Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-11-21 City Council Summary Minutes1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTE3 CITY MI () ALTO) Regular Meeting Monday, November 21, 1983 ITEM Ural Communications Item #1, Canvass declaring results of • General Municipal and Special tied=ion held November 8, 19113 P A .G E 3 9 5 3 3 9 5 3 Consent Calendar 3 9 5 3 Referral 3 9 5 3 Action 3 9 5 3 Item #2, Revision of PAMC 2.04 re Council 3 9 5 3 Organization and Procedures item #3, Self -Insured General/Auto Liability Claims 3 9 5 4 Ad!nini stration Servi+Ces Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 3 9 5 4 Item #4., Public Hearing: Planning Commission recommendation re amendments to requirements to • create second dwelling units in the R-1 district Item #b, Public Hearing: Planning Commission recon!mendatf,,n re application of Harrington Financial Corporation for a zone change from RM-2 (Low Density Multiple. Family Residence District) to RM-3 (Moderate Density Multiple Family Residence Di t-rict) for property located at 225-231 Homer Avenue/74d Ramona Street Item #6, Public .Hearing: P1Mnning Commission recommendation re application of the City of Palo Alto for a zone change from CS to CN for property located at 461 and 471 Parse Mil) Road, Item #7, Appeal of aActive Sign Service, representing Gerard Tire Center from decision of Architectural Review. Board and the Director of Planning and Community Environment on a sign application for 940 High Street Item #9, Architectural Review Bard Annual Report. Item #n, Architectural Review Board recommendation re Pedestrian Shopping Combining (P) . District Design Guidelines 3 9 5 4 3 9 6 0 3 9 6 5 3 9 6 6 3 9. 7 1 3 9 5 1 11/21/83 ITEM Item #1l}, Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) Yard Expansion Item #11, Petitions -for underground utilities in three areas Item #12, Request 'f Councilmembers Klein and Cobb re Absentee Ballots -returned to precinct board no later than close of 'polls on Election Day (Elections Code Section 1016) Item #13, Request of Councilrnember Fletcher re Residential Hazardous Material Disposal Project Item #I4, Request of Counci lmembers F. zzino, Witherspoon, Fletcher, Renzel and Coob re Downtown Parking Requirement Item #15, Request of Mayor Bechtel re National League of Cities Convention Resolution re Cable P1 Item #16, Request of City Manager! Bill Zaner re Interest Free Loan for Housing for Richard Young Item #17, Cancellation of November 28, 1983 City Council Meeting Adjournment PAGE 3 9 7 2 3 9 7 2 3 9 7 2 3 9 7 3 3 9 7 3 3 9 7 4 3 9 7 4 3 9 7 5 3 9 7 5 3.9 5 2 11/21/83 0 Regular Meeting November 21, 1983 f he City Counc i I of the City of Palo Alto met on. this day in the Council Chambers at City Hall, ?5U Hamilton Aver:ue, Palo Alto, at 7.:3b p.imi. PRESENT: 'Bechtel, Cobb, Eyerlyl Fazzino, Fletcher, Klein, Renzel,- Witherspoon ABSENT: Levy URAL COMMUNICATIONS John Mitchell-, 4145 Verdosa Drive, was proud to be pae.t of the process that allowed public participation in government. He was the coordinator of the Palo Alto iizhgorod Pairing Project, also known as the Ground Zero Pairing Project, and thanked the Council and public for their support. He was glad there was still time to rally and join forces to accomplish much toward peace. He thanked Palo Alto for having a Mayor who was prepared to read a proclamation on Wednesday, November 23, 1983, at 3:30 p.rn, that marked the official inauguration of the pairing project wherein Palo Alto was paired with a city on the western edge of the Ukrain, almost on the Czechoslovakian border. The concept of the Ground Zero Organization was to stimulate more communication between Soviet cities and U. S. cities. He urged attendance by a l ), and hoped people would join together in the noble cause of peace. 1 ITEM #1 4ANVASS DECLARING RESULTS '_ OL L``f N E t. U N U v MB R 8 983 OF GENERAL MUNICIPAL AND NOTION: Counci 1member Fazzino moved, seconded by Cobb, to adopt the resolution declaring the results of the November 8, 1983 Municipal Election. RESOLUTION 6.196 entitled . ALO ALTO CONSOLIDATED MUNICIPAL NOVEMBER 8, 1983" °RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION HELD ON TUESDAY, MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. CONSENTCALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Witherspoon approval of the Consent Calendar. None Referral Action moved, seconded by Klein. ITLM #lam REVISION OF PAMC 2.04. RE COUNCIL ORGANIZATION AND Staff recommends Council approval of -the ordinance. ORDINANCE: FOR_ FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE ALTO REPEALING -'CHAPTER 2.04 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICPAL CODE AND ADOPTING A- NEW CHAPTER 2.04 REGARDING COUNCIL ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES" 3 9 5 3 11/21/83 1 'LM #3, SELF -INSURED GENERAL/AUTO LIABILITY CLAIMS ADM INISTRA1`ION SERV1CFS TGMR:E?u9:3) m Staff recommends that the Mayor be authorized to execute the agreement with Leonard J. Russo, Inc:. for claims adminstration services. The action is not a project as defined in Title II of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and no environmental assessment is necessary. AURLEMENT ADMINISTRATION OF LIABILITY CLAIMS Leonard J. Russo, Inc. - MUTiUN PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. AGENDA CHANGES, AUDITIONS AND DELETIONS Mayor Bechtel added Item 15, National League of Cities Convention Resolution re Cable TV City Manager Bi l l Laner added Item #15, re Loan for. Richard Young ITEM 04 PUBLIC HEARING: L. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE S T'TRE Planniny Commissioner Jack Sutorius said staff and the Planning Commission considered the requir=ements for the cottage zone, and while staff provided background information after one year's ex- perience of the cottage zone ordinance, no €nernher of the public spoke at the hearing. He believed the person who addressed a sub- sequent meeting would address the Council that evening. The Corn - mission modified three staff reco mendations. In light of limita- tions applied in.adjacent communities and in consideration of the intent, the first recommendation to limit the maximum size for the second dwelling to 1,000 soea re feet was amended to 750 square feet. The Commission agreed to a limitation of one story, but, for architectural and design considerations, recommended 20 feet rather than 15 feet as the maximum height of the roof. The Com- mission deleted the recommendation to define second dwelling units as those constructed chronologically after the principal dwelling unit since site configuration and conditions were more• important considerations for approval of any second snit added to the site. Counci lmember Menzel said the "cottage" definition from a chrono-- looical standpoint Was somewhat different from site design. She asked fur clarification about _whether the Planning Commission deletion meant the principal building today could tomorrow become the cottage or whether it onl y related to the one in front or back of the other. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said_originally the concept was to make sure the cottage was 1 icateo'in the rear rather than the front. He agreed that the Planning Commission size limitation of /5O square feet would preclude most existing structures from be- coming the cottage since .most-. principal residences were above that size. of the maximum size here set at 1,000 square feet, there were cases where the principle. home would be considered the cote tage. Councilrnember Renzel understood the Planning Commission changed -the maximum height from 15 to 20 feet to allow for a gable, and asked if the height definition for cottages- was the same°as for single -.fan i ly homes. Mr. Brown said the interpretation would be maximum height to peak as applied tO principal residences in_ the R-1 district. 3 9 5.4 11/21/83 Counci Irnember Fenzel asked if the old definition giving a maximum height of lb feet for a flat roofed building with an ability to eo ollyhtly hiyher for a peaked roof could be applied. Mr, brown said the definition of height in the R-1 zone changed, and cottayes in that zone were subject to conditions of height to peak. The ordinance would have to be amended to provide the flex- ibility to go slightly higher for a peaked roof. Counci lanernber Cobb said staff originally suggested a 1,000 square foot limit. That was amended to 75U square feet by the Planning Commission, and some believed the 750 square foot limitation was too constraining. The Council had a 1,000 square foot limitation in mind when it first discussed the matter, and he asked .whether conditions could arise where a cottage could be larger than 750 square feet. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said the situation was likely where an applicant might have adequate reason -for something larger. The Commission intended that the justification for the size was a sma I I two bedroom cottage, the kind called a "granny flat," but not a full family dwelling, and intended for occupants such ds sinyle parents, a student, or some other small house- hold --not a family. Councilinember Cobb said the Planning Commission discussed the pos- sibility of Architectural Review Board (ARB) consideration. He asked whether: staff had any problem with certain cases being referred to the ARt . Mr. Freeland said his only problem was setting a precedent for the ARB to be involved in single family situations. The work load was small and the amount of time devoted by staff, Commission, or ARB would not be increased.. Vice Mayor Witherspoon asked if 750 square feet referred to the footprint of the bui ldinu oe usable space, and believed the 20 foot ceiling would allow a loft area. Mr. brown responded that the 750 square feet referred to floor area excluding -any parking facility, Vice Mayor Witherspoon asked for confirmation that a loft could be included in the 750 square feet. Mr. Brown said a loft would be considered floor area. Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing open. betty Rooaway, 1;02 Ur.eenwood,.. said she went to the Planning Com- mission two weeks after it decided to reduce the size of cottages, which decision was made without any community input or disagree:. ment. She was unable to attend the first Commission meeting, but made a presentation without the _protocol available to reconsider any oactiOn taken. Her lot was large enough to meet the cottage ordinance standards, but_ too small to divide.. . She lived in Palo Alto for 29 years, and lived alone in approximately 1,800 .square feet for 18 years. She was retired, but: still active in the.com- rnunity, and wanted to guild a small house for herself in the back, Then she would only have a s1rrall garden to carne for and' a small, separate home for herself. Her family could live in her main home since they could not otherwise afford to live in Palo Altos e Sne believed 1,200 square feet would be appropriate, and could accept liviny space of 1,000 square feet, but 750 square feet was not possible. A classroom was 950 square feet. Many older widows or couples -were unwilling to imove someplace smaller, and she urged tie Council to be less restrictive and encourage older residents to turn "their houses over to families with children as affordable housing, The School District would then have the extra pupils _needed i n Pa to Al to. 3 9 5 5 11/21/83 Kathy Farrell, 901 Hutchinson, was Ms. Rogaway's daughter, but spoke on her own behalf. Shy curd her mother planned to build the eottaye, and site was rentiny a house nearby. Her house was sold, and it was moved into rental. In the meantime, Two weeks after she moved, a moratorium set the maximum cottage size at 1,000 square feet, which her mother found to be a difficult size in which to live. She and her husband moved to Palo Alto for her son to start at public school because of her memories growing up in town. The equity in their East Hay house was insufficient to buy a house in I'alo'Alto, and her mother's arthritis made it difficult for her to keep her house up. 0f the ten applications for cot- tayes to the past year, four were for 1,300 square feet or less. She agreed 2,500 square foot designs were homes --not cottages --and roust have limitations. Applications from br•iiders and developers were just causes for concern, bot limits should not be set to counter possible abuse. She asked for an ordinance to give some flexibility. One original issue was visual impact, and their cot- tage would•be in a backyard, with lots of trees, and would have little visual impact. The Commissioners said 750 square feet would be suitable for students, but her mother, was not a student with few possessions. Slie uryed the Council to consider how dif- ficult it woti1d be for her mother to live in 150 square feet. Carol Young -Holt, 667 Channiny Avenue, supported the two previous speakers in terrors of encouraging young families to live in Palo Alto. She wanted to see ordinances designed to support people like Mrs. Rogaway moving into smaller buildings to allow young families to move into their larger homes, Sally Siegel, 4290 Pence Drive, commended the City government for providiny human services. The cottage concept —building and oc- cupancy of a rear dwelling, lot size permitting, to allow a young- er family to occupy the original homestead --was a human service, and the normal progression of a .family or unrelated individuals. Twenty years ago a friend pleaded uselessly for a second kitchen in' her building, but now the ,ouncil was more humane. The concept was a significant effort to bring in younger families, sorely needed in Palo Alto, and to provide for the elderly who wanted to maintain the standards to which they were accustomed. The new house could be bui i t with wider doorways to provide for wheel- chairs, and offer adequate space for accumulated possessions. A person confined to the home in older age should have more living space, and a cottaye should be a quality home. She urged. the 1,000 square feet concept, for a . quality home in a quality town. Boo Moss, 4010 Urrne, generally supported the Planning Commission recommendations. Some limitations on, cottages were necessary since there was no limitation on the number in any given area. If allowed to expand at the 2,500 square feet level, there would be siynificant intensification in certain areas, and the cottage zone was not intended for family housing. State law encouraged cot- tages, but not housing significantly larger than the existing house. A cottaye was intended for couples or a single parent, or perhaps a student --not family housing. His first home was 1,100 square feet, with three bedrooms and one bath. He believed the 1,00.0 square feet should be the upper limit, and agreed to .the sliyhtly smaller site. To eliminate future ambiguities, a cottage `should be defined --either as the newest, the smallest, or the smaller house on the lot, or always being located in the rear. Some definition should be put,in the ordinance, and since the cot- tage zone was relatively new, he suggested the newer of the build, ins be defined as _the cottage. He realized the City was reluc- tant to haveelehe.ARH .look at single family homes, but he believed the ARB should look At cottages. The oldest ARB -in California at Palos Verdes -always looked at -single family homes, including .modi- fications, so there Was ample precedehtt It might be wise to sub- sleet cottages over a certain' size to ARB review because mat `that many coeldbe involved. 3 9 5 6 11/21/83 Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing closed. MOTION:. Vice Mayor 'Witherspoon moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendations finding that the proposed ordiaar:ce amendments will not have a negative environ- mental impact, and adopt ordinance changes as fellows: 1. Limit the size of second dwelling units to a maximum of 1,000 square feet (excluding parking facilities) in the R-1 dis- tricts; 2. Limit the height of second dwelling units in the R-1 district to one story, to a maximum height of 15 feet; and :1. Define second dwelling units as those constructed chrono- logically later than the principal dwelling unit. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST REA0ING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE r ALTO AMENDING THE ZONING CODE (TITLE 18) WITH REGARD TO SECOND DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AS CONDITIONAL USES" Vice Mayor Witherspoon agreed with Sally Siegel that the cottage zone concept was a good idea. Insufficient conditions were im- posed the first time around, and the Council's intent should be reconsidered. A cottage was an ancillary building --not what cer- tain recently built "cottages" turned into. She had no prejudice as to position on the site; understood that some small houses might become the cottage if the family built a larger- home, but a cottage must be srna i 1 .. She believed 750 square feet was too small, and knew of a house that did not appear small, but was 800 square feet plus a garage, making 1,000 square feet. She would support 850 square feet, but the size must be made clear. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Witherspoon moved, seconded by Fatsino, to limit the maximum size of second dwelling units to 850 square feet, SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Councilmember Klein +eved, seconded by Cobb, to limit the maximum s j ze of second dwelling units to 1,000 square feet. Councilmember Klein recognized concerns about cottages intruding into the neighborhoods, but if the Council went forward with the proposal, it must recognize that buildings should be habitable. 8e believed 750 square feet was too small and .would:result result in little use of the cottage zone. He believed Council should sup- port the height limits recommended by staff Councilmember Renzel opposed the substitute amendment. The intent of the cottage zone was to tuck in substantially smaller buildings that were no problem to the neighborhood. Many neighborhoods, such as the [ireenwood Avenue area, had many substantial lots that could be used for cottages, and the Council must be careful about the standard applied to a zone. The first principle of the Com- prehensive Plan was to preserve n-1 zones, and a small cottage was one thing, but a large,, substantial- cottage was another. Since lots could not be differentiated, it was important that cottages be_ small. The Council -must clarify that a second unit be substan- tially -smaller than the original unit. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 4-4, Fletcher, Ey , rly, Kenzel Witherspoon voting "no," Levy absent. Councilmember Fazzino asked Vice Mayor Witherspoon whether her motion meant 850 square feet of living space, with additional space for a garage or other ancillary area. \„\ . Vice Mayor Witherspoon said a 10 x 20 foot single ca garage would be an additional 200 square feet. 3 9 5 7 11/21/63 Mr. Brown said the staff recommendation excluded the parking fa- cility, and.only referred to residential, square footage. Vice Mayor -Witherspoon said her motion included 1850 square. feet, plus Z00 square feet for a garage, and ,more if one added storage. Mayor Bechtel said the requiremeht was four parking spaces --two of which had to be covered. Councilrnember Fletcher asked if any applications for 1,000 square foot cottages were received since Council's last discussion. Mr. Brown said nu. Mayor Bechtel understood staff asked that three or four substan- tially larger cottages be redesigned to 1,000 square feet, and that use permits were issued even though the cottages were to be redesigned. Mr. Brown said all previously issued Use permits were valid. Mayor Bechtel asked why they received use permits even though they were to be redesigned. Mr. Brown said members of the public who desired to build 1,001) square foot cottages were dissuaded from making application until the matter was resolved by the Council. The Use permit hearings occurred after the Council hearings. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 4-4, Fletcher, Bechtel, Fazzino and Cobb voting "no," Levy absent. AMENDMENT: Counc i l aenbe r Klein moved, seconded • by Cobb, t� limit the maximum size of second dwelling units to 900 square feet. AMENDMENT PASSE') by a vote of 5-3, Eyerly, kenzel , Witherspoon voting "no,' Levy absent. - Councilrnesnber Cobb said, after reading the materials, situations could occur where a cottage could -b: built in front or that two units might be built simultaneously and the existing unit torn down, or where the second unit was larger. Although unusual, the lady who spoke was the more typical applicant, and he believed those cases should be referred to the ARB. AMENDMENT: Counci lmember Cobb moved, seconded by Renzel , that all applications for second dwelling units be referred to the Architectural Review Board where: 1. The cottage would be;in the front of the lot; 2. Two units would be built simultaneously; and 3. The second u it would be the larger unit. Counci lmember Cobb was concerned about situations where there could be a negative neighborhood impact. Such cases should be aired in front. of a -publ it.. body to allow objections to be raised, and the ARB's time should not be wasted of the more conventional case. City Attorney Ui ane Lee said since the=Amendments were; of> a sub-,. stantive nature and it was unclear whether under the ARB ordinance some adjustments were necessary, i.f the Council decided to enact such language, it should be returned - for -a first reading on Uecenbeti 5� Vice Mayor Witherspoon aaid since the ARB was advisory to staff and not the Council, should that Board review the site layout or design, and what criteria would they have. Regarding the 3 9 5 8 11/21/83 Councilmember Fletcher risked stiff for a recommerllid1 on dbout the pitched -roof so that substantial buildings were prohibited but interesting rooflines were - sti l l allowed. She did not want to see a flat roofed, 20 foot building. Mayor Bechtel believed Commissioner Northway's recommendation for 20 feet made sense, and that something not matching the steep, peaked roofs in Tudor houses would be bothersome aesthetically. r Mr. Brown believed it was possible to change the definition of heiyt,t in the R-1 district to the raid -point of a sloping roof for the accessory dwelling. That portion -f the ordinance change would have to go back to the Commission. eour'cilmember Fletcher suggested Council pass the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission, but that the height issue be referred back. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 4-4y Bechtel, Klein, Fazzino, Cobb voting "no," Levy absent. Couneilmernber Klein said Mr. Brown had the authority to review the designs, and if someone came in with a bunker such as that described by Counci lmernber Fletcher, it could be vetoed by him. Mr. Brown said he used his -design sense to limit cottages. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. ITEM 05, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE C 1U 11 t AR INb 6 N RUM RM-' LOW DENSI . Y HULT I PLE FAMIL M L _'M L; RSDN EUUTEITAT72:25-21 HOMER AVENUES /748 RAMONA STREEt (CMR:5g1717 Planning Commissioner Jack Sutorius said staff recommended the zone change to the Comm.ssion because it impacted two additional housing units and because of the resultant traffic. . The Commis- sion voted 6-1 to deny. the application for rezoning. Director of Ej_lanniny and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the matter was complex because the existing planned community zone covered two sites --the one adjacent to the zone change and a site across the street that was approved some years previously. There was construction on the site adjacent to the proposed change, but the schedule had lapsed., and the tight' to pursue the development probably lapsed also. The proposal considered by the Planning Commission was to upzone the former Paddleford parking lot site and the residential site on the corner from RM-2 to RM-3. The other part of 'the proposal --which was continued by the Planning Commission --was to modify. the planned community zone to lead to an ARB review efor a total development for the site, which depended upon the zone change on the other site. Staff recommended approv- al of 1the zone change to RM-3 because it was an RM-2 island in a ServiceCommercia r area, with RM-3 across the street. Given the location on Horner, staff believed the zone change was justified. Mayor Bechtel declared.the public bearing open. ihumas Harrison, owned 23U a -rid 232 Homer Avenue and the Peninsula Plating works, opposite the subject property. He urqed that the Council uphold the Planning Commission':s . denial of change because the area -was slowly becoming extremely dense. The piece -ofr prop- erty previously had a building which employed three -people): with panting . for its clients. 1'he PC was granted on a variance -with only twelve parking spaces. Today over 30 people- worked'tnere, and there. were six parking places to service it. Slowly the.:den- s'ty increased, but not the -parking. The -Council should refuse the application and the parking requirements fai` the PC and the k M - 2 3 9 6 0 11/21/83 objections of Counci Imemb* r Cobb's neighbors. she -found that neighbors objected to the concept as much as the design. The ARB could not deny the right to erect a -cottage,•and she asked for clarification about whether Councilrnember Cobb wanted the ARB to •arbitrate - or negotiate a design. Counci Irnember Cobb clarified that he wanted to create a process whereby an objectionable situation could be blocked. He asked the City Attorney what kind of structure was required to replace the present design process,. the ARB's authority, and how such a plan ciaght parallel the situation he postulated. Ms. Lee said under the present procedure, a use permit for a second structure had to be obtained. After a hearing, noticed to cel l neighbors, the application went to Mr. Brown, and if a permit was. denied, it could be appealed to the City Council. Mr. brown said the use permit process gave some controls, and that -he exercised hi•s judgment over the use and design of the cottage, and could refer: the design and use to the ARB if he desired.', Mayor Bechtel spoke against • the amendment. As outlined by staff, she believed there was a safe public hearing procedure, and that the public was not precluded from the process_. Mr. Brown could refer .design considerations to the ARB on difficult items. Counci lmember Fletcher asked Counci lmefber Cobb about the cottage being the larger unit built. The cottage would be referred to the ARB, but could be completed by the time the second unit was built. Mayor Bechtel clarified that Counci imernber Cobb wanted the newer unit referred --not the larger one.. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 4-4, Eyerly, Witherspoon, Bechtel and Klein voting 'eno," Levy absent. Counci lrner+rber Renzel ees concerned about the 20 foot height limi- tation. The building could be 30 x 30 feet, with the midpoint 15 feet from each wall. A normal wall was eight feet high, and a one in four slope to the peak of the roof, would make a total of 12 feet, a l lowing an extra three feet to take the peak higher if a sharper an;le was desired. Twenty feet was excessive for one story. AMENDMENT: Council*ember Renzel moved, seconded by-ryerly, ,limit the height of second dwelling units to 15 feet. Mr. Sutorius said he understood the intent of the motion, but the example placed the outside edge of the building at a lower height than usual. _ The foundation, floor, etc., meant the- interior wall eeight was between eight feet and eight feet six inches; but, the -high point of the gable type roof would be above 15 feet. The 20 foot height was based on the architectural experience of Commis- sioner Northway, and gave architectural latitude for^ interest and compatibility with some buildings existing on lots sizable enough for; a- cottage --a Tudor styles for example. Counci lmernber Renzel said a ten foot outside wall would still al- low one foot to play with. Since the cottages were suppose. to be insubstantial structures, and-' t .e height limit wac. the R-1 per- mitted flat roofed building to be up to the maximum -height, a ..flat roofed, 211 foot building cout.d be erected. Eventually, that .could become a one-story building with'a Substantial 16ft about which the City was unaware, and could change the nature of the use. The- Council should err on the conservative side, and .she was Sri 1 i i �3 to -yo to'lb feet. The rule -that appl led to the absolute height in the .R-1 allowed a wall of 20. --feet With a fiat .30 -foot roof, and the Council must bear that_ possibi l ity in mind, She believed Council should support the staff_ recommendation of 15 - feet. 3 9 5 9 11/21/83 1 objection neighbors could no clarific arbitrat Council whereby City At present might p Ms. Le second all ne was d Mr. B he ex and c Mayo she the ref Cou be AR bu Ma u s of Councilmember Cobb's -oeighb}ors, she found that objected to the concept as much as the design. The ARB te deny the right to erect a cottage, and she asked for ation about -whether Councilmember Cobb wanted the ARB to e or negotiate a design. - ember Cobb clarified that he wanted to create a process an objectionable situation could be blocked. He asked the turkey what kind of structure was required to replace the design process, the ARB's authority, and how such a plan arallel the situation he postulated. e said under the present procedure, a use permit for a structure had to be obtained. After a hearing, noticed to ighbors, the application went to Mr. Brown, and if a permit vied, it could be appealed to the City Council. rown said the use permit process gave some controls, and that ercised his judgment over the use and design of the cottage, ou1d refer the design and use to the ARB if he desired. r Bechtel spoke against the amendment. As outlined by staff, believed there was a safe public hearing procedure, and that public was not precluded from the process. Mr. -Brown could er design considerations to the Anti on difficult items. nci lmember Fletcher asked Councilmember Cobb about the cottage ng the larger unit built. The cottage would be• referred to the t3, but could- be completed by the time -the second unit was ilt. jor 3ecihr.el -clarified that Councilmember Cobb wanted the newer nit referred --not the larger one. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 4-4, Eyerly, Mitherspoon, Bechtel and Klein voting "no," Levy absent. Counci i member - nzel was concerned the _ co ceroe about t �e 20 foot height limi- tation. The building could be 30 x 30 feet, with the midpoint 15 feet from each wall. A normal wall was eight feet high, and a -one in four slope to the peak of -the roof, would :make a total- of 12 feet, a 1 lowing an extra three feet to take the peak higher if a sharper angle was desire;.- Twenty feet was excessive for one story. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Eyerly limit the height of second dwelling units to 15 feet. Mr. Sutorius said he understood the intent of the motion, but the example placed the outside edge of the building at a lower height than usual. The fvunoation, floor, etc., meant -the interior wall height was between eight feet and eight feet six inches; but, the high point of the gable type roof would be above 15 feet. The 20 foot height was based on the architectural experience of Commis- sioner Nort?rwav, and gave architectural latitude for interest and compatibility. With SOME bui ldinge existing on lots sizable enough for a cottage --a Tudor style, for example. Councilmember Renzel said a ten foot outside wall would still al- low one foot to 'p lay with. Since the cottages were supposed to be insubstantial structures and the height limit was the R-1 pere rn?tted flat roofed building to -be uv _to the maximum height, a flat roofed,"20 foot building eo ld be erected. Eventually, that could becomeea one-story building with.a substantial loft about which the City was unaware, and could change -the nature of the use. The' Counci l sh'+Auld err on the conservative side, a_rid .she :was willing .to go to 16 feet.7 The rule that applied to the absolute 'eight in the R-1 allowed a wall of 20 feet with a flat 30efoot roof, and the Council must bear that possibility .in mind. She believed Council should support the staff recommendation of 15 feet. 1 3 9 5 9 11/21/83 Cuuooiliiember Fletcher asked Staff for a recommendation dbout the patcneo root so that substantial buildings were prohibited but interesting rooflines were still allowed. She did not want to see a flat roofed, 20 foot building. Mayor Bechtel believed Commissioner Northway's recommendation for 20 feet made sense, and that something not matching the steep, peaked roofs in Tudor houses would be bothersome aesthetically. Mr. drown believed it was possible to change the definition of neiyht in the R -I district to the mid -point of a sloping roof for the accessory dwelling. That portion of the ordinance change would have to go back to the Commission. Councilmember Fletcher suggested Council pass the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission, but that the height issue be referred back. AMEIVUMLNT FA ZED by a vote of 4-4, Bechtel, Klein, Fazzino, Cobb voting "no," Levy absent. Councilmember Klein said Mr. Brown had the authority to review the designs, and if someone came in with a hunker such as that described by Councilmember Fletcher, it could be vetoed by him. Mr. Brown said he used his design sense to limit cottages. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. ITEM #b PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE rrmterrro-N- rH- HIGTIN F1N'N{.IAL edR,:.!?... OW OLUSITY MOLT F'LE Fi MI R S IStifC i 1PLE rAMILY RES RUM RM-' Lkka . 13E. N M i) N Ut, EU A 2:5-231 HOMER AVENUE/748 RAMONA STREET CMR: .90: Planning Commissioner Jack Sutorius said staff recommended the zone change to the Commission because it impacted two additional lousing units and because of the resultant' traffic. The Commis- sion voted 6-1 to deny the application for rezoning. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the natter was !,complex because the existing planned community zone covered two sites --the one adjacent to the`zone change and a site across the street that was approved some years previously. There was construction on the site adjacent to the proposed change, but the schedule had lapsed, and the right to pursue the devtel.opment probably lapsed als'. The proposal considered by the -Planning Commission was to upeane the former Paddleford parking lot site and the residential site on the corner from RM-2 to 2M-3. The other part of the proposal --which was continued by the Planr+iog Commission —was to modify the planned community zone to lead to an APtti review for a total development for the site, which depended upon the zone change on the other site. Staff recommended approv- al of the zone change to RM-3 because it was an RM-2 island in a service Commercial area, with RM-3 across the street.. Given the location on Homer, staff believed the zone change was justified. Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing open. Thomas harrison, owned 230 41'0 '232 Homer Avenue and the Peninsula Plating works, apposite the subject property. He= urged that the Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial -of change because the. area was slowly. becoming extremely dense. The .piece of prop- .erty previously had a building which employed .three_ peoples 'with parking for its clients. The PC was granted_ on a variance -With only twelve parking spaces. - Today over 30 people --worked these, and there were six parking plates to service it. S1tiw1I-theeden sity increased, but not the.. -parking. The Council sho.uld.refuse the application and the -parking requirements for the PC and the gm -2 3'9 6 0 11/21/03 should. be reviewed. Palo Alto had changed, and the density for the commercial area had increased with the building of larger buildings in the center of town, pushing parking out to their area. Additional units would be built with more cars, and it was always difficult to park. Aesthetically the street was nice, the original green belt around City Hall stopped development, and property owners were stopped once. It should remain RM-2 to stay in line with the rest of the area. Homer was a pretty street and Ramona was tasteful. A zone change would allow more condominiums or apartments, and he wanted that trend stopped. He urged that Council look at other requests from the same standpoint. Howard Cohn, 212 Homer Avenue, owned a business at 212 Homer Avenue, directly across the street from the intended project. He agreed with the previous speaker that the parking situation in the area had changed dramatically. Merchants always provided off- street parking for employees, and die supplied off-street parking for his 14 employees. That was true for all merchants in the area --streets had to be kept free for customers, but increased density occupied those spaces. People who tried to come to his establishment complained that they could not find parking, and increased density within the proposed project would require more on -street parking for visitors, etc. The c+.'nsity would occupy 63 percept of usable land, and the height and invasion of the sun- light plane should be considered. The current Stevens, Jacobs building employed 30 people with only,six parking places, and the rest had to use the streets. He hoped the Council would follow the Planning Commission recommendation, Tom Harrington, 4201 Page Mill Road, was the developer of the property. The parcel on the corner had three old houses, without foundations, and in bad disrepair. He owned the parcel next to it and had a building permit, although he was not suee whether he was still allowed to build three condominiums. His intent was to build a quality condominium project close to downtown Palo Alto. He developed a reasonable project on one parcel, but stopped construct -ion because he was able to buy the other two parcels. He wanted to integrate the three parcels into a low density, RM-3 zoning with fairly large, high quality, well designed units. He requested the RM-5 zoning, but the Commission and .Council sug- gested that an RH-3 or RM-4 zoning was more appropriate.t It was an RM-2 island between two commercial service zones, surrounded by RM-3 zoning, and RM-3 zoning was consistent and sensiblee The staff recommended RM-3 because of the overall plan about what should take place, but the neighbors objected to the lack of park- ing in the neighborhood. The two previous speakers had a parking problem because they had commercial establishments across the street. To help them, he redesigned to take away two ee,isting driveways from the old house and replaced them with two on street parking places. RM-3 allowed seven units, but he would only build six. He came in with a .low density, high quality project consis- tent with past recommendations of the Council and Commission, but neighbors complained he was creating a parking problem when he was creating parking on site. His neighbor on 771 Ramona was presi- dent of the Townhouse Association- and- backed the change to RM-3. Five of the seven townhouse residents, who had to look at the old, tumbledown -houses, verbally supported the change. It was a zoning request consistent with the neighborhood, reasonable and low den- sity. When speaking of daylight planes, people should know that his latest i nfoemat i on was that the oak tree in the center of the parking lot would have to go to allow parking to go underground., There was sufficient on site parking for the six units_, and it - would integrate development in the area. e He knew of nothing more a developer could do than react to other Commissions and present then: with a development suggested at that time, and provide all the legal parking on the property,: Councilmember Fletcher asked how many parking spaces would be on site for.the six units, 3 g 6 1 11/21/83 Mr. llarrington responded that for the- townhouses, there would be a total of six on site parking spaces, and two parking spaces per unit for a total of 12. . On the other parcel, there were three townhouses that would be blended architecturally, and there were two parking spaces per unit. The other was, a PC zone, and in addition, there were 12 parking spaces attached to the office building. He committed to the Council that he would only build six units and would provide all parking. Councilmember Fletcher asked if the six unit plan would still need the daylight plane encroachment and setback variance. Mr. Harrington: said no. Some neighbors confused the design with the parking problem, and he believed that if the oak tree was removed, the entrance and exit could be on Ramona Street rather than Homer, and the entire building could go down because there was no longer an oak tree that required its roots. The daylight plane variance would no longer be necessary if the oak tree were removed. Councilmember Fletcher clarified that if the oak tree stayed, Mr. Harrington would apply for a variance. Mr. Harrington said yes, but that was a separate hearing. He now understood that the oak tree was beyond saving. Earl F. Schmidt, 201 Homer Avenue, said about 12 years ago, the City rezoned the property immediately adjacent to City Hall to. a green belt to provide the ambience necessary for a City Hall and library facility. At that point, he moved into his present prop- erty which had been in his wife's family about 70 years, and lived within the City's. intent to have a green belt around City Hall, and he intended to continue to do so. The two buildings on the property were both historic and were integral to the City's his- tory --one was built in 1390 and the other was built in 1906. He had other property interests in the immediate area and was inter- ested in development in the area. He submitted a letter to Mr. Brown on November 7„1983, which was on file in the City Clerk's office, and was concerned about the number of innovative develop- ments in the planned commercial zone which existed both on the parcel immediately adjacent to his own, and the other at 727 Ramona immediately adjacent to the City library. He strongly believed any consideration of a change for the Harrington inter- ests in the property on which the rezoning was requested must tie linked to the total planned community zoning established under. Council Ordinance No. 3182. There was evidence of some question of continued development of additional commercial interests as well as the residential-- properties within the planned community and on the RM-3 zoning, along with parking, and considerations for traffic. He was mainly interested in the careful planning by the Planning Commission and City Council. Dale Denson, 1068 University Avenue, said the City was interested in housing, and he did not understand why the City should consider commercial interests. The zoning might have been wrong in the first place, but it did not seem fair that the area not be devel- oped because those with commercial interests wanted parking for their stores. Louis Grandona (card not submitted), owned the .pro'perties at 268, 260 Homer Avenue and 801 Ramona Street. He was upset by the pre- vious speaker who said that the business people in the area were greedy to want parking for their customers. The merchants had a lot of time and money invested in the area, and his elderly cus- tomers could not find parking to go into his laundry. Ultimately, he planned to develop his property, which was zoned commercial, and changed to RM-3. He had no problem with the proposal, but those with underground parking did not use it. He referred to the corner of = 8ryant and Homer where parking was provided underground and was not used. The corner of Ramona and Homer had San 3 9 6 2 11/21/83 Francisco type housing', but the corner house had one residence where the downstairs was r5eiited. There was enough parking for two cars, and the occupants of the one room downstairs had two cars. He would go along with underground parking if the parking spaces went into Ramona. Joette Farrand, /24 Bryant Street, said her residence was back to back with 727 Bryant Street. In the past eight years, almost every house around her was demolished, and replaced by condomini+.III developments. There would always be more who wanted to live in Pa i o Alto than there was space for, but the developers were de- creasing the City's desirability by building massive condominium developments and housing more people per square foot, less park- ing, more noise, and more pollution. There were two parking spaces in front of her house constantly filled with four cars. Her driveway was constantly blocked; there was a problem with parking, and Mr. Harrington wanted higher density which she did not support. Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing closed. Vice Mayor Witherspoon asked for clarification or, what Mr. Schmidt had been talking about when he spoke of the green: belt around City Hall. She believed there was heavy zoning around City Hall, and that he referred to a height limit for the square immediately around City Hall. Mr. Schreiber said staff was also perplexed --green belt zoning was not a term with which staff was familiar for the area. Around downtown, there was special zoning to recognize the Civic Center, but it was a minimum height zoning. Buildings had to be 35 feet high to promote a higher urban environment. Mr. Schmidt said the City Council records of ten or twelve years ago reflected that his property and most of the property now RM-2 and RM-3 was zoned commercial. Members of his family paid $15 a year for a• permit to occupy a residence built in 1906 for a span of at least ten years in order to occupy a residence within com- mercial zoning in the City of Palo Alto. That was rezoned in or- der to "green belt" the City Hall and City library to create a green ambiance in downtown Palo Alto. Mr. Brown said Mr, Schmidt referred to the Fire Zone 1 study in 1974 that rezoned much of the industrial area to residential. Courtcilmember Klein believed there was a lot of confusion on the issue, and the Council should clarify that the design of the proj- ect was not before it From his observations of the design, he believed: Mr, Harrington had some significant hurdles to overcome, but that was not the issue. The Council was responsible for de- termining the appropriate density and zoning fore the site. . He believed RM-1 zoning was more appropriate, and the potential for an additional` two housing units. Most speakers preferred no de- velopment, which was not a possibility --the: question was whether; there wot?ld be an additional one or two units. He did not believe there was a parking problem at.the site --the City's parking regu- lations required that there be sufficient on site parking. He believed one or two additional housing units on the:site should be allowed. NOTION: C©enc i l aeeaber Klein moved, seconded by. Witherspoon, to uphold the staff recommendation torezone the property to RM-3 and reverse the Planning Commission recommendation to deny. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE IMUNCIL , IT u PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE _ PALO ALTO Nt1N1 C I PAL CODE (THE ZONING NAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 225-231 HOMER AVENUE/748 RAMONA STREET FROM RM-2 TO RM-3" 11/21/83 Councilmember Renzel recalled that when the Manning Commission and Council looked at the Comprehensive Plan for the area in 1976, many of the residential densities were assigned based on existing or approved development. She believed there was a general intent to significantly scale don the zoning on the margins, and the fact that some of the other zonings remained was because of a recommendation by staff to not create nonconformity. There was a general planning view that the overall area was impacted and that the Council should head towards less dense development to avoid compaction. She was inclined to support the Planning Commission recommendation because it was more consistent with the intent even though the zoning established reflected what was already there -- not a desire for something more. The Council had the opportunity to affet.t what happened --it was only looking at zoning not at any specific proposal, there was compaction, and the Council should stick with the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilmember Eyerly said Councilmember Klein pointed out that it was a matter of zoning and had nothing to do with design. He asked staff where the dispute was on the 736 Ramona PC, and the recommendation on zoning if the PC was expired. Mr. Brown said the application was continued by the Planning Com- mission to its meeting of January 4, 1984, to allow Council time to resolve the present issue, and allow the applicant time to amend the design if necessary. He deferred to City Attorney Diane Lee about the status of the current building permit. Ms. Lee said the building permit expired --it did not meet the development schedule which was clearly a part of the zoning. She did not believe zoning on the site continued under the PC. Councilmember Eyerly asked what was currently on the site. Mr. Brown said the adjacent site was currently developed with a parking structure that would be the foundation for the three units above it. Councilmember Cobb said he believed a parking problem existed, but whether it was zoned RM-2 or RM-3, the resultant project would have no bearing because the City's fundamental parking regulations did not allow enough parking. he did not believe two spaces per unit was enough because it did not allow for •visitor parking, and it was necessary to toughen the City's parking regulations and recognize the realities of visitor parking. The Planning Commis- sion discussion reflected that a large number of variances were required, and some comments tonight suggested that the health of the oak tree might change that. In supporting the notion, he would not support any future variances on like projects because those led the City into the density problems. Vice Mayor Witherspoon agreed with Councilmember Renzel that it was the Council's intent in 1974 and 1975 to down zone the commer- cial areas and make a transition to residential. The subject site was surrounded by commercial for the most part, .and the RM-2 began on Charming aexcept for a dog leg on Ramona. She did not believe RM-3 was inappropriate fur the site, but the Council must be as- sured there would be more than enough parking provided on site.' Cdunci lmember kl etcher said she was fully taware Council was not reviewing a specific design o' project; ut 1 i ke the Planning Com- mission,'she;found it difficult:to separate -the two issues because the concerns of the neighbors dealt with parking, the encroachment into the daylight plane, -And the impending variances.. She dif- fered with some : o.f the comments in that the residential parking was usually not i a problem :in the Oytime during the week: when the businesses needed the space. ;She lived in a multi -family develop- ment and despite --a parking shortage at .night and on: weekends, the place was deserted during the day. She assumed the garage. parking 3 9 6 4 11/221/83--. would have the automatic door openers which made it easier for people to park inside. She believed the RM-3 zone was appropriate for the site especially since it only meant one or two more units. Mayor Bechtel said originally she believed the RM-2 zone made some sense, but the more she saw that R-2 was close by and tie concern of the public about the adequacy of the site to handle the cars that would be generated, she would. not support the motion and would support the Planning Commission recommendation. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Renzel, Bechtel voting "no," Levy absent. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:30 p.m. to 9:45 .m. ITEM #6, PUBLI` HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION APPLICATION OF iHL CTTY Of P ILL ROAIJ Rk Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing open. Lou Sugimoto, 20858 Meadow Oak Way, Saratoga, said his father owned the subject property, and he spoke on his behalf to ensure that he not he subjected to economic hardship due to the prop ised zone change from CS to CN. 1e reed a letter from his father which reflected his recent receipt of a notice indicating a requested change from Service Commercial zone to Neighborhood Commercial zone. Prior to that time, he was informed by the City that a Com- prehensive Plan change was instituted and that all would remain the same. Based on the new zoning, appreciable value of his land would be drastically reduced and it seemed unfair just prior to his retirement that the action would take place. He lived at the location for over 30 years, and hoped the investment would be his retirement. His objective was to eventually sell the home and live on its proceeds. He was now 76 years old and it was diffi- cult to start again. He was not sure of all the significant points of changing from CS to CN. William G. Alhouse, 2450 El Camino Real, said regarding lot 40, 471 Page Mill Road, that it was small in square footage, and would be impossible to aevelop in its present configuration because of parking requirements. He did not represent owners on either side of the property, but some consolidation of the properties to value his square footage , migh.t be the answer to developing something worthwhile on the corner The question was whether the lot could be used as a parking lot in conjunction with the properties on either side Mr.- Brown: had advised that it could be under single ownership. If an owner on either side of the property was not:., willing to sell to the Sugimoto's, he asked if a' joint venture or partnership whereby a building was jointly constructed anti one of the lots used for parking would be legally acceptable. If a part- nership *as not available, could one of the properties b.' leased where the building thereupon would be built on .<.the apprapri ate lot and the adjoining parking lot used. That raised questions about termination of a partnership or lease, but he. was concerned that some consolidation of -the properties should be considered to de- velop -something. The maul difference in the zoning was the allow - 'able height. At the corner, a height -.limit of 35 feet was Permis- sible. It was 50, feet under a CS zone, but because the property_ was within 100 feet of a residential area, it must be reduced to 35 feet. On the cross hatch lots, the height limit -was 25_ feet. Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing closed., Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland -said most of Mr. Alhouse' questions did not invol:ire matters of the zoning or the appropri- ateness of the zoning district so much as legal arrangements between private property owners. He did_not believe staff could 3 9 6 5 11/21/83 answer most of those questions. The zoning provided for off site parting within 500 feet subject to the approval of the planning director. He believed the answer to most of the questions would be that there wa's nothing in the zoning to preclude some of the arrangements, but most of the questions were not ones of land use so much as private property arrangements. Mayor Bechtel clarified that nothing in the City's zoning would preclude such arrangements if the property owner could work out an arrangement with an adjoining property owner. Mr. Freeland said that was correct, but parOng off site required an additional approval by the planning director. He introduced. Ray Hashimoto who worked with the City's Architectural Review Board. Councilmember Renzel asked for clarification that while off site parking was permitted through staff approval, the CN zone had no restrictions that would not.. permit the site to be used 100 percent for parking for another site --whether or not it was in the CN zone. Mr. Freeland clarified that it must be for permitted uses in the CN district. If an auto repair service was permitted in the CS district on El Camino, the parking for a CS use could not be established in a CN district. There could. be some complications of non-CN land use parking, but most of the questions had to do with private arrangements. Councilmember Renzel said if someone wanted to purchase both sites, they were both under CN zoning and there would be no prob- lem with respect ° to the parking arrangement. If there was a re- tail operation in the CS zone, she asked whether the lot could be used for parking for retail even though the retail exceeded the amount permitted in a CN zone. Mr. Freeland said yes. Councilmember Renzel clarified that as long as the use was per- mitted, the degree of use did not affect the ability to use another lot for parking. Mr. Freeland said that was correct, but there was an additional approval required of the Director of Planning, that it was a reasonable proposition to have the off site parking. MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Renzel, to adopt the Planning Commission findings that the rezoning will not have a significant environmental impact and approve the rezoning of 461 and 471 Page Milt Road from CS (Service Commercial) to CM (Neigh- borhood Commercial). ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE 4 TH'- DV THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18 . ©8.04O OF THE PAL© ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 461-471 PAGE MILL ROAD FROM CS TO Cif" MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. ITEM 17, APPEAL OF aACT1YE SIGN SERVICE, REPRESENTING GERARD TIRE v[Kt4TUR • • Mayor Bechtel asked if the applicant was noti firs,;} oi' that eve- ning's meeting. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the applicant was notifed of that evening's meeting. 3 9 6 6 11/21/83 Council ember Retizel asked about the effect of the Architectural Review Board statement that "the applicant should consider removing copy..." 1 Mr. Schreiber said that was not the forma' approval, but rather the discussion to encourage the applicant's consideration. The ARB's approval conditions did not include that wording, hut removed the "brakes, tires, alignments, and shocks wording. MOTION: Counciimember Fletcher moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to uphold the decision of the Architectural Review Board apprnelog the sign application with the following conditions: 1. That the freestanding sign be lowered to 13 feet in bring it into conformance with the Sign Ordinance; 2. That landscaping be provided around the freestanding (subject to staff approval); 3. Street trees be requested and paid for by the tenant And installed in the frontage of the 940 High Street address; and height to sign post 4. The wall sign is not to contain the copy reading "brakes, tires, elignmehts, and shocks." The applicant shall work with staff on a revised sign to fit with- in the existing sign cabinet. Further, deny the appeal of aActive Sign Service. Mr. Schreiber clarified that the ARB did not deny the sign --the appeal was of a condition iTnosed by the ARB. Councilmemher Eyerly clarified that the appellant was advised, and that someone on staff spoke to him recently. Mr. Schreiber said the item was scheduled for a number of weeks, an'1 there was previous contact by Mr. Hashimoto and the staff report was mailed to the appellant last week. Councilmember Eyerly clarified that staff believed the appell was contacted and did not accidentally miss the meeting. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. REQUEST TO HEAR ITEM #9, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ANNUAL REPORT MOTION: Covr,ciimember Klein moved, seconded by Renzel, to hear Item �rt9, ARB annual report ahead of Item 18, ARB recommendation re (P) District design guidelines. POTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. ITEM #9, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARO ANNUAL REPORT Architectural- Review Board Chairman Jon Schink said it was appro- priate that . November marked the ten year anniversary of the ARB's existence. Members of the ARB included himself, Linda Ludden, Derk Vyn, Tony Carrasco, and Virgil Carter. He added that Virgil Carter was recently elected President of the California AIA. Over the past two years, he was honored to work with the ARB, avid hoped everyone realized the talents of the individual members and what a good job was . done serving Palo Alto-. Staff liaison Irene Szmorl lnski was the most dedicated City :.-employee he had met and made the process work. Her talent was remarkable, and he was hon- ored to work with her. His report would center on the ARB process as it related to applicants and the neighborhood interests. Downtown (P) district design guidelines would be discussed and the ARB's interest in retaini g the retail vitality through new 3 9 6 7 11/21/83 construction and enhancing the pedestrian character of the down- town. He would briefly comment on signs, and address environ- men:•al impact assessment mitigations for traffic. The ARB comments and concerns evolved from the review of 326 ap- plications. Presently an application went before the ARB, but only after the application was made to the City. Because of the work load before the ARB, the City staff was required to take a stronyer role in its initial workings with an applicant to modify the application to better reflect the ARB's traditional concerns. Once an application was ready .for ARB review, the ARB looked at the interest of the applicant and the interest of the neighbor- hood. Uver the past year, the ARB was concerned about how appli- cants were treated, and asked the City's Organizational Develop- .merrt Uepartment .to visit the meetings and review' how applicants were treated. It was found that the ARB was fair,' courteous and reasonable. ARB members were all Palo Alto residents, lived in the neighbc4hoeds, and were sensitive to neighborhood concerns, but those who lived in neighborhoods' could better articulate their concerns because they understood the nuan:es of their neighborhood and what made it special in the review process. The ARB raised a concern that currently in its process, the publication of meetings was handled in the Peninsula Times Tribune legal section. In a recent experience, there was a substantial development 'of over 20 units adjoining a residential neighborhood, but no citizens at- tended to express concern. He did not believe that was the Palo Alto cha re c.ter, and that no one attended the Meeting :because of ineffective means of communicating the AR's3 agend>==; The concern was not hysterical, but a point was made that os. one occasion, neighborhoods were possibly missed from the communication avenue, which should be changed. The ARB spent about 2b percent of its time reviewing. signs that could have a major impact on the aesthetic character of a commu- nity. The board was concerned about amortized signs and the need fur those signs to be removed. The City was diligent in accom- plishing that goal, but the creative business enterprise in some areas found effective means to short circuit the sign ordinance and plaster their windows .with tasteless signs that were .contrary to the purpose and intent of the sign ordinance. The ARB sug- yested that revisions were needed in the sign ordinance. Regarding downtown design guidelines, during the last year, the ARB in its efforts to be fair and reasonable with all applicants, believed it wa:s necessary to establish downtown design. guidelines. Those guidelines specifically outlined additional rules the ARB expected to be applied to new construction in the downtown area. Any new project in the downtown area -must be designed to enhance tne retail character and vitality of the ground ,floor spaces. A specific example was building blank .:ells on. the first floor, be- cause such walls were not suitable for retail use. The ARB saw design trends that conflicted with the pedestrian character of downtown, and believed it was essential to adopt guidelines to make it clear that the City expected the 'pedestrian character of the downtown area to be respected. Regarding environmental impact assessment mitigations, the ARB was concerned about: traffic mitigations. Various projects --had spe- cific impacts whether it .be the impact on the site from -addi- tional storm water runoff, or additional jobs that were mitigated by a hoUstny payment. Une m; ti gati on that lacked in the process was traffic. He referred to the last six. month period in which 2bU,UUU square feet of new commercial space was approved for con- struction brinying bbO additional employees on the streets of Palo Alto. Those employees took five key intersections from a service level of E. to F. As the ARB reviewed those projects, each project, in its`r'1f was considered to have insignificant traffic :impacts, but when the cumulative.. effec-t.s-- of those projects were combined, the AKS believed there were_ significant impacts. Currently, there =las not an established procedure for the ARB to follow in requi r- 3 g 6 8 11/21/83 my mitigations to those problems. it was suggested that d trdf- tic mitigation fund be established so that when the appropriate response to the traffic problems was determined, the City could begin. doing something. Mayor Bechtel noted the ARB had a 30 percent increase in applica- tions, and reviewed over 326 applicationse1ast year. She appreci- ated the amount of time donated by members of the ARB. Counci lmeri!ber Cobb said concern was expressed about whether the ARB received proper attendance at its meetings, and he asked to what extent the fact that ARB meetings took place during the day was a deterrent to attendance. Mr. Schink said it was clear to him that when a neighborhood was aware of a project before the board, there was substantial neigh-, borhood attendance. He did not believe it could be concluded that morning rneeti nys deterred anyone from attending. Councilrnernber Cobb believed that ARB notices appearing in the le- gal section of the paper probably would not be seen too well. He asked staff to comment with regard to involving the ARB in the up- coming Comprehensive Plan and zoning revisions to better illus- trate now the whole zoning ordinance equation would evolve into buildings, because he believed it was a good idea. Chief -Planning Official Bruce Freeland said. staff intended to •re- fer the review of the existing Comprehensive Plan --particularly the urban design element of the Plan --to the ARB for input. The format would be an opportunity to review the existing plan and submit ideas to the Planning Commission rather than being a lead body in revising the Plan. Similarly, the housing aspect would be referred to the Human Relations Commission and Palo Alto Housing Corporation for input. Counci lrnernber Cobb complimented the members of the ARB because he believed their service was very valuable to the City. Mayor Bechtel said she expected that Council would accept the ARB's report and direct staff to bring back any implementing ac- tion among the recommendations. Unless the Council was totally opposed to a recommendation, she did not believe it needed to get into the merits of the specific items. Counci iner,iber Fazzino said he was never more impressed with the work of the ARB over the past tern years than he was over the past year. He_shar=ed the same concern as Counicilmember Cobb about in- vol-viny the public and the difficulty of recognizing that archi- tects were most available when the meetings were held. `• He re - .called that provision was made a couple of years ago for evening meetings whenever a controversial project arose, and he asked whether the occasion arose during the past year to hold an evening meeting. Mr. Schink said the most controversial project before the ARB was the lerinan project, and after attending thee Planning Commission meeting, he determined that all the same faces attended the ARB meeting. Counci 1 member Fazzino said, it was important to have that vehicle, and that the ARE worked with the Planning staff to determine when those evening meetings should ,.take place. Given the ARB recommen- dations for increased involvement in the Comprehensive Plan is- sues, he believed it y.as important to. hold those meetings at a better time for the public. MOTION: Counci lraeaber Fazzino moved, seconded by Cobb, to ac- cept the Architectural Review hoard report and refer the following recommendations to staff to report back re implementation: 1. The ARS agendas should be advertised in a different fashion than the legal section of the peninsula Times Tribune; 3 9 b 9 .11/21/83 MOTION CONTINUED 2. Palo Alto's sign ordinance should be amended to control unac- ceptable window signs; 3. AMU should be involved in upcoming Comprehensive Plan and zon- ing revisions to better illustrate how the whole zoning ordi- nance equation will evolve into buildings; and 4. A monetary traffic mitigation requirement on all new develop- ments should be established. Counci I€nember Eyerly supported the appreciation expressed to the ARB. Regarding advertising, distress was expressed that neighbor- hood representatives were not always present because it was be- lieved that advertising was inappropriate. He understood the ARB was not charged with politics, and that each project before the ARB had certain perimeters within which to work. He asked if the ARB worked on a lot of variances where it might be helpful to have more neighborhood input. Mr. 5chis'k believed there were a fair number of items, specifical- ly those which involved noise generation, driveway locations, etc. The importance of the driveway location was determined by the specifics of the neighborhood and its behavioral patterns. Most of the items before the ARB with neighborhood concerns were noise generation, location of dumpsters, air conditioning equipment, loading docks, and those types of items. It was helpful for the neighborhood to point those things out. Louncilinember Eyerly said regarding monetary traffic mitigation, that the AKt{ suggested money for mitigations was not concerned with parking, but signal lights, street widening or turn lanes. Mr. achink said it was clear that as each project was appr=oved, the immediate impacts were not clear although it was known that -there would be impacts. He believed some sort of mitigation fund tied to the trip generation identified in the environmental impact assessment process could be established to offset the impacts. (ounci Irrernber Menzel thanked the ARE for its work. Regarding traffic mitigation, she was 'concerned the City would have a false .sense of security by establishing a fund to do projects that were politically impossible, She supported the- motion to accept the report and refer the proposals to staff, but was concerned that while the City needed to try and mitigate traffic impacts, it needed to be realistic about what kinds of things.money could buy and what it could not buy. Vice Mayor Witherspoon thanked the ARB. She understood the City had a window sign ordinance. Mr. Feeeland responded that no more than 25 perce'►it of the inside. cif a window could be covered with'signs, but the concern was part- ly over the quality of that 25 percent and some stores went around the requirement by having displays just inside but not attached to the window. Vice Mayor Witherspoon said she understood the ARB would be in- volved in tine Comprehensive Plan review by having it review the zoning, ,but she believed the ARb was asking for a chance to use its expertise in showing the City what potential the recommended Rune had for bui-id.out. She believed that would be a:much more creative use of the ARB's talents in addition to the more conven- tional one of them looking over the zoning ordinance. Mr. Freeland said as part of an assignment, the ARB would be asked what it had in mind and Staff should share its thinking. 3 9 7 0 11/21/83 Cuuoc=i Inieniber Klein added his commendation to the Architectural Review Board for its excellent work, and believed -it was reflected in the higher quality of several projects. He emphasized the report was a model of_what the Council should expect from other City boards and advisory groups --it was to the point and contained challenging and interesting recommendations. Councilmernber Fletcher said she was impressed with the report and its recommendations. She asked about the possibility/ of mitiga- tion funds being used to widen roadways and increase roadway capacity, and whether the City could alternatively consider some Kind of an ongoing assessment. An ongoing assessment in the East bayshore area would not be much for each individual business, but a vanpool program might cut down on the traffic. MUTIUM PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. IIIM #6, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW F3UARU RECOMMENDATION RE PEDESTRIAN Counc i I r,ernber Fletcher said there were four suggested -requ i reineots on tree first page. of the report, and she asked whether they were all inciusive or alternatives. Mr. Freeland said each new building must have each feature sug- yested. Councilmember Fletcher said that under Objective D, Preservation of the Scale and Character of Downtown, (I), "new buildings should work in concert with older structures through scale, use of mater- i a l s. , ." and she asked if there 'was a row of 25 Moot buildings and a 50 foot structure suggested, it could be ruled out of scale. Mr. Freeland responded that it could be, but not necessarily would be. The condition required a lot of judgment, and the point was that because of its materials and scale, it should be harmonious and seem natural and comfortable in- the context of the other buildings. He did not believe that because a building was near a 25 foot requirement, it had to be 25 feet. Counci lmeriber Fletcher asked how the City would implement the con- dition that 9round'floor spaces must be designed so that they could accommodate retail uses. Mr. Freeland responded the key was that the spacesbe logically configured so that it could be made available t� a retailer --not cut up with permanent partitions and spaces oriented away from display windows. The ARB looked at the outside Of buildings as its primary concern, but floor plans were received where the prob- lems existed. A lot of buildings were speculative with flexible interior partitions which meant they were flexible and could be converted in the future to retail configurations even if they started out as offices. The point would be that they not be con- figured in some strange manner that would make the space inacces- sible for retail use. Counci lrnember Fletcher said it was pointed out to her that some of the new developments that were supposed to have retail on the `aground floor oor did not have display windows or store entrances in a convenient place. It was pointed out that in shopping centers, the front facing part of the.develbpment was usually left undevel- oped until fire actual, leases were arranged. The Cox project was cited as not having any retail frontage although it was supposed to;in the development. The retail frontage faced inward Which woes not loyica i e but she was not sure. about_ the .r�e;ui repents =f.or the development. The Greyhound site was in' the same situation` +where there was no display window or logical doorway. 3 9 7 1 11/21/63 Moir. Freeland said the former Greyhound site was outside of the Pedestrian district because the district was just extended to that location. He believed that was an example of a building not logically configured for ground floor retail, and the type of thiny the City sought to avoid. MOTION: Counciimember,. Eyerly moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to endorse the Pedestrian Shopping Combining (P) District Design Guidelines. Mr. Scrink added that the ARI3 reviewed the guidelines with the Downtown Merchants Association, Downtown property owners, and the Downtown Coordinatiny Council, and received their acceptance. Counci imernber Cobb asked if the formal guidelines would enable the ARB to use them as a basis for denying projects. Mr. Schink said yes. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent, FILM #Ir0, F'ALU ALTO SANITATION COMPANY (PASCO) YARD EXPANSION (CMR: b81 : 3) MUGIUN: Councilmewber Cobb moved, seconded by Witherspoon, approval of the ordinance. ORU1MANCE 3488 entitled °ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 198,3-84 TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 83-24 'REFUSE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT' ° AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT U. C. Jones & Sons MUTIUN PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. iTLM X11 PLTITIONS FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THREE AREAS MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to adopt the staff recommendations to, direct staff to proceed with preparation of resolutions of intent to implement the projects on Park boulevard and on Cambridge _,Avenue by creating underground utility di-S,tricts and the associated assessment districts in those areas, thus providing assurances that the projects will be done. further, to direct the staff to place these two projects in the CIP for implementation in fiscal year 1985-86 with funding to come from the Reserve for System Improvements. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. 11LM ir12 RE VEST OF CUUNCILMEMi LRS KLEIN ANU COBB RE ABSENTEE U S= R ORNEII tl REC NC BUARO N [A I:. H ruPrmw-urriTrrril ONS 1t3EEEDIN U b Counci imerrber Klein said the item was placed on the agenda after beiny in. the City Clerk's office the day -after the election and learning that because of the absentee ballot situations, final results were nut likely to be available from the Registrar of Voter `.s office until the following Monday. MOTION: Counci !member Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to refer the matter of absentee ballots being returned to precinct board no later than close of polls on election day to the legislative caw- mttx.e for a recoimendation as to what Council should recommend to its state legislators. 3 9 7 2 11/21/83 Councilmember Renzel supported the referral because everyone wanted to know election results as soon as possible. She did not want anyone to be disenfranchised, however, because their ballot was not mailed in and they could not vote at the polls because _they had an absentee ballot outstanding. If it was a choice, she preferred that people be permitted to vote, rather than having the Council get its results as quickly as possible-. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. ITEM #13, REQUEST OF C011NC1LMEMBER FLETCHER RE RESIDENTIAL 1iALARtO i Councilmember Fletcher said her memo dealt with the program a couple of weeks ago related to the opportunity for residents to dispose of their hazardous material. She believed the program was well run. MOTION; Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that the Mayor be directed to send a letter of thanks to the in- dividuals and firms who volunteered their services to make the project possible and that the City Manager be directed to express special Council appreciation to the staff members involved. Councilmember Eyerly believed the suggestion was excellent, but asked for assurances that the Mayor's letter would be on behalf of the entire Council. Mayor Bechtel said that would he done, MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. ITEM #14, REQUEST OF COUNC I LMEMBERS FAll I NO, W I THERSPOON, F1.ETrR , ND .`o it RE bola TIN N €`tr Councilmember Eyerly said he would •not participate in the item because he was a member of the Downtown Parking Assessment Dis- trict and was in conflict. Councilmember Fazzino said the data provided by the City staff regarding the parking situation in the downtown area clearly pointed out the problems with respect to the need for- parking and that proposed projects in the area were worsening the problem. There were other issues related to the University -downtown area that Council and staff would address over the course • of the next year in the Comprehensive. Plan discussion, but given some of- the pending proposals and the worsening situation, it was important for the Council to move as quickly as possible On enacting tougher provisions for parking. Developers only —met 25 percent of the parking demand- that the new buildings created with on site park- ing, with the remaining demand being met by the Assessment Dis- trict. Since 1980, a demand for 800 extra spaces was created for the Parking Assessment District and most of the trend occurred in 1983. The Council would -not receive initial findings on the Com- prehensive Plan update until mid -summer next year, and the down- town study later in 1984. He believed that the -parking require- ment should. provide credit for past. payments into the assessment district by. allowing- ground floor construction with parking requirements being met by assessment district charges. MOTION; Counciime.zber Fazzino .moved, seconded by Renzel, to refer the issue of downtown parking requirements to the City staff and the Planning Commission for review. Councilmember Fazzino understood from City staff that it would be possible to return the item to the City Council before the end of December. Mayor Bechtel asked how the matter would --be handled in order to be returned by the end of .the year. 3 9 7 3 11/21/83 As Corrected 2/06/84 Mr-'. .Se r egiber= said staff i would schedule a pubi is hearing for the December 14, 1983 Planning Commissi,ori meeting,, and one. tor the ,December 19 City Council meeting, ;To get a CorInii ss i pn recommenda- tion from December 14 to December 19 meant minimal incorniation in the packet of December 15, and much of the report woulu be summary and oral presentation by Co is�siope:rs. If _. the Planp,irg commis sion continued the item due I'd g lack of irifOrri 'ir'�on; the 'December 19 public hearing would be cancelled. Vice Mayor Witherspoon said the intent was ` to provide long -term parking because traditionally .the Assessment District was set up to provide the retail customer parking. The long-term porkers used over .h -al f of retail customer parking, and the Council wanted property owners who developed their sites to provide on site long-term parking. She did not know whether redevelopment was included, but believed the Planning Commission and staff could wrestle with the issue. There would not always be an -upporturricy to provide the parking on site, and the City should set up a spe- cific fund and a project to be funded from that fund to provide new parking within the Assessment District. Projects should be assessed at a high enough level that the City could realistically provide more parking and a specific project should be in mind. Councilme€nber Cobb urged something more stringent than the pro- posal., It seemed the pity was_ losing, ground on .parking_ at a ,frightening rate, and since the final, plan for tt,e downtown would not be available for a long time, he believed:a temporary orhi- nance should be enacted to essentially prohibit any development that did not provide all its own long -terns, parking. That Ordinance would have some type of sunset provision so that when the downtown study was completed, the Comprehensive Plan. was changed, and the appropriate ordinances were in place to substan- tially toughen the City's parkC.ip:g :.regulations sh sun ,could -set on the temporary ordinance. and -the City could- get on with -its regular business. Councilmember Renzel strongly supported the motion and said it was long overdue. It was an important step forward for the Council to deal with the parking problem as soon as poss }bie, and she agreed with some of the comments of Vice Mayor Witherspoon that where it was not possible for a small property to provide parking on site, they should be responsible for providing it off site on another p,a rcel , The problem was serious, and the normal assessment dis- trict mechanism was inadequate for that type oCcir_curstance. A new lot might need to be purchased that was just a parking bank for those smaller parcels that otherwise could not redevelop or develop, It was important to make sure the parking issue Was ad- dressed on all new development or increase in development. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Eyerly °not participating," Levy absent. ITEM . #15, REQUEST OF MAYOR BECi TEL. RE 4AT IONAi. L�EAG JE OF C I j £s tuNiVLfiLtUPi, KLwLu i Iu i RCT771t Fr MOTION: Mayer Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, tp endorse the .cable television._ resolution and instruct delegates to support its adoption at the National League of Cities meeting ip. New Orleans. MOTION_ PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. ITEM #16 REQUEST OF t! TY . MAWAGER BILL ZANCR RE INTEREST FRED L. AN City Manager Bi i l loner recommended -staff be authori zed to make a bridge loan under the City's current housing allocation policy in the amount of $180,000 for Richard Young, Director of Utilities. The formal documents would be returned to the Council. 1 MOTION: Counci lmember Cobb moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to support an interest free loan for 90 days for Richard Young, Director of Utilities, with implementing documents- to be brought before Council. Vice Mayor Witherspoon clarified that the interest rate would be at the prevailing rate of the City's portfolio Mr. Laner said it was an interest tree loan fur the first gays. _ Vice Mayor Witherspoon asked what would secure the loan. gn Mr. Laver responded that it would be Mr. Young's property in Glendale, California. City Attorney Diane Lee said.,the City would secure the loan with a note and second deed of trust.' The loan. was interest free for 90 days, and in the event the term exceeded 90 days, interest would be charged at the normal rate.of return for City investments. Councilmember Menzel asked if it was something on the order of b,11UU cost to the City for lost interest. Mr. Zaner said yes. Mayor Bechtel clarified that the reason for the I-oan was because the employee was needed, and the Council approved a program some time ago to make the loans in unusual and special circumstances to allow the City to be in the market to successfully rLLruit. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. ITEM #11, CANCLLLAT10N OF NOVEMBER 28 1983 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MOTION; Counci lmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to cancel the November 20, 1983 City Council meeting. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. AUJUURNMENT - Council adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ATTES1 APPROVED; 3 9 ► S 11/21/83