulk and mass of the conforming 50 percent addition to an already large house would have a great enough detrimental effect. The project summary reported "the impacts of lost light, air and views resulting from the variance were demonstrated to be aitigatabie through landscape plantings." She disagrees i n itigation measures could restore light, warmth and views. The variance portion was four feet from the lot line and extended from /6 to 23-1/2 feet in the air. A petition in opposition to the va x iance was signed by 100 neighbors and owners in Professorvillee and was submitted to the Zoning Administrator. The findings stated the addition could be aaccoapiiehed at the rear of the structure but it would compromise existing nature trees. There was a repeated reference to preserving mature trees. Mature trees of the applicant were never in jeopardy; however, she had several mature trees and plantings that could be hurt by shade and lack of warmth. No consideration was given to them. Regarding preservation of the historic alley facade, so many changes had been wide, she disagreed an historic facade existed. Regarding the architectural integrity of the neighborhood and the house, Professorville was known for its varying architecture. References 61-214 3/20/89 1 that the shadows cast by the addition projected no more than two or three feet beyond the shadow cast by the existing house was incorrect. Reference was also made to the fact that the applicant's magnolia in the north front lawn gave, shade in the areas which would be shaded by the addition. She took care of her garden for 57 years and the area was not shaded by the magnolia. The findings stated that the 7-1/2 foot encroachment with 110 square feet vertical area encroachment on her southeast side would create only a minor shadow. She disagreed. When the sun's rays were situated in the daylight plane, the shadow of the variance upon her property added about one-third *ore area of shade to that which was permitted. Solar energy was not planned at 1116 Bryant Street. The attic was fully insulated, rewired throughout to code, and had a modern furnace. The 7-1/2 feet invasion into the light plane on the property's sunny side would restrict the solar option for a future occupant. The applicant planned to increase a two- story house standing between three smaller houses on the north and two smaller houses on the south by almost 50 percent. Palo Alto citizens paid for a code to protect them and their property use. She urged denial of the harmful invasion of her daylight plane. Rob Steinberg, 1130 Bryant Street, applicant, said his application was fully supported by the Palo Alto Historic Resources Board (HRB), the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, and every adjoining property owner. Adding to the side portion of the house was most sensitive way of preserving the historic integrity. The historic inventory stated the front and rear facades were of historic importance and should not be altered. The side portion of the house allowed for an addition between two large existing mature trees. The location was well screened frog the street and the neighbors to the alley side. The original design of the addition was not acceptable to the HRB nor a neighbor, and it was redesigned. The HRB wanted the eave line of the home lowered so it aligned with existing eaves. His neighbor was concerned about the sun, and in lowering the house, they reduced the shadow and intrusion into the daylight plane. Based upon the redesign and lowering the house 3-1/2 feet, the HRB unanimously approved the design. In looking at the eun angles, the additional shadow generated by the variance was for about one-half hour per day. Laniscape architects testified to the Planning Commission that the shadow would not hurt the gardens. There were a series of neighborhood meetings artd every owner/occupant who lived tangent to the property supported the proposed addition. The daylight plane penalized historic hoses which were elevated three feet in the air. He did not believe the •City's requirements considered the relationship of new construction with slab on grade versus elevated wood floors. Regarding the shadows, he referxed to the sun angles both in Juno when they veers the s ortest and December when they mere the longest. The shadow on December 21 at 9:00 a.m. was the longest shadow. The majority of the shadow vas froa the ridge line 61-215 3/20/89 of the existing house which was much taller than the addition. Without a variance, they could do a much taller addition which would have a greater impact in terms of shadow to the neighbors but it would also be much less sympathetic to the design of the home. Council Member Renzel clarified the one-half hour shade difference was between what could be built as a conforming addition versus the variance. A conforming addition would add more shadow than currently existed in the mornings. The shadow cast in the morning between June and December were cast all year long. Mr. Steinberg said that was correct. Council. Member Renzel clarified in the afternoons the shadow of the property next door would be on the common garden area. Mr. Steinberg said in the summer months, Mrs. Meyer's house would cast a shadow on her garden in the afternoon. Alice Steinberg, 1130 Bryant Street, submitted letter signed by 12 neighbors in support of the variance (on file in the City Clerk's Office) . Sharon Olson, 327 Kingsley Avenue, spoke to the integrity of Mr. and Mrs. Steinberg. David Zink -Brody, member, supported had a long way to patibility in all 444 Matadero Avenue, Historic Resources Board the proposed addition. The R-1 design guidelines go to solve the problem of overbuil+ing and com- areas of Palo Alto. Council Member Levy asked about the appellant's comments regarding the rear facade of the home. Mr. Zink -Brody said the inventory stated both the front and back of the house ware historic. The front of the house was much .yore significant in terns &f the historic merit and character of the building, and he believed the rear of the house was made more com- patible with the f xunt of the house. Lines Scott, 1057 Ramona, was the initial designer of the project and participated as ft consultants She supported the design. Mrs. Mayer said the original ridge was not much taller than the addition which was 3-1/2 feet lower. The variance was 7-1/2 feet high and produced more than one-half hour of difference in the shadow. She was also concerned about the bulk and mass of the proposed atrr.cture . 61-216 3/20/89 Mr. Steinberg said they moved to Professorville because they wanted to be a part of a historic community. They were going to great lengths to support the concept. He urged approval of the project. Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Bechtel, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation, including the modified findings and condition, to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator :to grant a variance for 1130 Bryant Street as follows: Findings 1. In analyzing the application, it was determined that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property. The property is located in the Professorville Historic District and is included on the Historic Resources Inventory, Category 3. The residence is described in the inventory as "Craftsman chalet with claosical touches," etc. Most of the architectural details and interest described in the inventory are located on the front and rear facades. Additionally, the foundation of the existing house is located approximately 3 feet above grade, another excep- tional and extraordinar circumstance which increases the difficulty of complying with the daylight plane requirements. 2. In determining whether or not the granting of the application is necessary for preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unnecessary hardship, it was reasoned that an addit In of similar or more massive proportions could be developed in the current location, within the ordinance regulations, using a hip -roof design. However, a hip roof would compromise the architec- tural integrity and historic character of the residence. The addition could be accomplished at the rear of the structure; however, the rear facade is more historically and architec- turally important than the side facade. 3. . The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity when weighed in balance against the need to preserve the historic character of the existing structure and neighborhood, in that the portion of the addition that encroaches into the daylight plane is small, that it will create only a minor shadow pattern extension on the nearest neighbor, and that issues related to bulk and mass can be mitigated through landscaping. The Historic Resource Board recommendation and the testimony from the majority of neighbors at the public hearing supported 61-217 3/20/89 the need to retain the historic and architectural integrity of the existing residence. This conclusion is supported further by the conclusions thus far reached in the City's studies of the R-1 regulations. The R-1 Ad Hoc Subcommittee and the current Planning Commission Subcommittee have expressed uneasiness with the effect of the current absolute daylight plane regulation, which encourages truncation of roof design. The size of the proposed addi. on, in relation to the surrounding L�esidences, was also examined. The total floor .lea proposed will bring the property to the current maximum of .45. The appellant has stated that the subject site is surrounded by much smaller hones to both the north and south. However, the lots are also substantially smaller. Condition 1. The applicant shall develop detailed architectural plans and landscape plans for the northwest side of the building acceptable to the Historic Resources Board and Zoning Administrator. Such plans shall be submitted to the owner of 1116 Bryant Street for review and comment. The architectural development shall be of a level of detail similar to and consistent with the existing front and rear building facades. These plans shall be approved prior to issuance of the building permit and implemented prior to final inspection of the building permit for the addition. Council Member Fletcher visited the site, spoke with Mr. Steinberg, 'and she supported the motion. Council Member Menzel visited the site, and spoke with Mr. Steinberg and Ms. Scott by telephone. The issue was difficult because Council had to compare the proposed addition with what could be done under existing zoning. The zoning regulations were clearly deficient. The issue was one of historic architectural compatibility as well as the comparison with what could be done under existing zoning, and the neighbor would be in shade no matter what. Having visited the site at noon when the sunny patch looked pleasing, it was hard to support one-half more shadow, but it would be inconsequential compared to the overall impact. Mrs. Meyer rightly stated it was more than just shadow but rather the entire view. She supported the variance because it accomplished a more architecturally compatible use, and it would not change the shadow impacts significantly for the adjoining property over what could be built. 61-218 3/20/89 1 Council Member Levy visited the site and spoke with the Steinbergs. It was a difficult decision, but he believed it was fair to treat each individual historical structure as an independent entity with special characteristics. He concurred with Council Member Renzel. Council Member S"torius visited the site and conversed with Mr. Steinberg and Ms. Scott. He associated with the Planning Commission comments and supported the motion. Council Member Woolley believed the Planning Commission was very thorough and careful in its deliberation. She hoped the inforea- tion was carried by the Planning Commissioners to the R-1 Study Committee to the Study because it pointed out the difficulties with the daylight plane in historic districts. The proposed addition would provide sore house and sky than sight have occurred under another variation. Council Meter Renzel commended the Steinbergs for revising their plans. She did not airee the daylight plane necessarily caused problems for the historic structure in the subject instance because the Steinbergs could make their room a little narrower than 20 feet wide. She urged consideration before the final plans were submitted. Mayor Klein spoke to Pfc. Steinberg on the telephone. MOTION PASSIM 9-0. 7. PUBLICBEARING: Appeal of Linda Scott, et al. from the Decision of the Architectural Review Board and . the Director of Planning and Community Environment Regarding the Demolition of a Building Located at ..975 High Street (300) (C3 R:1S2:9) Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen clarified staff advised the applicant in the pre -application submittal process that the requirements of the CD district regulations in the transitional areas a jacent to residential would require that the building have a setback of 20 feet along Addison and 20 feet along High Street. It was consistently stated to the applicant and the plan before the Council on appeal met those requirements. The language within the CD. district regulations referred to the required setback for property sharing a "common block face" It was staff's conserva- tive interpretation that the "common block face" applied to both the High and Addison Street frontages. At the Architectural Review Board (ARB) hearfng, Conmissioner Cullen raised the issue that the intent was not for the "common block face" to apply to the High Street frontage since one had to cross the street at Addison in order to be along residential. Therefore, it would only apply to the Addison frontage. She raised the issue because it was the fundamental site planning issue before the Council in terms of the 61-219 3/20/89 appellant's appeal and her recommendations for variable site plans that could be accommodated on the property. Staff still conserva- tively interpreted the regulations to apply to both the High and Addison Street frontage. Council Member Sutorius asked whether staff was concerned about the fact one entered on Addison to occupy either of the first twc parking spots and could not back out without going onto the sidewalk. Ms. Jansen said it was a concerne The Transportation Division reviewed the site plan and determined while it was tight, it was workable. Council Member Sutorius said Addisea Street was labeled "entry only," and "High Street" was labeled "exit only." He queried why 20 feet were needed to exit and only 10 feet were needed to enter. Ms. Jansen deferred to Associate Planner Virginia warheit. Ms. Warheit believed the situated was modified since the ARB approval. Vice Mayor Bechtel clarified because of the conservative inter- pretation related to single-family and the adjacent zoning, neither alternate plans A nor B proposed by teas appellant would be acceptable because they both went directly to the sidewalk. Ms. Jansen said neither would meet the 20 -foot setback as inter- preted by the regulations. Vice Mayor Bechtel went by the parcel and said the existing auto repair building was in a similar location to *-hat was proposed except it had another part of building on the Addison side. She asked whether the square footage was similar to what was proposed. Ms. Jansen said it was almost in the exact same location and the square footage was similar. Council Member Woolley said if Council decided the definition of a "block face" was limited from corner to corner and did not go across the street to the next block, she asked what the setback would be on the High Street side. Ms. Jansen said none. Council Member Woolley asked whether it would be possible to make a decision that evening for the subject property and refer the question of the definition of "block face" to the Planning Commission. 61-220 3/20/89 1 1 N. Jansen said yes. Council Member Levy asked what area was included within the Pedestrian Combining District (P zone). Ms. Jansen said the "P" overlay zone was applied to the CDS area in general including the subject property. Council Member Levy understood the ARB in making its decision ignored the fact that the subject property was located within the "P" zone. Ms. Jansen said it was not ignored, but rather it was not con- sidered particularly applicable from the standpoint the use was an of.fiice use as opposed to a retail use, and the required setback pushed the building to the rear of the property and made it less pedestrian oriented than it might have been had the building been located to the front of the property. There was a concern it did not meet the intent of the pedestrian combining district require- ments. Council Member Levy queried whether the decision was within the ARB's jurisdiction. Ms.Jansen said it was within the ARB's purview to consider the pedestrian combining district regulations and the applicability to a particular site plan. The use per se was a permitted use within the CDS districts; consequently, it was not within the ARB's purview to say the office use was not appropriate in the location. The issue of whether something was "pedestrian friendly" was what was pertinent to the pedestrian combining district. ARB Chair Bob Evans said the ARB was primarily interested in neigh- borhood retail versus the office use. The focus was the issue of pedestrian access and convertibility of the structure in the future toward retail. The approval was conditioned upon architectural features for both ends to provide increased visual and fiscal access from High Street for pedestrians, and through the use of skylights, increased glazing around the entry to make the building more acceptable for future retail use. Council Member Cobb asked for count on some of the alternatives expressed by Linda Scott. Mr. Evans said on hie own behalf that he weighed the placement of the building on the site on the basis of transition to the neighborhood where he personally preferred increased landscape setback. The only reason he saw for placing the building forward to the property lino was to cut off the, view of the side angles 61* -221 3/20/89 into the commercial district which essentially protected the neighborhood from the commercial district. The effect would be to increase the amount of parking surface required to achieve the circulation on site, and it would probably force the building for the sane square footage to be two story, which did not warrant pushing the building forward in his mind. He found the solution to be sensitive in that regard and it minimized a bad situation. Council. Member Sutorius understood there was discussion about the potential for two stories, but the applicant preferred a single story. The owner of the building was motivated toward light and high ceilings and the one story would do the job. Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing open. Linda Scott, appellant, 1057 Ramona Street, said the existing R-1 setback in the area was ten feet. On Channing Avenue, the buildings on the corner had zero setback. If residential had a ten -foot setback and there was zero setback in commercial, the transition should be somewhere in between. A building set 56 feet back had no relationship to the environment. Maintenance of the setback was crucial to the neighborhood character. The neighbor- hood had many two-story buildings. The proposed building would be 26 feet away from the next building. There would be a 17 -foot high wall running 117 feet continuously from the rear lot line to the front of the house. She suggested a parking lot be surrounded by a six-foot high fence and the building could be 85 feet away from the house and there could be heavy landscaping. Brad Peterson, Landmark -Pacific Group, 324 Portola Drive, San Mateo, CA 94403, represented the owner of the project. The site was located in a transition zone. The setback requirements were substantiated with the 20 -foot setback along Addison Street with an additional ten -foot landscape buffer and the 20 -foot setback along High Street. The plans presently on hold addressed a modified entry to the building with a landscape reserve. Edward Chapin, Robinson, Mills & Williams, Architects, 160 Pine Street, San Francisco, said this setbacks and daylight plane were important for respecting neighborhood residential areas. The proposed balding conformed with .all regulations. The large planting screen with large trees along the face would protect the view of the building. In accordance with the requirements, there was a seven -foot high walk. The 45 -degree parking lot allowed for a double row of street trees and they were creating a green zone in the sir. The landscaped wall started at three feet high with plants above, and screened the parking. He supported the proposed building and believed it would blend well with the neighborhood. 61-222 3/20/89 O Betty Meltzer, 1241 Dana, said when discussing the Wilkie Way/Elks Club project, Council Member Cobb advocated projects which fit in with the neighborhood, and Council Member Woolley spoke to the importance ''f placement of a project on site to lessen the impact. She urged those priorities be kept in mind as Council considered the appropriateness of the parking lot placement at 975 High. A parking lot in the front of the development would not fit in with the neighborhood and would be visually intrusive and burdensome. She was a member of the Downtown Urban Design Committee which acknowledged that development in transition areas needed to be sensitrie to maintaining the essence of a neighborhood. The Urban Design Committee believed it was bad design to place parking lots on corners anywhere let alone in a residential area. She urged the matter be referred back to the ARB to restructure the plan for a better design. Geoff Bertelsen, 960 Waverley Street, said the reports before the Council were contradictory and incomplete, and had nothing to do with the City's codes. The packet did not Contain information from the December 15, 1988 a variance review meeting where many ordinance issues were raised by the public. The Zoning Administrator determined the projected kneed more work with the neighborhood and on the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning issues which were raised. The staff report (0:182:9) noted several items and new requirements which seemed to invalidate the conditions imposed by the ARB. He urged the matter be referred back to staff, ARB and the Planning Commiseion for further review. Dena )Iossar, 1024 Emerson, said the "pedestrian friendly" concept was important especially for those who liked to walk end enjoy where they were going. She did not enjoy walking by parking lots and worrying about cars entering and exiting parking lots. A member of the ARB commented the ARB went to great lengths to ensure the building would be appropriate for future retail development and then stated it did not patter that the parking lot was in front because it was not retail. It did not sake sense. It also seemed to be some controversy between the effect of walls being close to the sidewalk versus parking. She preferred an interesting wall as opposed to a parking lot full of cars. Visually, the building would not provide for a transition nor would it feel like a transition walking down the street. The setbacks were inappropriate. There were alternatives available. She urged the project be returned for redes ign . David Zink -Brody, 444 Matadoro Avenue, was a member of the Urban Design Committee, and said one of the most difficult issues was interim zoning. Greater success was achieved when working with other applicants because staff allowed the Urban Design Committee to review projects such as 200 University and the Medical Center before they reached such a stage of completion. Corner parking 61-223 3/20/89 lots were a problem. He referred to the Emerson Park District and said the most significant element of blight was the open parking lots on corners. He saw no reason to not site the building like other buildings in the neighborhood either brought up somewhere to the edge of the property line or a transition from the residential properties to that of commercial buildings. Alan Petersen, 1020 High Street, said local residents were eager to see a quality development. He generally supported the conten- tions of the appellant regarding the site plan -and highly technical architectural character. A two-story structure moved up closer to the property line would be acceptable, but he preferred to not look at a parking lot. With his own recent second -story addition, he went to great expense to maintain conformance with the City's codes and the daylight plane and the architectural character of his home. He expected the same of adjacent structures. He did not believe the investigation of alternatives was adequate. He urged the project be refereed back to the ARB and staff. Linda Scott, appellant, urged the Council to refer the matter back to the ARB for redesign. Brad Peterson, applicant, said the wall was three feet in the key areas around the corner and went to four feet further down on Addison. While final ARB approval was received, the application would return to the ARB for fine tuning particularly regarding landscape issues. The building would be made more "pedestrian friendly" at the request of the ARB in that the two compact parking stalls which were mentioned as being difficult to enter would be deleted from the project. Mayor Klein declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTIONt Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Renzel, to uphold the appeal of Linda Scott regarding property located at 975 High Street for the following reasons: 1. The proposed siting of the building disregards the neighbor- hood setting and urban design principles, does not provide effective landscape buffers between the subject properties and the adjacent residences, and creates awkward traffic and parking situations. 2. The ,architectural character is not compatible as a transition to the residential areas. 3. The siting and design are not consistent with the pending recommendations of the Downtown Urban Design Committee and the R-3 study committee. 61-224 3/20/89 i Council Member Woolley stated her reasons were listed as factors 2, 3 and 4 in the staff report (CMR:182:9). Council Member Renzel concurred with the findings set forth in the motion. Notwithstanding the other problems, the parking lot alone would warrant the project returning to the drawing board. Council Member Levy said the pedestrian combining district rc nlations were completely overlooked. While it might be true the pedestrian combining district should not apply, it warranted due consideration in council's analysis, or else it should not exist. The project was not attractive to pedestrians as set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.47. The design did not seem to be appropriate and compatible with the transition to the residential area. Compared to the surrounding homes, the proposed structure was too large and it was not a welcoming type of architecture. He agreed with the description of it being a commercial -type building, and it did not fit in a transitional zone. He supported the motion. The Planning Commission should he asked to take another look at the pedestrian combining district to ensure it should extend to the subject area. Council Member Sutorius queried where passage of the motion left the applicant in term of a zoning envelope as determined by staff and how could the applicant respond. City Attorney Diane Northvay said the code was specific about what could be done with an appeal. The ARB took its action and the "ball was in the Council's court." There were threeoptions available to the Council: approve the project; approve it with conditions; or disapprove it. Council could refer the matter to the Planning Commission before acting, but it didnot have the option of "sending the matter back to the ARB." Council Member Pletcher hoped the applicant might pick up on some of the ideas presented in the appeal, work with the neighbors, and apply for a variance. Vice Mayor Bechtel envisioned the applicant would return with a another application. She believed there could be a good design with a change of the 20 feet. The clarification of the transition across Addison and not between High Street would allow the project to conform under the present requirements. Cecil Member Cobb visited the site and had discussion with the appellant and Mr. Steinberg. He believed the applicant had ample uidanc. to return with a new design consistent with a different interpretation of the setbacks. 61-225 3/20/89 Council Member sutorius went to the site and had discussion with the appellant. He preferred to see the building recited, but he believed the ARB dealt with the situation as perceived. He was concerned about how council war dealing with equity when an applicant followed the rules and where individual Council Members might not like a particular aspect. Council was headed toward upholding the appeal and denying the project without knowing how long it would take to look at the "P" zone or an interpretation of "block face." He did not believe it would occur quickly because of the lack of Urban Design Guidelines. He was concerned about using one instance to arrive at a new interpretation. Regarding the parking in the access and particularly in light of the landscape reserve opportunity, High Street could be used as the entrance and the angling of all of the parking spaces in the easterly hulf of the front lot could be reversed. Exit only could be on Addison. Council Member Cobb asked how long the question of ' lock face" would take to resolve. Ms. Jansen saw the matter of "blcck face" as a clarification item on the Planning Commission agenda. Commissioner Cullen at the ARB wes clear it was the Commission's intent at the adoption of the downtown regulations that "block face" would not apply to go across streets. If she was reflective of the rent of the Commission. the issue should not be great. Mayor Klein visited the site and spoke with i-he applicant. He was concerned about the equity of upholding the appeal and fairness to the applicant with regard to being advised by staff one way and Council was leaning in another direction. I. $orthway said uhile it appeared Council preferred a major redesign of the project, it could continue the item and request advice from the ARB. Such an actin would require a specific recommendation from the ARB in terms of what conditions Council should impose on the project. Council could not redesign the project ---it could only approve it, disapprove it. or approve it with conditions. The applicant could withdraw the proposal and resubmit another in which case the appeal would be moot and the applicant would avoid another application fee. Council Member Levy believed the Planning Commission should be directed to review and comment on the issues of setbacks and the combining district and return to Council within six weeks. He did not support the architectural character of the proposed application and would have a problem isposing conditions because he believed there needed to be a sufficient redesign of the building to make it much more residentially compatible. His problems were not just 61-226 3/20/89 related to the siting question or the question of interpretation of the staff's judgments as to siting and setback. Vice Mayor Bechtel concurred the building needed to be substan- tially redesigned. If the choice was between an absolute denial or the applicant withdrawing the proposal and resubmitting, it might be advantageous to the applicant to withdraw and resubmit. Council Meaber Woolley said her intention was for Council to vote to define the "block face" as the face of one block from corner to corner for the 900 block on High Street. That way, the applicant would know where they were at and could proceed. Council could then refer the general question of "block face" to the Planning Commission. !(s. Northway said if Council wanted to provide a definition Citywide, it could be done. If Council singled out one block for disparate treatment, it needed to be included in the ordinance. Treating one piece of property differently resulted in spot zoning. Council Meter Sutorius asked how long an appeal could be con - tinned. Ms. Scott said August 2, 1989. Mr. Petersen said the applicant did not wieh to desire his proposal. Council Member Path. -ni said Council should have the right to say "yes" or "no" on the project... It seemed Council was saying "no." The system should be left to work. Council bomber Renzel referred to the equity issue with respect to the setback on High Street. The project was deficient in so many other ways, the setback was just one. While the setback may have governed some of the placement, the awkward parking was particu- larly difficult and suggested toe much was being put on the site. NOTION TIM 8-1, Sutorius "no." MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Renzel, to refer to the Planning Commission the definition of block face and the appropriateness of the P Zone in the area of 900 High Street, and return to the City Council within two months. 11Q IOM MBA= 9-0. 61-y227 3/20/89 ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 12:40 a.m. APPROVED: ATTEST: Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.200(b). The City Council meeting tapes are retained in the City Clerk's Office for two years from the date of the meeting, and the Finance and Public Works Comittee and Policy and Procedures Committee meeting tapes are retained for six months. Members of the public may listen to the tapes during regular office h Mrs. 61-228 3/20/89 i