Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-06 City Council (30)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:APRIL 6, 1998 CMR:181:98 SUBJECT:APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DENIAL OF A USE PERMIT AT 1088 MADDUX DRIVE TO CONVERT AN EXISTING TWO CAR GARAGE INTO A SECOND RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SECOND DWELLING UNIT WITH A REAR SETBACK OF 6 FEET WHERE 20 FEET IS REQUIRED (FILE NOS. 97-V-16, 97-UP-50) RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the decision of the Zoning Administrator be overturned and the Variance and Use Permit applications for 1088 Maddux Drive be approved subject to the attached findings and conditions (Attachments A and B). Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the original Use Permit and Variance denials for 1088 Maddux Drive, subject to the findings attached to the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment D). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant desires to convert an existing, detached garage into a second residential unit on a comer lot, located in an established residential district, which is zoned Single Family Residential (R~ 1). Staffresearch indicates that the detached structure has undergone various improvements prior to mid-1997, including the installation of a kitchen and bathroom, without issuance of a building permit or planning approval. The proposed second residential unit is set back 6 feet from the rear property line where 20 feet is required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). A Use Permit is required to establish a second residential dwelling unit, and a Variance is required to locate the dwelling unit in the required 20-foot rear setback. CMR: 181:98.Page 1 of 3 PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on Mar~h 11, 1998. Minutes of that meeting are included in theCit~ Council packet of April 2, 1998. The Planning Commission (by a 4 to 2 vote) recommended that the decision of the Zoning Administrator be overturned and that the Variance and Use Permit applications be approved, subject to the attached recommended findings for approval (Attachment A) and draft conditions of approval (Attachment B). In summary, the Plarming Commissionsuggested that the required findings for Variance and Use Permit could be made because an exceptional circumstance exists on this corner property, in that the home and detached garage were legally developed using the longer street side as the front yard, thus placing the detached garage six feet ~om what is the "factual" side property line. The Commission found that this condition, in combination with the current Zoning Ordinance definition that defines the shorter street side as the front yard, creates an unique and exceptional circumstance on the property. The Planning Commission also found that building a new second dwelling unit .elsewhere on the property, rather than converting the existing garage, would cause additional crowding on the site and be an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. Lastly, the Commission found that the conversion of the garage into a second dwelling unit would constitute no detriment to the adjacent neighbor or the neighborhood in that the lot is large enough to support the cottage use and that adequate distance between the new dwelling unit and the adjacent single family dwelling would be maintained. The Planning Commission received one letter from the public in support of the Zoning Administrator’s decision. Letters submitted to the Zoning Administrator prior to the original decision (five letters opposed to the Use Permit and Variance requests and two in support) are also attached for reference (Please see Attachment C for all correspondence). ATTACHMENTS A. Planning Commission’s recommended findings for approval B. Draft conditions of approval C. Correspondence D. Planning Commission report and attachments dated 3/11/98 Plans (City Council Members only) PREPARED BY: George White, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator CMR: 181:98 Page 2 of 3 DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL: ,_ ~ ( :’ c ,’ ~-<-~ / iTd.~c~ ANNE CRONIN MOORE Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: @ ~L,~, ~t~~ EMILY~IARRIS---O~ - " - Assistant City Manager cc:Janice Phebus, 1088 Maddux Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Charles Scott, 3136 Genevieve Ct., Palo Alto, Ca 94303 James Thome, 370 E. El Camino Real, Sunnyvale, Ca 94087 CMR:181:98 Page 3 of 3 Attachment A Planning Commission’s Recommended Findings for Variance and Use Permit Approval 1088 Maddux Drive 97-V-16, 97-UP-50 Variance Findings 1.There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the subject parcel is a comer lot on which the home and detached garage were legally developed using the longer street side as the front yard thus placing the detached garage six feet from what is the "factual" side property line. This condition, in combination with the current Zoning Ordinance definition that defines the shorter street side as the front yard creates an unique and exceptional circumstance on the property. 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment-of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or~ unnecessary hardship in that building a new second dwelling unit elsewhere on the property, rather than converting the existing garage, would cause crowding on the site and be an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. 3. The granting of the-application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the lot is sufficiently large to support the cottage use and in that adequate distance between the new dwelling unit and the adjacent single family dwelling would be maintained. Use Permit Findings 1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the lot is sufficiently large to support the cottage use and that adequate distance between the new dwelling unit and the adjacent single family dwelling would be maintained.. 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and with the purposes of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in that cottage 97V16, 97UP50.f&c 1088maddux units are encouraged in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan and in that the findings for Variance approval can be made to locate the new second residential dwelling unit six feet from the rear property line. 97V 16, 97UP50.f&c 1088maddux Attachment B Draft Conditions of Approval 1088 Maddux Drive 97-V-16, 97-UP-50 1. Final construction plans shall be in substantial conformance with the plans dated 9/10/97 which are contained in File# 97-V-16 and 97-UP-50 and located in the Palo Alto Planning Department. 2. Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued for the new second residential dwelling unit, all appropriate building inspections and permits for the building improvements already completed as well as for any additional improvements needed to comply with the Uniform Building Code shall be obtained by the applicant. 97V16, 97UP50.f&c 1088maddux Attachment C Letter for Planning Commission scheduled MARCH 11, 1998. March 3, 1998 City of Palo Alto Planning Division P.O. Box 10250 I~alo Alto, CA 94303 Re: 1088 Maddux Street (97-UP-50,97-V-16) I request that the City deny the Application for Use Permit and Variance requested for 1088 Maddux for some of the following reasons: The density of improvements is inappropriate for the neighborhood. The improvements are inconsistent with the neighborhood. Concern that a precedent could allow for additional similar high density building in what is a Single Family Zone. I have nothing against the owner of this property. However, I have grave concerns on the nature and extent of such aggressive building and how my property is being affected. Please deny the Variance and App!ication for Use Permit. Sincerely, Daniel A. Smith 3113 Genevieve Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.493.7368 November 18, 1997 ! " 1997’ City of Palo Alto Planning Division P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re: 1088 Maddux Street (97-UP-50,97-V-16) I request that the City deny the Application for Use Permit and Variance requested for 1088 Maddux for some of the following reasons: The.density of improvements is inappropriate for the neighborhood. The improvements are inconsistent with the neighborhood. Concern that a precedent could allow for additional similar high density building in what is a Single Family Zone. I have nothing against the Owner of this property. However, I have grave concerns on the nature and extent of such aggressive building and how my property is being affected. Please deny the Variance and Application for Use Permit. Sincerely, Daniel A. Smith 3113 Genevieve Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.49~.7368 "."~!’~, 7 1043 Maddux Drive~’Palo Alto, CA 94303 Nov. 19, 1997 This letter is in response to the City Notice of the public hearing on Nov. 20a for a variance at 1088 Maddux Drive. We do not approve of this conversion of a garage into a rental unit, as it .would certainly change our neighborhood in a detrimental manner by over crowding, etc. There are a number of rental homes in our neighborhood and that is just fine. We ourselves rented our present home for eight years before we bought it from our former landlord. But illegally converting garages into rental units is an entirely different matter. Would city approval of this conversion mean that other homeowners in our neighborhood could do the same thing and, when discovered by the zoning administrators office, simply apply for a variance atter the fact? The property at 1088 was knowingly converted without any permits and already had a tenant before the city discovered the illegal unit. The owners reasons for needing this conversion are ever changing (first, the need for an "art studio" for the owner, then the need for a "nursing attendant" for the owner andnow, the possibility of the owners parents needing to move in). %Vhy wasn’t a proper permit and variance requested before the conversion was begun, completed and a tenant moved in? This garage conversion appears to be a money making rental enterprise on the part of the homeov~er. Over a period of time, city approval of this variance would have a negative effect and send the wrong message to homeowners by encouraging them to ignore cit7 zoning laws for their own profit. Sincerely, "Dennis C. De Fevere K. Clara De Fevere Would someone explain how the next-door property line (1066 Maddux) can be considered the rear property line when both homes (1066and 1088) face the street? 9Y-UP-50 ¯97-Y-~6 Michael and Marion Hmelar 3144 Maddux Drive Palo Alto, Ca. 94303 August 27.1997 Ms. Lisa Grote Zoning Administrator City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject:Required compliance for second dwelling unit at 1088 Maddux Drive. Dear Ms. Grote, We were approached today in support of granting a variance to Ms. Phebus’s secondary residential unit at 1088 Maddux Drive. We would like to state in no uncertain terms that we are opposed to secondary residential rental units due to lhe increased traffic and decreased street parking. The increased automotive traffic and increasing amount for automobiles stored or parked on ihestreet make for ever increasing hazard to our neighbor children and pedestrians. While it appears that the 1088 Maddux Drive property qualifies for a second dwelling unit we would appreciate that a variance is not granted and that secondary residential unit fully complies with the regulation in the Zoning Guidebook for the R-1 Property Owner and Builder. Sincerely, Ii .... ,.; " Michael Hmelar & Marion Hmelar Application # ___~"~ Scott and Lynnette Carey ¯,3! 12 M~ddux Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 Ms. Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Palo Alto, CA 94301 August 27, 1997 Subject:Application to legalize an existing secondary residential unit at 1088 Maddux Drive. Dear Ms. Grote, We are the occupants of 3112 Maddux Drive, the abutting house to the east of the subject property. We are pleased to give our support to Ms. Phebus’ having a secondan/. residential unlt at 1088 Maddux Drive. The size and location of. her secondary residential unit are compatible with our tqe]g;hborhood, which has many such cottages. The unit will nol be detrimental to the neighborhood, and legalizing it will be consistent with the City’s General Plan to Increase housing stock. , Sincerely, Scott Carey Lynnette Oarey Application # ~" ~"~ \k.~ Daryll and Kim Air 1073 Maddux Drive Palo Alto, CA. 94303 August27,1997 Ms. Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Palo Alto, CA 94301 Su~ect:Applicationtolegalize an existing secondaryresidentialunitat1088 Maddux Drive. Dear Ms. Grote, We are the ownerloccupants of 1073 Maddux Drive, the house directly across the street from the subject property.. We are writing to say we fully support Ms. Phebus’ having a secondary residential unit at 1088 Maddux Drive. We are well aware of Ms. Phebus’ debilitating disease and understand her desire to have a housing unit for a~ medical aide. Over the years, we have frequently come to her assistance when she has fallen and been unable to get up without help. The size and location of her secondary residential unit are compatible with the neighborhood, which has many such cottages. It will not be detfim.=ntal to the health, safety, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood, and legalizing the unit will be consistent with the City’s General Plan to increase housing stock. Sincerely, Daryll Kim AIt Attachment D PLANNING C 0 MMIS SI 0 N STAFF REPORT TO:Planning Commission FROM: AGENDA DATE: George White, Senior Planner March 11, 1998 DEPARTMENT:Planning SUBJECT:1088 Maddux Drive (File Nos. 97-V-16, 97-UP-50): Appeal by Janice Phebus of the Zoning Administrator’s denial of a Use Permit to convert an existing two car garage into a second residential dwelling unit and a Variance to allow a second dwelling unit with a rear setback ¯ of 6 feet where 20 feet is required. EnvironmentalAssessmcnt: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Zone District: R-1. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to deny the appeal and uphold the original Use Permit and Variance denials. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant desires to convert an existing, detached garage into a second residential unit on a comer lot located in an established residential district which is zoned Single Family Residential (R- 1). Staffresearch indicates that the detached structure has undergone various improvements, including the installation of a kitchen and bathroom, prior to mid-1997 without issuance of a building permit or planning approval. The proposed second residential unit is setback 6 feet from the rear property line where 20 feet is required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). A Use Permit is required to establish a second residential dwelling unit and a Variance is required to locate the dwelling.unit in the required 20 foot rear setback. S:/Plan/Pladiv[ PCSR/1088madd.sr Page 1 Existing Site Characteristics The site is a corner lot in an established residential neighborhood measuring approximately 80 by 120 feet and ~otaling 8500 square feet in land area. BaSed on a physical examination of the site and immediate vicinity and an analysis of Assessor’s Parcel map, block map and zoning map information, staff has determined the site to be consistent with the depth, width and development pattern of other corner lots in the same general area. The existing garage is located to the rear of the parcel, approximately six feet from the rear property line and sixteen feet from the street. Under current zoning regulations this type of detached structure would be required to be at least 75 feet from the nearest street. The garage structure is considered a legal nonconforming use which can remain in its existing location because it was built prior to the 75 foot distance requirement being incorporated into the PAMC. Miscellaneous project information is provided in the table below. PROJECT INFORMATION Appellant:Janice Phebus Owner:Janice Phebus Assessor’s Parcel Number:127-08-01 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Zoning District: Residential R-1 Existing Use:Single Family Residential Surrounding Land Use:North: Single Family Residential East: Single Family Residential South: Single Family Residential West: Single Family Residential ¯ BACKGROUND The Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing to consider this application on November 20, 1997. Several neighbors immediately adjacent to the site and across the street spoke against the proposal citing concerns about the illegal garage conversion and the establishment of the proposed second residential unit. On December 1, 1997 the Zoning Administrator denied the Use Permit and Variance applications because the required findings could not be made. (See attachment B)’ S:/Ptan/Pladiv ] PCSR/1088madd. sr Page 2 POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposal is in conflict with objective two of the Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan which seeks to "Promote the orderly and harmonious development of the City and the attainment of the most desirable land use and improvement through the review of new development. "The proposal is not in harmony with the fabric of the existing neighborhood because it would convert an existing garage into a second dwelling unit that is inappropriately close to the adjacent residential property. This conversion could result in negative impacts to this neighboring property, as well as the neighborhood, by increasing noise and crowding living units and related activity closer together than would ordinarily be allowed or expected in a single family neighborhood. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Required Use Permit and Variance Findings: There are two required findings that must be made in the affirmative to approve a Use Permit (PAMC Sec, 18.90.060) and three findings that must be made to approve a Variance (PAMC Sec. 18.90.050). The appellant has submitted a letter challenging the findings made by the Zoning Administrator to deny the Variance. The appellant has not provided statements addressing the Use Permit findings. The analysis below states each of the required findings for Variance and Use Permit, the Zoning Administrator’s rationale in making the findings for denial and a discussion of the appellant’s objections and staff’s response to these objections. Variance Finding #1: "There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to properties in the same district." Staff has examined the subject site and other available parcel information and determined that this 8,500 square foot, rectangular parcel is substantially similar, in terms of size, shape, area and development pattern to other comer lots in the immediate vicinity and therefore, the finding that an unusual or unique circumstance exists cannot be made. The applicant believes, however, that a unique circumstance has been created on the property because the garage was conforming when originally constructed, but has become nonconformingdue to changes in the Zoning Regulations and is now located in the rear setback. The appeal letter states that "The setback issue is the only issue." Staff believes that this lot is substantially similar to other comer 10ts in the immediate vicinity, and therefore does not constitute the stated hardship. The setback of,the existing garage is irrelevant to the application. The applicant is proposing to Change S :/PlardPladiv [ PCSR/1088madd.sr Page 3 the use of the garage structure to a more intensive, residential use, which requires an additional 14 feet of setback from the rear property line and necessitates Use Permit and Variance approvals. A garage in a nonconforming location presents fewer negative impacts on neighboring properties than a living unit in a nonconforming location. Residential units are required to have greater setbacks than accessory structures because the use is more intensive and potentially disruptive to neighboring properties. Variance Finding #2: "The granting of the application is ne.cessary for the preservation or enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship." It appears from the submitted plans that a conforming second unit approximately the size of a two car garage could be located on the property in conformance with all applicable zoning requirements and therefore, no property fight has been compromised by denying the applications. The appellant asserts that the aforementioned unique circumstance has limited the applicant’s property fights. Staff has stated that the nonconforming garage may remain in its present location under current zoning regulations. Staff could not, however, support an intensification of the use of this structure. No property right is being limited in that it appears that a conforming second residential unit may be located on the site. Variance Finding #3: "The granting of the variance will be not detrimental to ¯ property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience." In its present use and location, the nonconforming garage is not a detriment to the adjacent properties or to the surrounding neighborhood. As a converted second residential unit however; the dwelling unit would be only six feet from the rear property line and: therefore, inappropriately close to the existing single family use on the adjacent parcel. The potential exists for additional impacts to the neighboring properties from a second unit in this location including increased noise, intensification of use and crowding of residential structures. The appellant indicates that the garage has been existence for over 45 years and has not been a detriment to the neighborhood andthat the converted garage is actually cleaner and more attractive that the pre-converted garage. S:/Plan/Pladiv ] PCSR/1088madd. sr Page 4 Staff agrees that the existing garage is not a detriment to the neighborhood. Staff’s objection is relative to the intensification of the use of the structure. Staff believes that the location of a second residential unit only six feet from the rear property line is inappropriately close to the adjacent neighbor and could constitute a detriment, including impacts to the neighboring property relating to increased noise, crowding and intensified use. The cleaner, more attractive appearance referenced in the appellant’s letter could be achieved through appropriate property maintenance and without the proposed conversion. Use Permit Finding #1: "The proposed use, at the proposed, location, will not detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience." See discussion under Variance finding #3. The appellant did not address this finding. Use Permit finding #2: "The proposed use will be located in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto comprehensiveplan and the purposes of the Palo Alto Municipal Code." The project could only be.consistent with the PAMC if a Variance could be granted. Since the appropriate Variance findings to support the project could not be made in the affirmative, this finding could not be made. The appellant did not address this finding. The appellant has also provided additional arguments that do not relate directly to the required Use Permit and Variance findings. These arguments center on the medical condition of the applicant and her need for a second dwelling unit to house either a care giver or her elderly parents (See Attachment C). An applicant’s medical condition cannot be considered a reason to grant Use Permits and Variances. FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS Draft findings for denial of the (Attachment D). Variance and Conditional Use Permit are attached PUBLIC NOTICE Public Notice of this Planning Commission appeal hearing was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and S:/Plan/Pladiv I PCSR/1088madd. sr Page 5 utility customers within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The original proposal was determined to be categorically exempt from further environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ACTION TIME LIMIT Date of Appeal: December 15, 1997 Planning Commission review time limit (90 days from receipt of appeal): March 15, 1998 Following the Planning Commission public hearing, the appeal is scheduled to be considered by the City Council on April 6, 19981 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Decision letter from the Zoning Administrator dated 12/1/97 Attachment C: Letter from appellant dated 12/15/97 Attachment D: Draft Findings for Denial of the Variance and Conditional Use Permit Plans (Planning Commission members only) COURTESY COPIES: Janice Phebus, 1088 Maddux Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Charles Scott, 3136 Genevieve Ct., Palo Alto, Ca 94303 James Thome, 370 E. E1 Camino Real, Sunnyvale, Ca 94087 Prepared by: Reviewed by: Division Head Approval: George White, Senior Planner Lisa Grot, Zoni dministrator Eric Riel Jr., Chiefylanning Official S:/Plan/Pladiv [PCSR/1088madd.sr Page 6 PC-3183 RM-15 LM VE HIGG~NS PL ACE ~CLARA DRIVE-ProJect:~ 1088 Macldux Drive .%N DRA PLACE PF TERRACE Graphic Attachment to Staff Report STELLING Date: 3-11-98 File #:97-UP-50; 97-V-16 zo Scale: 1" = 400’ North City of Palo Alto Department of Planning atwl Cotnnmnity Environn~.mt PlanningDix~ion Application No. 97-V-16, 97-UP-50:1088 Maddux Street The Use Permit and Variance applications to convert an existing two car garage into a second residential dwelling unit and to allow a second dwelling unit to be setback 6 feet from the rear property line where 20 feet is required are hereby denied. This decision is based upon the findings listed below. VARIANCE FINDINGS There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to properties in the same district in that the subject property is a comer lot that is substantially similar in terms of lot width, depth and area as other comer lots in the immediate vicinity and inthe same zoning district. The granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation or enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and does not constitute unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that a secondary residential unit could be located on the property in a manner that conforms to applicable zoning requirements. The granting of the variance will be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposal would locate the converted garage/second dwelling unit only six feet from the rear property line and, therefore, inappropriately close to the existing single family use on the adjacent parcel. USE PERMIT FINDINGS The proposed use will be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposal would locate the converted garage/second dwelling unit only six feet from the rear property line and, therefore, inappropriately close to the existing single family use on the adjacent parcel. 1088mad.var 250 Hamilton Avenue December 1, 1997 P.O. Box 10250 Palo A1 to, CA 94303 415.329.2441 415.329.2240 Fax The proposed use will not be located in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto comprehensive plan and the purposes of the Palo Alto lVlunicipal Code in that the second residential dwelling unit is proposed to be located in a required rear yard setback necessitating the granting of a Variance, the findings for which can not be made. Zoning Administrator December 1, 1997 1088mad.var December 1, 1997 NOTE This request is denied in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.90 of the City of Palo Ako Municipal Code. This decision will become effective ten days following the date of this letter, unless an appeal is filed as provided by Chapter 18.92 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. In the event that this decision is appealed, an additional letter will be mailed with information regarding the scheduled hearing dates before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Applicant:Janice Phebus 1088 Maddux Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 Property Owner: Same Charles Scott, 3136 Genevieve Ct., Palo Alto, Ca 94303 James Thorne,’370 E. E1 Camino Real, Sunnyvale, Ca 94087 1088mad.var December 1, 1997 james m. thorne, 570 e. el camino real sunnyvale, california 94087 a.i.a., architect fax (408) 736-0818 (408) 736-1093 December 15, 1997 City of Palo Alto Planning Commission 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re :Application No. 97-V-16, 97-UP-50 1088 Maddux Drive Gentlemen and Ladies: We wish to appeal to the Planning Commission on the Zoning Administrator’s action for the above referenced project.We feel that she did not fairly assess the findings for the variance and conditional use permit, and is requiring a more restrictive policy on this property than on adjacent properties. We wish to present our arguments, therefore, to the Planning Commission through the appeals process. As background material, the house was built in-1952 as part of the Sterling Gardens #I subdivision. The house is on a corner property with Maddux Drive wrapping around ~and forming the street frontage on north and west frontages. The house faces the longer stree~ frontage, and the detached garage was built on the side adjacent to the southerly property line. Both main house and garage are 45 years old. In driving through the neighborhood, it is apparent that Ms. Phebus’s house is typical for all those built on corner lots. They all face the longest street frontage and have detached garages on the side opposite the shortest street frontage.~ The distances between the garages and the side property lines vary a little (Ms. Phebus’s is 6’-0"), but all are within 20’ of that side property line. Section 18.04.030 of the present Zoning Ordinance stipulates that the narrower street frontage is the front yard. Therefore the property line opposite the narrower street frontage becomes the rear property line and the required setback is 20’-0", and all of the detached garages on corner lots in this subdivision, along with Ms. Phebus’s lot, encroach into the rear yards and are not in compliance with today’s Zoning Ordinance. Section 18.88.030(3) allows an accessory building to be located within a required interior yard, but only if the building is located 75’ from both street lines. In puzzling about how the City of Palo Alto could allow so many houses to be built not in compliance, we checked to see if we could find the copy of the Zoning Ordinance which was in effect in 1952 when the house was built. The earliest Zoning Ordinance which could be found in the Planning Department’s~ archives was 1956. We checked through Planning Commission meeting notes through 1951 and 1952 back to where the Sterling Gardens #I subdivision was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission but could not find any reference to what setback lines were established for the tract. Minutes of March 22, 1951, made reference to a setback map for the City of Palo Alto being superseded by the new Zoning Ordinance, but neither that Zoning Ordinance nor the setback map seem to still be in existence. What is obvious is the fact that when the house and garage were built in 1952, the long street frontage was assumed to be the front yard, and Ms. Phebus’s house and garage, along with all the other corner houses and garages in this subdivision, fit nicely within a setback envelope based on that assumption. The corner lots throughout the tract were all made 20’ wider to accommodate the wider 20i front and rear setbacks. We have shown both that envelope and today’s Zoning Ordinance envelope on the site plan and we feel confident that all these corner houses, including Ms. Phebus’s, were built in full conformance to this earlier setback envelope. Subsequently, the City of Palo Alto changed their~Zoning Ordinance to indicate that the short street frontage should be the front of the property instead of the long street frontage. They did this to accommodate developers and owners of corner properties, because the newer envelope actually allows a larger developable footprint on a corner property. Theeffect on Ms. Phebus’s parcel, however, was to make the garage structure non- conforming because it now sat in the rear setback instead of the side setback. The same is true with all the corner parcels in the Sterling Gardens #I subdivision. The crux of our application for a variance and subsequently for a review on appeal by this Planning Commission, lies in the fact that Ms. Phebus wishes to convert the garage into a cottage and the Zoning Administrator has denied this because it is now in a rear setback. The lot is large enough to accommodate a cottage under Section 18.12.040 and we have shown the two covered and two uncovered parking spaces as required under Section 18.12.060. The setback issue is the only issue. In our application for a variance, our justification for the first finding read as follows: The property is unique in that it is a corner property built under one set of regulations for corner properties, and adversely affected by subsequent additions to the Zoning Ordinance through no fault of the Owner. Ms. Grote replied as follows: There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to properties in the same district in that the subject property is a corner lot that is substantially similar in terms of lot width and area as other corner lots in the immediate vicinity and in the same zoning district. Ms. Grote’s answer completely sidesteps the issue. Because Ms. Phebus’s house was built under one set of setback regulations, and now has to comply with a newset, the net effect is that the property, in its lifetime, has had to comply with 20’ yards on all four sides. This is most exceptional and extraordinary and represents a hardship not found in newer subdivisions within the same district. Corner lots in the immediate vicinity are under the same onus, and although Ms. Grote can correctly~say that Ms. Phebus’s lot is substantially similar to these, lots, the fact of the matter is that they, too, have been adversely affected. The only thing the Ms. Grote can say is that Ms. Phebus’s lot suffers no greater hardship than other corner lots, but the hardship still exists. Our justification for the second finding reads as follows: Based on that uniqueness, the Owner cannot take ~advantage of the larger lot to have an accessory building which is conforming in all other respects, and would still conform under the earlier Zoning Ordinance. The City, through its unilateral action, has made the lot non-conforming, and has thus limited the property owner’s rights. Ms. Grote’s replied as follows: The granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation or enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and does not constitute unreasonable property loss or unnecessary h~rdship in that a secondary residential unit could be located on the property in a manner that conforms to applicable zoning ordinances. Again, Ms. Grote sidesteps the issue. The right that was taken away from the~owner was specifically the right to convert the - existing accessory building into a residential unit. The action of the City, by changing the setback lines, was to make that existing accessory building non-conforming and non- compliant, which represents a real hardship. Whether or not a new accessory building could~be built within the present setback lines is moot.~ The right to convert the accessory building was inherent at the time the property was developed and this is the only germane issue because that is what, in fact, has been done. Our justification for the third finding is as follows: The house and garage have stood for 45 or so years, without being a detriment to the neighborhood. No enlargement of the garage is taking place. The appearance of the garage, if anything, is better, cleaner and more attractive as a dwelling unit and is more likely to remain so than most of the garages in the neighborhood. Ms. Grote replied as follows: The granting of the variance will be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity in that the~ proposal would locate the converted garage/second dwelling unit only six feet from the rear property line and, therefore, inappropriately close to the existing single family use on the adjacent parcel. If being six feet is inappropriately close to the neighbor’s property line, then what about every interior lot within the rest of the subdivision, and indeed, throughout R-I zoning? Side yards of six feet are so common as to not bear mention, and no one considers them detrimental to the neighborhood.Ms. Phebus’s house is 20’ away from her neighbor on the east because of the original setback rules, and Ms. Grote feels than unless she is also 20’ away from her neighbor on the south, it is detrimental to the neighborhood. Ms. Grote has pushed through all reasonable limits to come up with this argument. She needs to explain what really constitutes a detrimental setback and the nature of that detriment and why interior properties are exempt from it. Her denial of theconditional use permit also dwells on this strangest of all arguments. There were letters from the neighborhood, both for and against this project. Those against the project cited reasons which showed their ignorance of the Zoning Ordinance. They felt that the neighborhood would become too crowded, not realizing that the Zoning Ordinance does allow cottages on this size lot. They felt that therewould be more cars parked on the street not realizing that the Zoning Ordinance requires, and we have provided, additional off-street parking. When people receive a summons from the City making it almost a civic duty to come forth and tell one’s neighbor how they should live their lives, it is almost irresistible. There is other background to this project which needs to be taken into consideration. The first is that the garage has already been converted into a dwelling unit and our applications for a variance and a conditional use permit represent Ms. Phebus’s efforts to rectify the situation. The reason for the conversion is the fact that Ms. Phebus has a progressively disabling illness, and one of the main reasons for the cottage is for living quarters for a caregiver sometime inevitably in the future. Ironically, Ms. Phebus was renting the cottage to a nurse at the time she received notification of violation back in April. This woman checked in on Ms. Phebus daily to see if she was all right, but had to vacate the cottage by order of the City. Ms. Phebus is also looking to the possibility of bringing her elderly parents to live with her so that, at least for a while, she can be a caregiver. The second dwelling unit gives both parties their own autonomy. The building has been attractively remodeled both inside and out. If the City denies the application for variance and conditional use permit, Ms. Phebus will be required to remove the interior improvements and convert the accessory building back to a garage, which will still be non-conforming. Beyond the monetary penalty, Ms. Phebus does presently and will continue to suffer substantial emotional stress. The progress of her illness, multiple sclerosis, is substantially affected by stress. Simply said, stress triggers MS attacks. Thus, if the City denies the application, in the name of enforcing the letter of the ordinance, it would violate the spirit of the ordinance which is set forth in Section 18.01.020 Purposes: "to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare" of the citizens of Palo Alto, including Ms. Phebus. It would most certainly damage her health and welfare and it would do so at no benefit to the neighborhood or the city. Perhaps a public agency is supposed to only look at the written word in the ordinances and not take personal health and emotional issues into consideration, but then what kind of people are we? We feel that we have made good and sufficient reasoning for the findings for a variance and a conditional use permit - reasoning that the City could becomfortable with. A definite right was taken away through a change in the Zoning Ordinance. Now give it back through the variance process. The neighborhood remains unaffected except that the property owner is not unduly punished -both monetarily and in respect to her physical health - for a situation that is at least partly of the City’s making, and she will be able to continue with her life in confidence that when the time comes for a caretaker to be brought in, there will be a lovely cottage available to her. ~ Please give consideration to our request. Yours very truly, M. Thorne Janice Phebus Attachment D Draft Findings for Denial of Variance and Conditional Use Permit 1088 Maddux Drive 97-V-16, 97-UP-50 VARIANCE FINDINGS There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to properties in the same district in that the subject property is a comer lot that is substantially similar in terms of lot width, depth and area (80 feet by feet 120 feet and 8500 square feet, respectively), as other comer lots in the immediate vicinity and in the same zoning district. The granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation or enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and does not constitute unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that a secondary residential unit could be located on the property in a manner that conforms to applicable zoning requirements. o The granting of the variance will be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposal would locate the converted garage/second dwelling unit only six feet from the rear property line and, therefore, inappropriately close to the existing single family use on the adjacent parcel. USE PERMIT FINDINGS The proposed use will be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposal would locate the converted garage/second dwelling unit only six feet from the rear property line and, therefore, inappropriately close to the existing single family use on the adjacent parcel. The proposed use will not be located in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto comprehensive plan and the purposes of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in that the second residential dwelling unit is proposed to be located in a required rear yard setback necessitating the granting of a Variance, the findings for which can not be made.