Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1998-07-27 City Council (13)
City of Palo Alto C ty Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 9 FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER JULY 27, 1998 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR:323:98 1159 LINCOLN AVENUE (FILE NO. 98-PM-2): APPLICATION OF MARGARET TOOR FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONS OF AN APPROVED PARCEL MAP WITH EXCEPTIONS. THE AMENDMENTS RELATE TO REMOVING RESTRICTIONS ON THE DESIGNATED BUILDING AREA, FLOOR AREA RATIO, SETBAC~ AND BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), ZONE DISTRICT: R-1. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve in part and deny in. part the applicant’s Parcel Map amendment request, subject to the attached findings (Attachments C and D). Staff recommends that the City Council deny the applicant’s amendment request subject to the attached findings (Attachment E). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant seeks to remove or modify the majority of special land use restrictions placed on this property by the City Council in 1988 as conditions of Parcel Map approval. (Please refer to the Planning Commission staff report and attachments, Attachment B, for further information and background on this parcel) BOARD AND COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 8, 1998. The minutes from that meeting are attached for reference (Attachment A). The Planning Commission ¯ recommended that the City Council support in part and deny in part the applicant’s proposal. CMR:323:98 Page 1 of 3 The Planning Commision supported the request to eliminate the basement ceiling height restriction, primarily because the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) pertaining to basements has been modified since this Parcel Map was approved in 1988. The Commission felt that the original intention of this restriction was to control future development of the site and was based on the fact that basements in excess of 6 feet 9 inches in interior height were. counted as floor area in 1988. Subsequently, the site has been developed with a single family home and basement and the PANIC has been modified to exempt all completely below grade basements from floor area calculations. Because the elimination of this restriction, will only result in the interior alteration of the existing basement ceiling and represents no other modification to the site, the Commission felt that required findings to support this amendment could be made. The Commision agreed with staff that all of the required findings could not be made to support the remainder of the requested amendments. The Planning Commission also recommended that clarifying language be added to the recorded conditions on the Parcel Map that would establish and limit the type of building and development allowed on the eastern portion of the parcel outside of the established setback envelope and that would convert the current 3,000-square-foot floor area limitation to the equivalent floor area ratio of .25 of the gross site area. Pursuant to the Planning Commission’s recommendation, staff has drafted the following wording for this additional language. The Notes section of the recorded Parcel Map would be modified as follows: "Pursuant to conditions imposed on Parcel A by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto in approving the preliminary Parcel Map on March 14, 1988 and modified by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto on July 27, 1998. These restrictions shall run with the land and to all successors in interest." The recorded condition number 1 on the Parcel Map would be modified to read as follows: "The maximum floor area on Parcel A shall be limited to .25 of the gross site area." Condition number 3 on the recorded Parcel Map pertaining to the interior basement height limitation would be removed entirely. A new condition number 3 would be added to read as follows: "No dwelling, garage, vehicular parking area or habitable accessory structure with three or more plumbed fixtures may be located on the eastern portion of the parcel outside. of the established setback envelope. Non-habitable CMR:323:98 Page 2 of 3 accessory structures, landscape features, pools and spas shall be allowed in this area." ATTACHMENTS A. Planning Commission minutes dated 7/8/98 B. Planning Commission staffreport and attachments dated 7/8/98 C. Planning Commission Recommended Draft Findings for Denial D. Planning Commission Recommended Draft Findings for Approval E. Staff Recommended Draft Findings for Denial F. 7/20/98 Letter from Margaret Toot Plans (City Council Members only) PREPARED BY: George White, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ANNE CRONIN MOORE Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Assistant City Manager cc: Margaret Toor, 1159 Lincoln Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 CMR:323:98 Page 3 of 3 Attachment A DRAFT EXCERPT Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1998 1159 Lincoln Avenue Mr. Schink: The next item on our agenda is 1159 Lincoln Avenue. Would Staff please introduce this item. Mr: White: Thank you. 1159 Lincoln Avenue [File No.: 98-PM-2] is an application of Margaret Toor for an amendment to the conditions of an approval Parcel Map with exceptions. The amendments relate tO removing restrictions on the designated building area, floor are ratio, setbacks and basement ceiling height. Environmental Assessment is if the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Zone District R-1. Staff Recommendation is that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the amendment request subject to the attached draft findings, Attachment B of your Staff Report. It should be noted that all the required f’mdings except number 3 and a portion of number 4 can be made in support of the request. The applicant seeks to amend the conditions of a parcel map with exceptions that was approved by the City Council in 1988. At that time the City Council applied a number of special land use restrictions on this approval. I have listed the five limitations or conditions in the Staff Report and I’ll briefly summarize. First is that development is only allowed on the west side of the parcel. Any construction requiring a building permit shall be prohibited on the east side of the parcel. And the required parcel map that you have in your packet provides a building envelope for that purpose. Within the buildable area the setbacks were increased both for the front and side and rear setback areas. The floor area on the site is limited to 3,000 square feet maximum, building height is limited to 20 feet, to the peak of the roof, and the basement shall have a finished ceiling and be limited to six feet nine inches of interior height. The amendment is proposed for the .existing land use therefore the proposal is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the Municipal Code. However, the applicant does seek to modify the Council directive which serves as a land use policy on this particular parcel. The applicant proposes to eliminate the building restriction on the eastern portion of the parcel, reduce additional setbacks from the property line as indicated on the proposed parcel map which is attached to your report. The floor area in the site is requested to be 3,900 square feet or maximum of .3 FAR instead of the current 3,000 square foot limitation. And the applicant seeks to eliminate the basement ceiling height restriction altogether. The applicant does not seek to propose a change to the 20 foot height restriction. In order for an amendment to a parcel map to be approved, five distinct f’mdings are required by Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Staff felt that all of the required findings could be made except a portion of number 4 as listed in your Staff Report, and number 3. Number 3 states that the proposal does not increase the adverse environmental effects of the subdivision. Staff’s view on this is that outside of the limitation imposed on the parcel now any additional development could be construed as a potential adverse environmental impact. And a portion of number 4 which states that the proposal must be consistent with the intent of the original map approval which this item obviously is not. I should point out also on the time line the -- this item also was bumped forward from the August 3rd City Council hearing to the July 27th City Council hearing. That concludes my remarks. I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Calonne: I’d like to make one additional comment. The applicant has provided, and I’ve put it at your place, a copy of a letter date March 20, 1995 from our office to the Toor’s and it was an effort to interpret the no building restriction that was on the site with a parcel map. The relevant paragraph for you is the second to the last one that did our best to try and make an interpretation of what the Council had meant by the language on the parcel map. This letter should have been included, my apologies to the applicant and Commission for not doing it. It doesn’t change our stance on the findings however, but it is good information for the Commission. Commissioner Schink: Owen. Commissioner Byrd: A question for Staff on the proposed recommended finding for denial on number 3, on adverse environmental effects. I don’t entirely follow the logic of the draft f’mding as written in that it doesn’t, at least to me, specify any specific adverse environmental effects on habitat or water quality or anything that I would traditionally define as a environmental effect. It merely says that development limitations would be reduced or eliminated and development per se does not necessarily mean there’s an environmental effect. So maybe you could explain a little further why Staff believes that finding 3 cannot be made. Mr. Calonne: Let me help out. I think your point of view is valid .and can be sustained if that’s the direction you want to go. However, in trying to characterize the purposes of restrictions Council put on the lot, the neighborhood protection values that they represented do qualify as land use compatibility or environmental effects. Is this CEQA language or environmental quality language? No. So our basis for believing that the finding is justified is that the Council’s conditions were designed to protect the environment in that immediate area. Commissioner Byrd: In other words, this is really talking about doing adverse neighborhood effects not really adverse environmental effects. Mr. Calonne: Well, adverse neighborhood effects are environmental effects. Macro versus micro. Again your position could be sustained on this record but I think the Staff position is sustainable as well. Commissioner Schink: Other questions for Staff?. Seeing none we’ll open this to the applicant. Is the applicant here? Our rules allow you to make a 15 minute presentation. Margaret Toor: Okay. George did you bring an overhead? Mr. White: Yes. Ms. Toor: That would be useful. I’m Margaret Toor. I live at 1159 Lincoln Avenue. And this whole process has left me so dazed and confused that I hardly know where to begin or how to start this conversation. And I’ve spent the last several days writing reams of notes and then putting them aside and writing them all over again, and then writing them all over again. And I finally reduced what I wanted to say to a bunch of bullet points so they may sound somewhat disjointed but it was the only way I could kind of coalesce my thinking down to a manageable amount of information because this project dating back 10 years in time was so convoluted and complicated and charged with emotion that it’s hard to make it rational. It is inevitable, as far as we were concerned as homeowners, that .we were going to have this conversation at some point in time. That at..there was no question in looking at those conditions early on when we bought the property that we were eventually going to run into a wall with the City. And that did in fact happen three years ago and we were able to resolve it without going through this process. However, at this point in time we want to remodel the basement. And the basement has a restriction on it about the ceiling height and in order to proceed with. the remodel we needed to go through this. So it was the instigator of this conversation. We have right now a drop ceiling in our basement. The basement was built to accommodate an eight foot ceiling. However, the developer because of the condition built the ceiling lower than eight feet. It is at six feet, nine inches. And raising of that ceiling to eight feet would have no visual impact on the neighborhood, on the appearance of the house or any other impact that we are aware of. We also want to put in a bathroom in the: basement which we are currently precluded from doing because it is not habitable living space by City def’mition, right now. Since we .were going to be coming and asking for the basement we decided, due to the nature of this process, that we would go ahead and address all of the conditions at one time so that we don’t keep bumping up against this over time. We’d just as soon deal with it all right now. We have no plan to develop any other portion of the property. I have no intentions of putting in a pool or cottage or anything else. It is simply that we would like to have what happened 10 years ago reviewed in a context of today. And some decisions made about it. The biggest hurdle that I see in front of us tonight is the fact that the Council created a policy 10 years ago. And that it’s specific to this parcel. The Staff conclusion, as I 4 understand how it has been explained to me, the Staff conclusion that they can’t make findings ¯ relative to items 3 and 4 is based on the fact that there exists a policy relative to these conclusions, and that they are required to support policy until policy is changed. And that it is not necessarily connected to the merits of the conditions themselves. In other words, the conditions can be removed without creating adverse environmental impact but not within the Staff purview. It has to come from a governmental body outside of Staff. That is from the Planning Commission and/or or actually, ultimately the City Council. As I understand it, it is within the authority of the Planning Commission to recommend changes to this parcel to City Council. Ten years ago Council specifically addressed that very situation, in that there was discussion at the Council meeting of 3-14-88, of having a restrictive covenant on this land. And after much discussion, Council elected not to pursue that line and instead had conditions of approval because it was felt that that would preclude future Council from being able to address this. It would make it a much more difficult situation to change, to make any change to this property, And Council members at that time voiced concern that Council in 1988 needed to trust the future judgment of Staff and Council to be able to make changes to this proper(y. And not have it so imbedded that change could not occur. Our feeling is that a lot has changed in this neighborhood in the last 10 years. That it’s a different place today than it was 10 years ago. That the neighborhood has grown up around us in the last I0 years. Three of our adjoining neighbors, in the course of the last 10 years, have added second story’s to their houses. And I want to point those out. This property, this prope.rty and this property have added second story’s to their houses. This property here has had an addition, as has this property and this property. Other properties not directly abutting .us have also had additions made in the last 10 years. All of those changes that our neighbors have done were made within the existing rules in place at the time by the City. We have no problem with the changes that have occurred and in fact consider them fairly positive in light of the fact that we now have a lot of kids within the neighborhood and people who want space to have their families. The density, the map and the scale of the neighborhood has changed as a result of ;adding second story’s and additions along Lincoln Court. And that we no longer stand out among our neighbors as being some 900 pound gorilla. I don’t know if that was the case 10 years ago. If the surrounding properties were all one story at that time, and that when this property was developed it did stand out.. But I do know that walking in there now, we do not stand out. The preliminary parcel map that we submitted, I think, respects the rights and the privacy needs of our neighbors. The lines where we asked for six foot setback we are bounded on the other side of our property by garages. The other setbacks that we’ve requested retain most of the severe restrictions requested 10 years ago relative to 30 foot setback from the easement which in effect is a 46 foot setback from the property line, the 12 foot setbacks from our side neighbors which we consider as valuable as they do, where we’re asking for some change and some relief in the non-buildable ~reas is in the back of the property. We are requesting that the FAR, actually, what George mentioned before relative to the square footage on the property, as I understand the parcel map, it does not have a FAR currently. It has a square footage limitation on the house. What we’re essentially requesting is that be converted to a FAR basis. That we’re willing to accept an FAR that below an R-1 FAR but we feel that it’s more appropriate than an arbitrary decided upon square footage limit on a building on that property. We would like the non-buildable motion to be changed largely because it is very confusing and it is troublesome. That really hit home in i995 when, in the course of a landscaping remodel, we requested that a trellis and a hot tub be placed in the backyard and we were told by Planning that that could not happen. The reason being that it required a building permit and the interpretation at that time of the no-buildable area was that anything, anything requiring a building permit was not allowed on that part of the yard. And furthermore if we wanted to have that considered by the City that we would need to submit an application for a minor subdivision and go through essentially this process that we are going through nbw. I thought that, given that I had all the minutes from all those meetings and read them, I thought that that interpretation was subject to other interpretation. I wrote to the City Attorney’s office about that and received a more favorable interpretation based on the discussions that took place 10 years ago relative to why no building should occur back there which had to do with the construction of the original house. And what that s~e of the house should be, where it should be placed on the lot, whether it should be one story, two story, etc. The sentiment that goes back over that -- over those six months of hearings had to do with the 6 house. And at some point in time in the City Council meeting, the notion of nothing, of open space, of covenant, of severe restriction emerged, and somehow became part of that no- buildable area. I felt that the City Attorney’s office was far more reasonable in its interpretation but in a conversation that I had with Mr. White, just within the last day, about if I came to you and requested, at this time, to put in’a pool back there what would the response be? And the response was, I don"t think necessarily that I would have to follow the City Attorney’s interpretation that it could possibly be said no, because of this historic no-building permit items go in that back area. So we would like to have some greater clarification of what we can do with that back yard. As I understand this process, you can elect to make recommended changes to Council, you can elect to deny and support Staff’s fmding on this and pass it on to Council, I’m happy to answer any questions that you have or attempt to answer any questions that you have. And otherwise I have nothing else to add. Chair: Questions to.the applicant? Thank you. Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: Just one. Do you now have a single story or a two story house? I’m liable to see it but I didn’t discern from the houses. Ms. Toor: It’s a two story house. Commissioner Schink: Another question. Commissioner (Unknown Male): You had mentioned that the, if I understood it correctly, the areas that you have six foot setbacks are in areas where it. abuts garages. Ms. Toor: Yes. The exception to that is the lands, what is called the lands of Salabert there’s an accessory structure towards the rear of that property not a garage. On the Anderson there’s a garage. On the Augustine’s there’s a garage. On the rear, there’s a garage. Commissioner (Unknown Male): At the rear of the property? 7 Toor: Correct. Commissioner (Unknown Male): Okay. And my other question is in order for you to be able to build out to the 3,900 square foot FAR would you need this configuration of a buildable area? How does that configuration correlate to square footage if it was built out? You have a two story home currently, I wasn’t clear on how many square feet the current building is. Ms. Toor: It’s just short of 3,000 square feet. The answer is yes it could be done. The way it could be done, our house currently, the garage sits 30 feet back from the easement. The house itself sits 45 or 46 feet back from the easement. If we wanted to build all 900 square feet we could go forward for a portion of that. We have 15 feet in front of the house that our...within the setback as it currently exists and we could go back, straight back, at this point in time not at all. According to that we could go back another 10 feet. Would we want to do that? No. I would not, I would not move that house up to tha~ 30 foot place flush with the garage. Would I build around that "Z"? I sincerely doubt it. We’ve got a rather large patio sitting there that we installed two years ago. As I said, we have no plan to extend the house. The suggestion of 3,9(K~ square feet was there as a suggestion if there’s opposition to switching to an FAR. I just felt that an FAR was a more valid measure. Commissioner Schink: Any other questions? Thank you. Ms. Toor: Thanks. Commissioner Schink: Other members of the public who wish to address us on this item? Seeing no one, any further questions for the applicant? We’ll go ahead and close the public hearing and turn back to the Commission. Owen, do you have a question? ¯Commissioner Byrd: I’d like to begin by disclosing for the record that I discussed this matter with the applicant and have visited the subject parcel. It seems to me that we’re best served by 8 going straight to the findings because if we recommend approval or denial that will be the basis. And presuming then that we agree with Staff that findings one, two and five, and a portion of four can be made, I think it is then useful to look at f’mding three and the second half of f’mding four to see if we agree with Staff. On finding three, I respectfully disagree with Staff. I think we are well. served in this community by having the plane meaning of the language control and to me environmental effects are environmental effects. And if the Council had wanted to draft a zoning ordinance that wanted to ensure neighborhood p~otection, as the City Attorney mentioned, that that’s the language they should have used in the code. But that’s not the language they used and so I think we ought to go with the plain meaning of the word. So I don’t have a problem making f’mding number three in order to support the applicants proposal. The second half of finding number four is trickier. It says it’s not consistent with the intent of the original map approval and related restrictions applied by the Council. In going back and reading those Council minutes was very instructive for me. I didn’t live in this town when it came up. They seemed shot through with perhaps unnecessary anxiety. It sort of reminds me of the historic conversation but that’s a different matter. What I think is that it’s interesting that the applicant points out that the Council made a conscious decision to choose a method of control for this map ~at allowed for later change if in the judgment of the City, through it’s policy-making apparatus, change was appropriate. And the basic difference is back then there was no project so it was sort of a discussion in the abstract. And now we’ve got 10 years experience with a real house on the site and how it...and how it works. So I f’md that somewhat compelling that the Council consciously chose not to impose a restrictive covenant running with the land in order to effect its purposes. But instead to impose conditions of approval on a map because they could be changed in the future. So from that perspective you could say that the applicant’s proposed changes are consistent with the intent of the original map approval because that intent included the ability to change them later. I think we’re on more solid ground on three than on the second half of four, but if it was the Commissions’ intent to recommend approval of the application, I think ~at we are within reach of making the finding on the second half of four, but I’d certainly be interested in what my fellow Commissioners have to say on that subject. 9 Commissioner Schink: Bern? Commissioner Beecham: I agree actually on a lot of what Owen just went through. BUt I think for me, in the end, "I say, okay what has changed in the neighborhood? What’s different today than was there 10 years ago? And the situation is the same as 10 years ago. You’ve got a very dense, micro community, served by a single drive, very congested and I think that situation is the same today as it was 10 years ago. Frankly, I’m amazed there are no neighbors here speaking in front of us, and I think that’s a big change from 10 years ago. And I’m not sure if that’s because you’ve talked to everybody and their all happy or not. But that’s the biggest change. And that probably says a lot about what the neighborhood thinks. But overall I don’t see any condition that’s changed between now and 10 years ago. There’s no more access to that area, there’s no deletion of other housing units. I’m sure there’s no decrease in cars in that area. So, I need to find a better reason to change what the Council did 10 years ago than what we have in front of us so far. Commissioner Schink: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I seem to be willing to talk tonight. Basically I agree with Bern with one exception. And the one change that I see is in the basement. And that’s because the rules have now changed. Where before in a basement we did not allow...we counted that towards the FAR, today we do not. So I can see us making a change in that area...allowing that. But basically I agree with you with the rest of the property. And I’ve read this and read this and read this and re-read these minutes trying to understand the intent of what was there. My sense is that people are very concerned about building livable space to the back area, because in order to do that you come so close to the other pieces of property and because the access to that area is so poor in terms of safety issues and in terms of crowding of the neighbors. And I don’t think that’s changed. I did some numbers so that I tried to drop the line between parcel A and land of - is that Palms or Ponds? Straight back towards the land of Echols to see what that does to the FAR for that piece of property which is the piece of property that the City 10 Council intended the building to be on. And depending on whether you include or don’t include that last 20 feet that he bought it comes up in around .38 or up to, if you don’t include that, up into about .4, a little more than that which is up in the range of other pieces of property. This is a very narrow street. The pieces of the other little houses on it are very small. The access is tight. I think that’s the reason the 3,000 square foot limit is there. It is to try to bring that into some line and I don’t think the FAR for that piece of property that they envisioned building on is out of line for that space. I don’t see things changing but I would be willing to entertain changing the basement area. If others are so interested. Commissioner Schmidt: I agree with a lot of Phyllis’ comments. I think that despite the circuitous sounding minutes from these past meetings, I think the house that has been built is even scale, relatively speaking, with the neighborhood. It was nicely designed, the landscaping in front has been very nicely done, I think the process did end up with some requirements that you made a house that fits, and it fits with things that have been added in the neighborhood, the tiny houses as well as ones that have had second stories added. And I think, especially since the basement is there it actually has an eight foot ceiling, I think it is quite reasonable to.allow that space to become usable space. But I think that we are dealing with a very peculiar shape of a lot. And I would hesitate to add additional square footage. I think that as Bern noted, things haven’t changed. I think it is a neighborhood protection. I think that’s fine. I think I would also be willing to change the wording sucli that it would be possible to build other garden structures, things in that back area, as per the request. But I would also saywe have had many projects before us, including this original project, where the current owner is happy to deal with a certain requirements or say, no I love this property !’m never going to sell.this property and I won’t do anything bad here, and yet many, many, many of those properties change hands. And so it is, I think, incumbent for us to deal with that specific property and say we will make certain changes, we won’t make certain changes, we won’t make any changes, whatever. I think it’s quite reasonable, as I said, to entertain .changing the basement such that habitable area can be there and making a statement about that the back area. But this property may change hands, other properties all around may change 11 hands, the accessory structures that are now back there may go away and something else may happen so I would leave the other requirements in place. Commissioner Schink: Alright, George do you know, approximately the sizes of the other homes on Lincoln Court? Mr. White: Not off the top of my head, no. Commissioner Schink: And the basement that is currently not allowed to be livable space, approximately what size that is? Mr. White: I would have to ask the applicant to provide us with that information. Roughly 1,000 square feet is our understanding. Commissioner Schink: I agree with Kathy on several,points. That the limits on construction ¯ of other structures or development that are not part of the floor area really might be something that would be easier to lift. Also that with what Phyllis had said, that the basement, since we changed the overall city-wide regulations since this was implemented, that seems like a pretty easy decision to allow. I was very interested in what neighbor responses there might be because it looked like that was a large part of the basis for the original decision. I did go out to the property and bumped into a neighbor. And that neighbor’s understanding was that the issue was whether the basement would be allowed to be converted to living space. And so I think those are the sizes and proportions of the other properties are the other remaining concerns that existed 10 years ago. From the court, from the street, the house currently is designed in a way that it doesn’t appear to be significantly larger than the adjacent properties even though I think that it probably is so. So that’s another consideration I’m struggling with is that the ...even though it is a significantly larger parcel, and currently a larger structure, an addition at the back would probably would significantly alter the sense of the court from the front. So those are my comments. 12 Commissioner (Unknown Male): I have a question for Staff. What is it in the ordinance that makes a private street different than a private driveway, in that this would not be considered a flag lot so to speak, and have the one story restrictions? Mr. Calonne: I think I could take that one. This actually is considered a flag lot by today’s standard. Commissioner (Unknown Male): So then if they wanted to do a second story it would require a variance? Mr. White: They currently have two stories on this property. Commissioner (Unknown Male): But if they wanted to then do an additional, if they wanted to expand the second story, it would be a variance? Mr. White: That may be more of a legal question given that the Council established certain limitations on this parcel which may or may not be in conflict with the flag lot regulations that exist. And the difference is the difference between the height limitation on this parcel at 20 feet and the overall flag lot limitation of 17 feet. .Mr. Calonne: I don’t know off the top, I could try and sort it out here but I don’t know. Commissioner (Unknown Male): Okay, I wanted to -- Bern? Commissioner Beecham: Can I just follow up on that question and ask the same question for all the other lots on that street? If a housethere is currently single story would they be prohibited by the flag lot regulation from having two stories without coming to us f’trst? Mr. White: All of the other lots on the street, known as Lincoln Court, that front on Lincoln 13 Court would also be considered flag lots, yes. Commissioner Beecham: And that’s where I was going to lead of with my comments and try to share a little of what I think historical perspective from my standpoint on this property. I followed this 10 years ago when it came through the process since I lived about 100 feet away. And so I was curious and at the same time there was sort of an undercurrent in the community of opposition to flag lots and flag lot developments. So there was a lot of talk at the time about single story prohibiiions and just about the time this went. into place there was ordinances being worked on to limit flag lots to one story. So I think that is what led to some of the 20 foot limitations. At the time it wasn’t defined so they came up with 20 feet for this project. At the same time there was an enormous amount of concern in the community about monster houses. And everyone was groping with. figuring out what the right number was. And we knew what we had at the time was too much but we didn’t know where the number should be and so, I think again, the decision makers just pulled out a number of 3,000 square feet and figured well, that’s going to be right for this property because we know things are changing. I also felt, at the time that unfortunately, decisions that were being made were influenced by a certain degree of prejudice because the applicant was a major developer bringing forward the application with known to have a lot of kids. And everyone was really concerned that there was going to be another monster house built and filled up with an unknown number of children. And so people reacted rather strongly and really clamped down with restrictions that were intended for the worst circumstances. And so in the mean time I think a lot of the rules have changed. And as a consequence I f’md what the applicant is asking for acceptable and would support a motion along those lines. Commissioner Byrd: I want to take. a crack at integrating my comments with my colleagues because I spoke to the findings and I think everybody else spoke to the four bullet points that summarized the applicants request. Staff can correct me if I’m wrong but whether we recommend approval to the Council of one or four of these requests, we still have to make the findings. So I’m presuming that those who would go for some but not all of these four 14 requests would agree with my approach to making the findings and then we reach the next stage of whether we go through one or more. Is that accurate? Commissioner Cassel: My presumption was that since there had been a change in the way we calculate the floor area ratio for the basement, therefore there had been a claange and I could not make the findings for the denial for the basement. But since there had been no other ,changes I could support the findings as Staff had made it. That’s how I looked at that. My ’ understanding as I read this is there is no, if there’s a substantial change of some sort that you would look at that in this process. That was my understanding. And my understanding is that for the other issues there were no other substantial changes made to what City Council did. And that therefore, I would support the denial based on what’s here. So it needs a...I need some way of wording and maybe Council could help us with that in terms of the basement is changed and therefore doesn’t follow the f’mdings of denial. Commissioner (Unknown Male): I’ve got a question for Staff on this. If in fact we do decide that the findings can be made that would allow for changing these, the question is, is this a discretionary approval or if the the findings can be made then is it therefore approved and not discretionary? Mr. Calonne: The answer is yes, it’s discretionary but it’s legal discretion. It’s guided by the findings. So if you f’md the evidence exists to support the trmdings you need to make them. I don’t think that’s very helpful. I think the analysis based on changed circumstances is helpful as far as the Staff position with respect to the City Council. I think the applicant correctly stated and I think the Staff correctly interpreted their stance as having their hands relatively tied by the Council’s previous direction on this. So that if there are changed circumstances relevant to any one of the bullet points that is a reasoned basis for recommending some change. Commissioner Byrd:I want to then proceed and try to integrate those comments. I think we 15 can make those f’mdings. My, I tend to agree with John that I would be willing to make them for all four of the applicant’s requests. But I can certainly count heads here around certain issues. So let me try a compromise motion where we would recommend approval to the Council of elimination of the basement ceiling height restriction as well as a change to a limitation on house size based on FAR at point three as opposed to square footage. And I’ll explain that basis if there’s a second. Commissioner Schink:Is there a second for Owen’s motion? Commissioner (Unknown Male):I’ll second the motion for discussion purposes. Commissioner Byrd: There’s been enough discussion on the basement ceiling height. I won’t address it. As for the FAR, I think that the community is well served by consistency in zoning. And I know that in this case it’s a map but functionally it’s the zoning that controls building size in the R-1 and that control is typically expressed through the use of an FAR standard not through a specific square footage limitation. So I think it’s bad policy. It’s not specific to this lot. I just think we ought to regulate through FAR and not through arbitrary square footage and treat this or any other lot the same way. And given that the applicant is willing, in this case, to accept a restriction that is less than the FAR otherwise imposed on other R-1 lots, it seems to me reasonable to go to a .3 FAR as opposed to a 3,000 square foot limit. Chairman Schink: Otherdiscussion? Kathy. Commissioner Schmidt: What are the FAR requirements on flag lots? Commissioner (Unknown Male): There’s no difference. Commissioner Schmidt: The flag part is not considered or the flag pole part isnot considered? 16 Commissioner (Unknown Male): That’s correct. Not considered part of the net acreage. Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, but then otherwise they’re front, rear and side setbacks and a FAR are based on the flag part. Commissioner (Unknown Male): That’s correct. Chairman Schink: Bern. Commissioner Beecham: Well I agree in principle with what Owen said regarding enforcing our zoning ordinances uniformly. I think the situation here is we don’t have a uniform parcel. We’ve got a parcel, the intent of which when it was set up was that the back end would be essentially unused. And I think that was clear. And I think that was a clear desire of the neighbors. And I think because of the configuration that remains a good policy. So what that does is it forces all of the building to be on the front of the parcel and is going to be very congested up in the front of the parcel. And that’s my concern with increasing the outward size of the building. And that’s why I think it would have impact on the neighbors regardless of their being here or not we’re watching out for their intents, I hope. Their interests rather. I think that allowing the basement to increased in the height and made habitable does not impact the mass at all. It does have some impact on the density of the neighborhood but i think it’s not significant to this point. So I could still...I could support that.as others have mentioned. But because the lot is of such an irregular shape and impacts so many other backyards in the neighborhood I can’t see that it would be applicable to apply normal zoning to a FAR type. And even with a reduced zoning I would still believe that the existing limit is appropriate. Chairman Schink: Phyllis? Pat? Commissioner Cassel: I found my numbersand if you take the line that I said and drop it 17 back you have an FAR at this point of about 3.7, you know, give or take a few hundreds of a point. Commissioner (Unknown Male): .37? Commissioner Cassel: .37, yes. I agree with Bern. I think that this forces it all to the front. What you’re doing is allowing an FAR of the whole property and you’re forcing then the development to the front, taking a square footage of 900, but that’s a considerable amount of space in a neighborhood where the house is facing a street where houses are right on the street. You can’t really count that first 16 feet because while, yes, they say it’s 30 feet back from that dotted line but that other 16 feet is their street. So I think that the 3,000 square feet is appropriate and I agree with what Bern is saying entirely in terms of the appropriateness of the size of the property. There’s no plans there now for development. It was clear in the minutes that we did with attorney’s opinions at that that this was an appropriate way to approach that and could be done legally. So I think that...and I think we could handle that. And I think it’s very clear what we can’t do is deny a person the right to use their property which is why I’m sure that Ariel gave us the def’mition that he did for the use of the other half of the piece of property .because that gives appropriate use to that property and doesn’t deny the person use of that space. Chairman Schink: Pat? Commissioner Burt: Nothing further. Commissioner Cassel:Do you want a motion? Chairman Schink: Well, we have a motion on the floor. But the maker of the motion wishes to withdraw the motion so it’s wide open. We need a new motion. Bern? 18 Commissioner Beecham: Then I’ll move that we recommend to the Council that they approve changing the height in the basement to make that habitable space. The other four conditions remain unchanged regarding pre-conditions. Regarding the findings, I think the relevance is on finding three that increasing the height in the basement will not adversely impact the environmental effects in the subdivision. And this environmental is kind of a ...is not a sequent type of word. But that changing the .other conditions would effect the environment. Chairman Schink: Is there a second for the motion? Commissioner Sclgnidt: I would second it if we could add some language about what can be built in the east section. The applicant did ask for some clarification which I think is reasonable and it may be from the letter from Debbie Cauble. Commissioner (Unknown Male): Before that, let me ask to clarify what now can be built according to current interpretations. Chairman Schink: Why don’t we handle it this way. Can you just make it a second and then suggest the motion. Is that okay? Commissioner Schmidt:Yes. Chairman Schink: Okay. So we have a motion that’s been seconded and if you want toadd some additions that you wanted clarification, go ahead. Commissioner (Unknown Male): Dwellings of any type, garages and other areas for parking, accessory structures. Commissioner Schmidt: Those are things to be prohibited? Commissioner (Unknown Male): That, in our opinion, were prohibited by the Council’s action. Commissioner Schmidt: So that other things could be built there? Trellises, hot tubs. Commissioner (Unknown Male): Right a building permit...we didn’t view to be the Council’s intended trigger. It was structures of some bulk that were going to house people and objects. Commissioner (Unknown Male): How does that relate to a swimming pool? Would a swimming pool be prohibited? Mr. Calonne: We didn’t give any specific opinion on a swimming pool and I don’t know if there would be any reason why it would be treated differently from a spa that we did give the opinion about. So I don’t think so. I don’t think a pool would be treated as a structure under that restriction. In other words, I don’t think it would be forbidden. Commissioner Schmidt: You’re saying the swimming pool.would probably permissible. Mr. Calonne: Yes. As far as I know. Commissioner Schmidt: Probably the building permit is necessary. You have to get a building permit to allow a line for the water to the swimming pool. Mr. Calonne: Right. I’m a little hesitant to get into it. I gathered the drift of the applicant’s comments about conversation with Staff and I’m unaware of that conversation so I don’t really feel comfortable contradicting what was represented as far as the Staff position without some consultation. But the 1995 letter that we did seems to allow a pool. Chairman Schink:So you want to add some language to the motion pulling this letter in?. 20 Commissioner Schmidt:Yes I do. Chairman Schink: Go ahead. Commissioner Schmidt: And so for the eastern portion of the site to clarify from what was originally written about that anything that required a building permit, to clarify it to mean prohibit the following structures: dwellings of any type, garages or other ar~as for vehicular parking, and accessory structures. That other things allowed by Code would be allowed there. Chairman Schink: Is that acceptable to the maker of the motion? Commissioner (Unknown Male): f’trst. Mr. Calonne: Not from me. Let me f’md out if Staff has any more comments on that Commissioner (Unknown Male):Okay. That’s acceptable. Chairman Schink: We have a motion on the floor. Do we have further discussion of the motion? Owen? Commissioner Byrd: I will not be supporting the motion. I think that good policy is achieved by consistent regulation through consistent standards. And that’s why FAR standards are more appropriate. I certainly agree with lifting the restriction on the, on the basement but I don’t f’md compelling the basis for restricting the...restricting development on the eastern portion of the property based on the record from 10 years ago and the findings that are necessary to be made here. And I hope that Council won’t either. Chairman Schink: Pat? 21 Commissioner Burt: Owen, on ...under the discussion section of the Staff report, bottom of Page 3, Condition 3, it says it limited floor area on this parcel to .25 FAR or a maximum of 3,000. Does that partially address your concern that the former conditions were not based on FAR? Commissioner Byrd: I heard Staff to say that the condition on the map was based on square footage and noton FAR. Could that be clarified please? Mr. White: The condition on the map is a square footage limitation. The .25 is expressed in the record but is not expressed on the map and that’s why it shows up in the Staff Report, Commissioner Byrd: But legally what controls is what’s on the map. Mr. White: Is the 3,000 square foot limitation, that’s correct. Commissioner Byrd: Right. Commissioner Burt: Would it make any difference if we put .25 on the map? Commissioner Byrd: I would still not support the motion for other reasons although I would urge the maker of the motion to make that amendment in order to address the issue of consistent policy making. Commissioner (Unknown Male): I’m happy to have that. Commissioner Cassel: Are you sure that .25 matches the 3,000 square feet? :Commissioner Schmidt: According to the parcel map proposed and submitted by the Toor’s, the area is 12,268.94 square feet, gross. I don’t know if that .25 is going to be a little bit 22 more than 3,000. Only a tiny bit more. Chairman Schink: We have a motion? Bern? Commissioner Beecham: I’m willing to live with .25 in that case. Chairman Schink: So did you amend your motion? Commissioner Beecham: Yes, I do amend my motion. Chairman Schink: Alright, so the motion now includes a .25 FAR. Is that agreeable to seconder? Commissioner Schmidt:Yes. Chairman Schink: Alright. Any further discussion of the motion? Seeing none, all in favor please say aye. [ayes] Chairman Schink:Opposed? [none] Chairman Schink: That passes on a 5-1 vote with Owen voting no and Annette absent. Thank you. 23 Attachment B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO:Planning Commission FROM:George White Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA DATE: July 8, 1998 SUBJECT:1159 Lincoln Avenue (File No. 98-PM-2): Application of Margaret Toot for an amendment to the conditions of an approved Parcel Map with exceptions. The amendments relate to removing restrictions on the designated building area, floor area ratio, setbacks and basement ceiling height. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zone District: R-1. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the amendment request subject to the attached draft findings (Attachment B). It should be noted that all of the required findings, except number 3 and a portion of number 4, can be made in support of the requests- PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant seeks to remove or modify the majority of special land use restrictions placed on this property by the City Council in 1988 as conditions of Parcel Map approval. PROJECT INFORMATION tApplicant:Margaret Toot : Owner:Margaret Toor S:/PlardPladivI PCSR/toor.pm Page 1 Assessor’s Parcel Number:003-19-90 Lot Area:12,268 square feet (gross) Comprehensive Plan Designation:Single Family Residential Zoning District:R- 1 (Single Family Residential) Surrounding Land Uses:Single Family Residential BACKGROUND In 1988, the subject parcel configuration was approved by the City Council as a Parcel Map with exceptions. The Council approval was required because the parcel map proposed to combine and reconfigure four lots into two lots resulting in the creation of a flag lot of less than standard width with access off an existing narrow private street known as Lincoln Court. The Council approval included the condition that a number of special land use restrictions be recorded on the property. A summary of these conditions follow (also see Attachment C, Recorded Parcel Map, dated March; 1988): 1. Development is only allowed on west side of the parcel. Any construction requiring a building permit shall be prohibited on east side of parcel. The recorded Parcel Map provides a required building envelope. 2. Within the buildable area, setbacks are increased from minimum code requirements. Expanded setbacks range from 12 to 20 feet as indicated on the recorded Parcel Map. 3. The floor area on the site is limited to 3000 square feet. 4. Building height is limited to 20 feet to peak of roof. 5. The basement shall have a finished ceiling and be limited to 6 feet 9 inches of interior height. POLICY IMPLICATIONS No change is proposed to the existing land use or parcel configuration, therefore, the proposal remains consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, however, the applicant does seek to modify a City Council directive which serves as land use policy on this parcel. S:/Plan/PladivI PCSR/toor.pm Page 2 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Proposed amendments: The applicant proposes to amend the existing restrictions on this property as follows: Eliminate the building restriction on eastern portion of parcel. Reduce the additional setbacks from the property to the rear to 10 feet at minimum (currently required to be 20 feet). The area which is currently designated as unbuildable is proposed to have 6 foot side setbacks and a 20 foot rear setbacks. These setbacks area consistent with current Zoning Ordinance requirements. (Please see the attached proposed Parcel Map). The floor area on the site is to be limited to 3,900 square feet or a maximum of .3 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) instead of the current 3,000 square foot limitation. Eliminate the basement ceiling height restriction. The applicant does not propose to change the 20 foot height restriction. Discussion: In applying condition #1 in 1988, the City Council intended to create an open space on this parcel that could not be built upon except for structures that did not need a building permit, i.e. sheds, hardscape and landscaping. It is clear from the public hearing record that the City Council did not intend to take away all use of this area but sought to limit future development in an effort to minimize potential impacts to neighboring properties. The applicant wants more flexibility in utilizing this area. The removal of this restriction would allow a possible second dwelling unit (if adequate parking facilities could be provided), guest quarters or an expansion of the existing house. It should be noted that the 1988 public hearing minutes indicate that the neighbors were concemed about density-and did not want more than one unit on this site (see Attachment D, Planning Commission and City Council minutes, Attachment D). Condition #2 established additional setback requirements on this parcel that were more restrictive than the existing Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) requirements. As with the removal of restriction # 1 above, the applicant seeks more flexibility in using this property. The proposed setbacks for the eastern portion of the lot conform to the minimum code standard of 6 feet on the sidesand 20 feet in rear. .Condition #3 limited total floor area on this parcel to a .25 FAR or a maximum of 3000 S:/Plan/Pladiv ] PCSR/toor.pra Page 3 square feet. The parcel is currently developed to this maximum. The applicant proposes .3 FAR or a maximum of 3900 square feet. Current PAMC requirements would allow a .35 FAR or a maximum floor area of 4293 square feet. Condition #5 was apparently added as a response to neighbors’ concerns in 1988 to a future basement being converted to a second dwelling unit. In 1988, a basement with a ceiling height of 7 feet 6 inches or greater counted as FAR. The current basement has a 6 foot 9 inch finished-ceiling as required by the original approval. The applicant seeks to remove this ceiling to create a more usable space. Since 1988, the PAMChas been modified to exempt basement areas from the floor area calculation. This area meets the current PAMC code definition of a basement and, therefore, would not currently be counted as floor area. It should be noted that although condition #4 is not proposed to be amended, current code requirements would limit the height of any structure on this flag lot to a maximum of 17 feet. Required Findings Title 21 of the PAMC requires that five findings be made to support an amendment to a Parcel Map with exceptions (Sec. 21.110). These findings are as follows: (1)It changes only physical aspects of the subdivision; (2)It is substantially inferior in bulk, degree or importance to the overall dimension and design of the development and does not add any lots, units or buildings to the subdivision; (3)It does not increase the adverse environmental effects of the subdivision; (4)It is consistent with the Palo Alto comprehensive plan and the intent of the original map approval; and, (5) It does not violate this code. Staff believes that all of the required findings can be made except for number~3 and a the portion of finding number 4 which requires the amendment to be consistent with the intent of the original parcel map approval. Any additio.nal development constitutes an increase to "the adverse environmental effects of the subdivision". It is also clear from the public hearing record in 1988 that the City Council intended for the special recorded land use restrictions to be the limit of development on this parcel and that any deviation from these restrictions would be in conflict with the intent of the original map. PUBLIC NOTICE Public Notice of this Planning Commission review of theproject was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and utility customers within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card. S:/PlarffPladiv [ PCSR/toor.pm Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project has been determined to be exempt from environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). TIMELINE Date application: March 20, 1998 Notice of Incomplete issued: April 20, 1998 Application deemed complete: May 26, 1998 Following the Planning Commission review, the application will be heard by the City Council for decision at a meeting tentatively scheduled for August 3, 1998. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Findings for Denial Attachment C: Parcel Map recorded March, 1988 Attachment D: Planning Commission Minutes dated 8/26/87, 12/9/87, and 1/27/88, City Council Minutes dated 3/14/88 Proposed Preliminary Parcel Map (Planning Commission members only) COURTESY COPIES: Margaret Tour, 159 Lincoln Avenue, Palo Alto, Ca Lynne Molina, 3846 Magnolia Drive, Palo Alto, Ca 94306 Prepared by:George White, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Division Head Approval: Lisa/~ el Zo~dministrator S:/Plan/Pladiv { PCSR/toor.pm Page 5 ATTACHMENT A to Staff Report File #: 98-PM-2 Scale: l" = 200’ ATTACHMENT "B" DRAFT FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, OF AMENDMENT TO PARCEL MAP WITH EXCEPTIONS 98-PM-1 1159 Lincoln Avenue Recommended Findings for Denial The proposal changes only physical aspects of the subdivision in that the proposed amendments relate only to previously recorded restrictions on the subject property; The proposal is substantially inferior in bulk, degree or importance to the overall dimension and design of the development and does not add any lots, units or buildings to the subdivision in that the proposed amendments are only to previously recorded restrictions on the subject property and do not propose to change the configuration of the original parcel map; The proposal does increase the adverse environmental effects of the subdivision in that the proposed amendments propose to reduce or eliminate development limitations that constitute the currently applicable City policy for this site based upon the City Council’s action in 1988o The proposal is consistent with the Palo Alto comprehensive plan in that the existing and proposed use is residential but is not consistent with intent of the original map approval and related land use restrictions applied by the City Council on March 14, 1988; and, o The proposal does not violate the Palo Alto Municipal Code in that the proposal will comply with all currently applicable Zoning Regulations. \64 9’ ’ ’"’.-16’ EASE ¯Ll._ .:~ ....... AREA=S.F. z AVENU E ~ I ,~ENT FOR IN( Found ~" ~ronpine (open), " --I 198.(;’" RESS B EGRES (RECORDED 8112/43, ROOK 1154, PAGE 294 II I 163 5’ O,OB ft. easterly L A LID::’- 48’ S 89° I3’E PARCEL B AREA :B107,20 S.F. ’1" 4B’ S 89’~ 13’ E 48’ S 89° 13’ E z LANDS OF SA!.. ABER’T I5’ ELECTRIC ......................... ~ AND STORM DRAIN EASEMENT FOREST ~ AVENUE J ) NOTES: Pursuant 1o condilions imposed on Parcel A by lhe City Council of the City of Polo Alto in approving the pretiminory Parcel Mnp on March I~,, 1988. This restriction shell run with the lend end to all successors in inleresl. I,The size of the house end garage shall be limited to 3000 square feet. 2. Height shell belimited to.20 feet el the peek of the roof. 3.If lhere is o basement, the entire basemenl shell have o finished ceiling, end the ceiling height shell not to exceed 6 feet and 9 inches. BASIS OF BEARINGS: ~ "The bearing, (N 00°17’30"E") of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue (formerly Ashby Avenue) as shown on that certain map enhtled "Mop of the Boyce end Ashby Tracts end Subdivlsiorte Rancho Rinconodo Del Arroyo De San Francisquito", recorded on February 14, 1905 in Book K of Mops of Page 45, Santo Clare County Records was token as N O0° 46’E for the basis of bearings shown upon this mop. PARCEL MAP Porhon of Lois 16 ~. 1," as shown upon thai cerlo=n mop enhfled "’ Ashby Addition lethe Town of Pale ~.11o, California", filed for re," November 28, 1894 in Book Hot Mops, el Page lot; end o certain properly as shown upon that cerloln ,nap enlitled Boyce end Ashby/ T{octs, end Subdw~sit)n" R(Jncho Rmconod,JSon Fronc=squifo’~,hleq for record ,:)n February 14. 1905 ~n Boo~. SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SCALE . I"= 30’-\"’)MARCH,1988 A$$O¢IAT-ION OF CLEOO ANP HUNTZtNGER CIVIL ENGINEERS ATTACHmeNT D A ends Item Four Application of H~ahael Fleming for a Pre~imina~y Pa~cel Map to su~v~de four parcels into ~e~ frontage on a public steer le r~uired and fo~ a ~8~foot w~dth ~ere 60 feet r~uired ~or property l~ated at 1159 Lincoln Avenue. Zo~ District R-l; File No, 87-PM-20. Chairman Chrtsteusen: I ~dll first ca~ upon the applicant. Michael Fleming, 576 Maybell Avenue, Pa~o A~to: ~nat I would like to do is to turn the t~e over to ~ architect, ~r~ck ~ll, ~o h~ e~e altevnati~s. ~eu ~ or~i~ly made o~r application, the plaun~n~ .staff c~e back ~th ~oae propels and ~ have attempted to addles those proposals and e~a up ~th s~e alte~a~i~s that we think would a~ompl~sh the ob~ctives of the pl~nt~ staff, and Would that 5e alr~ht~ ~airman Chrlstenseu: That wou~d be ~ine. Coutasloner ~rsh has a question for you.°~ Co~niss~oner Marsh: Hr. Fleming, do you have the lot that intersects all of th~s fromLincoln Aveuue? Coniss~oner Marsh: Thauks. Commissioner Hu~er: Is that building being reconstructed at the moment? Co~nissloner ~haudler: I have a question along those lines as well. What is the ultimate size of that .b~tlding going to be7 Square foota~e-~se, I believe it is approximately feet o Commissioner Chandler: Thanks. Cou~tse~oner Marsh: Have you considered accessing this interior parcel via that piece of property7 ~: I considered that, and g~ven the w~dth of ~hat lot, which is 44 feet, and the necessity of hav~ng a garage for that house, makes It an imposstblZ~ty, C~tssioner Marsh: Okay. Larlck H$1! ’ 780 Palo Alto Avenue: Earller in the summer when we started looklu~ at t~s,’ we obtained. ~ro~ staff the setbacks that looked so~ethi~ llke thi~. ~e darker l~n~ ~s the perimeter of t~a~s Lincoln fr~ this side. OriEi~lly, the luterpetati~ was that the setbacks ~ EoinE to be ta~n fr~ Lincoln ~uvt, 20 feet from the fret, 20 feet from the back, ~ the ~lance six Since then and since that staff m~ber is ,on race.on, further th~ghta on thie have detained that ~t~cks ~u~ look more like this. ~e a~aa that ~ have indicted darker ave also. sho~ on your orientation of that~ ~ekya~s is sunh that tho.e are hlsh use ar~s. So that h~ ~fect~ the set~c~. My feell~ ~s t~t wi~h vhose kinds of set.eke and the cu~ent propo~ls, you w~ld end up ~th a site dev~o~eut that looks s~ethl~ l~ke that. ~e proble~ ~s that is that you ~n see the~ ~uld be ~ lot of density he~.aud here. It d~s not necessarily p~tect the neighbors here. ~is prelim~ns~ desi~ pro~sal, which ~s ~u ~o~ packet~ ~s a plan that loo~ eoaetht~ like this, ~tch as you can see, by to orient the house at a 45 degree a~e~ ~ were t~t~ to the direct ~e~ct on any pro~y line by not having ~ck ~nd~s faci~ Into back yards. ~eu though ,on the oTiElual sketch we sh~ed e~foot set.eke here, we co~d easily acco~ate a ten-foot setback ae you request~ there. It ~uld not be problem. But the current proposal ~elts ~ from doi~ that, ~ich I thi~ has considerably less ~m~ct t~n what ~ ~uld ~ forced do othe~se. The proposals by. the staff ask that ~e limit .the second floor area to 1,000 square feet, increase the setbacks at the high impact areas to ten feet, establish front and back setbacks from Lincoln, rather than from Lincoln COU~o You have gone through this argument on the second floor limitation before. I think it takes away choice, and I have an example to show you why I don’t think it necessarily reduces mass, By Increasing the setback, that is a good idea, ~ut it does not necessarily reduce the visual height, because the visual height allowable continues .to increase w~th the daylight plane, so that by the time the.-teu-foot setback Intersects the daylight plane, you have a 22-foot high wall, potentially. I do not think that protects the neighbors necessarily, and the front and back setbacks ~ake the building area odd, and as a result~ are goin~ to force buildir~ mass hard against setbacks at so~e point, which I think is a negative. So what we are proposing is that at the high impact areas~ the daylight plane be reduced from Its typical startln~ point of twelve feet to eight feet. The second floor setback at high impact areas be increased on the second-floor level to twelve feet, and at the first floor~ since that does not tm~act the neighbors anyway, leave that six feet. I think you get ~bstter land use tf the twenty-foot front and rear setbacks are taken from L~ncoln ra~har than Lincoln Court. For the 08/26/87 There was one e~ample where the staff report talks about a fl~ lot which recently was limited to 1,000 square-foot second floor. That was a 10,000 square foot lot, where this is a 12,500 square foot lot. It seems like the~e ought to be some proportio~al relationship there. 2~nat is all Z have. Commissioner ~larsh" What ~s the width of the driveway betweeu the existiug house and the Lauds of Parcel property where the drive Chairman Chriate~sen: 1" believe we have some iuformation that suggests that it is not that big. ?Ms. Helena: Someone else on the city staff, the fire department representative, when he visited the site, measured it off as being betweeu e~ght aud oue-~alf ahd nine and one-half feet between the two houses. Mr. Brown: I would mention that if there is a proposal to keep that existing home as a cottage, there is a requirement £or a ten-foot wide driveway and~that weuld certainly be looked at, at that point in time. Z believe there ~ould be access on’ the other side of the cottage that ~ottld be feasible. ghai~an Christenseu: I guess there is a question ae to whether there is access on one side of the cottage that is feasible° ~ am not sure there is. required that portions o£ a house be removed to provide that and people have do~e it. 08126187-46- ~e~ather ~Ite~77 L~neOln Court: l~t ~e put thla o~ ~p up. It. is ~d~~t ~d ~.~ve ma~ked It ~o~ a s~ctal pu~se. ~e re~ideate o~ ~ncolu Cou~ ~d adJoini~ pro~les to the eu~i~ston ~tud the entire p~e~ u~ccep~able, and counter to the Comp~h~l~e Plan’s goals ~o ~ntaln I~ density and to e~a~e those q~tlO o ~ch ~ke Pale ~to’ s ne~hborhoods especially desirable. ~a tss~es I ~11 .address are the unreaoo~e access p~eal~ ~d the currant ve~ high de~ity of the ar~. &cease over the 16-foot private driveway off Lincoln Court is inappropriate and unacceptable for many t~portant reasons. Lincoln Court is well over top saxlatm use right now, It is al~ost 8rldlock at times: Thirteen houses and 21 cars p~sently use that driveway. That is with two hotmee not occupied at this point. I have lived there for teu.~ears, and both those two henna, .the cottage which Mr. Flemin~ currently owns and the house next to it, which is in the middle of a sale, have always had two cars each. So that means there would be 25 cars probably, plus .whatever cars. w~uld be associated with., the large house Mr. Plemin~ is proposing for the rear lot behind hie cottage. On our street, it t8 called e house ae ~t is actually one of the larger houses on the .street. I hate to call it Just a cottage. You can assume there will be at least two cars with that large house, maybe three, and Mrs. Fleatn~ meutloned that she has a lot of children: small now, but who will grow up, so there is the potential that there will be either their teenagers or someone else’s teenagers usiu~ that driveway, We are lookin~ at possibly three, ~four or five cars. We need to look at this in real perspective. I have a photo of the driveway. It was taken late afternoon before many people are home. Usually iu the evening and ou weekends, there are more cars parked there. There iS not a day that goes by that so,aerie ~ro~ t~s street doesn’t have to wait five minutes for a truck .to move or ask somebody to ~ove their car~ as it is, to Ket lu and out. ~, ~yself, .do .th~s at least once a ~eek, sometimes twice. That le everTone~ e experience. This court was designed many years nee when i~ wae not foreseen that people would have more than one car per ho~e. I i~aEine many of the ho~es at the time did not even hav~ one car. So ae you can see w~th two or three care per h~e now, it is well over .what it was deeIEued for. There are also five children who Currently live on this small court. These are children ten and under, moat of them u~der addition to three do~ and ten cats,. And we do have vlsitora, too, so the impact is enormous. Concernlr~ the driveway access to the rear 10t, as proposed as a large ho~e site, I.am not sure exactly where the property line is from Weady Peter’s livin~ room and bedroom wall with three windows. At least three ears, I have said before, maybe four or five, plus visitors, babyeitters and trades p~ople, would use this access regularly ~ght past her window. This radically affects her pro~e~y val~es and air quality, naturally. And the traffic, as I have said before, will affect everyone on this street. I have a picture also of this driveway that she is proposlnE to be the access to the larger home. We have measured it. It is about eight and one-half feet w~de with the chimney, and if you took the chimney down and measured, takin~ away the six inches that we are assumlnE is Wendy’s property, we are not sure, and you took the chimney away, you would have ten and one half-feet. I will show you a ~hoto of that. One other issue that is not really a ~tnor one, it could affect many, of us, is that a fire truck could never turn into the access driveway, even if the chimney is removed at ten and one-half feet wide. The fire truck, unfortunately, cannot even get d~wn the street, sometimes, as it is. The closest fire hydrant is far away on Dana Avenue. The second issue is that the current density of this area already far exceeds slmil~ar size areas. The FOrest Avenue Court at the co~ner of Forest. and Hale (and I ha~ circled that square of property up there on the right) is sl~o~t of equal, size aa a square that includes half of our court, and the aJolni~ properties to the site that is the proposed ho~e site of the su~dlvlsion there. That Forest Avenue Court, which was ~developed in the early sixties with many .variances, has only nine ho~es, Our area~ the equal size area, slready has seventeen homes. A huse~ two-story’ house, and even a thousand square fogt second story, is larger than almost every home in the vicinity. That would bring about a vast reduction in property values end privacy for all of the ten, and I repeat, ten, adjoining and corneriu~ 0he-story houses. This is a hugh impact ou a very small ueiEhorhood. We feel the proposal is premature. The social and physical eu~-Ironmental impact on all involved is enormous and needs so~e more assessment. We recosnlze Mr. Flealng’s desire to ~e u~ of his p~rty. ~wever, he d~s have other options. ~ o~ ~wo profiles, as ~ have said, at 1159 Liucolu Court and 1131 Lincoln Avenue, ,hlch bo~h ho~er ou the 1wo land-locked panels ~ currently o~. One ~el ~s~ I believe, the ~rch~e Is aub~ct to approval of the subdivision. ~e ~tza property here~ t~se two pa~sls, is valuable to those lots alone that he currently o~ns. As a ~att~r of fact, many adjoining owuers even very recently have .attempted to buy them for larger yard space. ~xi~izfug the~ p~rtles were t~ la~e two-sto~ ho~es, the two~to~ place ~lch he Is rea~eli~ or has pemlts for alr~dy at I13~ and the lar~ h~e that he ls su~stI~ lu the ~ar lot, plus ¯ cottase, ~ich Is. lnapprop~ate and more than this c~eet~ intimate little netgh~rho~ ~u 5ear. t~hat makes the most sense to u~, (~11 not ~ake the most ser~e to him, I ~ sure) and ou~ bott~ ~ine is add~ ya~ e~ce. A part of sue o~ the ~rcels ~o the rear of the ~159 pro~y (and I have a ¯ ap he~ tha~ deso~tra~es ~t core easily) ~uld ~atch the ~ck o~ the ueighborl~ pro~es, so ~t ~uld uo~ be an unusua! out’or sake ~t an uuueua~ s~ze lot ~o~ t~s street, because the one next door to ~t is of ve~ s~lar s~ge, and allo~ a one-sto~ cottage aud garage ou the other pa~el added to the ~ck of the 1~31 address. ~s~ that 12-~/2 ~oot drive~y at 113~ as an ~t~ to the cottage and sarape space lu the ’~ck, t~t ~uld reduce the l~act on. the entire neighborh~d, the inc~dible number of people and h~es that a~ alre~y the~, ~d ~t ~uld not ~ve the tra~fic~ the ~ire, the parkl~ probl~s that a~ess on Lincoln Court would ~ve. ~ls ~uld be a deslrable and acceptable solution, consider~ the h~gh density and s~ h~e character of our ~ighorho~. ~e do want tO be the losers on M~. Flemt~’s g~ble. I also wanted to say that Jackie Sa~bert ~s g~v~ a ~tten authority ~0r ~e to say she coucurs ~th ~at has been presented tonight.’ ~thertne Cartwall 1181 Liuco~lu: I live across the street from the property which we are discussing. I wanted to thank some of the co,nell members for comtug and visitiug our neighborhood this afternoon, and staff members alas. As you have seen, this is a special little neighborhood, very intimate, aud with very small houses, very close together and the houses all f~ont directly on ae easemeut. We are generally w~thiu five or~ ten feet of the road that gives us access to our properties. This is more or less a private road, and it is the center of a close-knit micro co~uuity. The proposed project would use this road for access but ~rlll not relate Or contribute to the neighborhood. Hr. Fle=tug, as Heather has meutioned, has many options for these two properties he has. The option he has chosen affects the neighborhood and the most people¯ the ~st detrimentally. ~e bu~ldable vo~e created by co~b~ the ~ot~ as proceed .~s t~endo~. ~t ~ceeds any lot ~u the i~ed~ate ne~ghborhood~ aud ~t ~s not ~u ont~t ~th the ~ed~ate neighbo~ho~. I also ~ud th~8 p~Ject~ as sh~, totally u~cceptab~e. ~auk you. ~rs. Lee Horu~ 180 Er~ca ~ay~ ~e~lo Park~ ~e o~u the property at~ L~ucol~"~ou~t. ~ur ~ck yar~ o~t pro~y Is adjacent to the property that ~r. Fle~ wants to develop. ~e ~ould ~ faced with the two-story building in the back ya~l. The reason ~e are here tonight is that ~ fear that this proposal of thls very large t~o-story building is completely out of character ~rlth Lincoln ~ourt and the surrounding bu~ld~8. ~e~ as ~s stated ~fore~ are. ve~ small cottages. ~e e~ze of our cottage ~s about 600 sq~re feet. You are talkfug a~ut putt~ 1,000 feet on the story. ~ese are ve~ l~ttle ~stage st~p Xots. ~e ~et~ as s~ted be~ore~ ~e terrt~i~ not o~y to the ~ople that a~ directly adjacent to the pro~y~ ~t a~eo the ~ople that a~e in~rectly~ as stated~ on the cou~ and the effect t~t th~s ~ ha~ traffic, as ~ as the ~ole ~l~di~ ~ out o~ characte~ the enviro~eut ~ght Just because there is an empty lot, does that bean that It must ,be filled? It is i~onic that the up included with the staff report blocks out Lincoln with the black lines, because it is so s~all. You cannot even see our lots, and the density is such that does there need to be still another property added7 Thank you very ~uch. Carolyn ~cCurry, 1~53 IAucoln: I have been there for sixteen or seventeen years now, i believe, and in view o£ the time and all the vork that a couple of other folks on the block have done, I Just want to say that I am adamantly against the proposal as presented. We want to be fair, but I think it speaks for itself. I am thinking of you folks that have ,been out there. ~ Just keep thinking that I will look up at this house that le .almost seven t~aes as large as mine, and it is px~tty appalling. Bill Ha~21 Lincoln: I have been there 12 years. I do not live on L~ucolu C~urt so ~ am not directly affected by so~e o~ the issues that the Lincoln Court people have brought us, although ~ a~ symphatic. ~ ~ould like to urge the Flemtngs and the commission to be reasonable haze, and not create a s~tuation that is going to require a variances Secondly, ~ want to ask that the dra~ng be affiended because there ~s a uttltt~ easement which has not been sho~u. So, Just ~or the record I would like to have that added to the drawing. ~ Chairman Chrtstensen: ~ think our staff was alerted~to that this a~teruoon and did plan to make note o~ that. Thank you. Wend Peters 1157 Lincoln Court~ I live right next! door to the property that Mr. Fle~Ing has purchased. The stucco in the driveways between the two houses has a real resounding quality when a car pulls ~n. It is very loud. This stands to affect me directly, because the. cars coming past w~uld also co~e past my living room~ my bedroom, and ~o back to that back lot. The driveway is narrow, and the noise is very, very intensified. Also, there are fu~es~ there are ezhaust fumes ~ w~ndows open or closed ~- that eu~er into thin. I feel that the traffic situation~ I would have to DlckClark 1183 Lincoln Court : I would be directly af£ectsd by the even though it is Just sac ~o~e additional house. As was stated, that ~akes q~lts an l~pact on our neighorhoodo I would urge that if keepin~ the size to wlthiu the context of the other ho~es be a part of the. approVals couple of days and have seen some of it. These two lots are land lo~ked and various people have looked a~ h~ ~o develop ~t. We also had tr~ed to ~y a ~~ ~ £t ~o a~t up to our pro~rty ~o heSp prot~t it. ~ae£~lly~ our ~uee £e right here, We are up t~ht against that Saree. ~e proposed saraEa ~uld be ~ne feet fr~ ~ b~r~m ~ndow. We have t~ ~s ~ich ~uld face ~r, and another b~room ~s out the other way, We a~ mai~y coucer~d about the ~s ~d ~he f~re da~er ,fr~ that ~arase ~£~ so close to our residence. ~e ~eas~ that 8ar~e ~s so clo~ Is (~t ls it cat be there~ d~e to it bei~ ~ ~eet o~ o~ o~e of the streets next t0 ~ house~ cud the ~ola s~de o~ our h~sa ~11 look right on1 here. ¬her prop~’cy that is not represented here tonight is on the other side of the garage, the ~enn!ng place~ which So ~ht u~ you a~e bet~en o~e~s there so he i8 not represented, ~t the new ~ers ~n ~ ~p~ted al~ by hav~~ th~s ~8rase most of his ~kya~ and a~iust eo~ of h~8 ~nd~. Another point that" Bill mentioned cud that I preens a ~ew of you found today~ was the on+ t~s eae~eut, Hy ~r. l~nee ~u~d c~e ~u ~ th~a eas~eut. except I c~ O~f of Forest and I ~ 8ha~i~ l~nes and gas lines and water lines with other ne~h~r8, I ~ on a fl~ lot, but t~t would be our ~ich ~ pres~ ~he city Is pus~ as ~ have been readlnE. So there Is an easement that has not been reEistered that actually goes right under ~he garage there~ and appa~n~ly has the sewer llnes for several houses that are -- ~he ~ing house and some other h~es up ~he llne, so that 18 somethi~ ~hat really ~8 no~ add~ssed, but I ~ess the cO~Cll 08/26/87 Also the point that was brought up, or others have brought up, was the 13 houses that are now in the small area, and the other that was addressed were the n!ne that were under v~aaces no~ Liaco~ ~u~. It Is Just iuconcetvable that these t~ be l~ke this and now be adding to It. ~other site that you can all r~ber Lhe Cresent Park school slte~ and anyone that has been do~ there can attest to ~at has happened the~. ~e letter of the law was fo~owed~ but ~he intent ~s not, We have houses that are rlsht up against the lot l~nes and overcro~ other ~Igh~rs t~t there ~en the school ~s there.’ ~d the f~l ~ Is that part of this proposal Is to rent a ya~. S~ethi~ ~s ~s~ca~y wro~ he has ~o rent a ya~. I do no~ have much of a ya~ but If ho~se Is lu th~s o~i~ratlon~ he was p~osi~ a top floor was bi~er than ~ house, but ~ight now he ~s got 1~000 feet. I have a large house ovec there, 1,220 square feet, and ~ ~uld to 8row~ too~ but here Is a fel~ow that has to rent the ~Ich ~s r~ght next to m7 pro~7. Sure, the ya~ ts not goi~ to Im~t me, but somethl~ ls wro~ when the7 ~ve to ~nt gro~d for a especlally with these four children. ~at I do not understand. basically I ~ ~n agreement ~th all the other~ that have spoken tonight, and the only ~ople that are not repre~ntlve of our are the’ t~ that benefit .Trom th~s~ ~hols and Fl~i~. Fleming buying some of Echols’ land so s~ Is not goi~ to be here anythi~. She ~s sell~ 21 feet~ ~d the reason she is only selll~ that, she has to k~p the rest to keep her cottage t~t she now o~s In coaplla~e. I think that ~ have covered most of our polnts. We had a meetl~ the other night and ~ are a~ ~n agreement~ I do not ~sh Mr. Fl~i~ any ha~. I Jus~ ~h that eve~b~y could look at a better way of handli~ the without impactl~ an alr~dy hlghly lmpacted area a~ the q~l~ty of li~e that is gol~ to be affected by all of us on t~s, ~ you. Ton7 C. Tamp i1~8~ Lincoln Court: I 1lye dlrectly oppoalte to Mr. Flemlng’s house. I am an ar~hltect by profession. The reason I mention that is because there are a few things that were mentioned concerning the access off of Mr. Flemlngts Lincoln Street property. ~e calls It impossible to access. My opinion of that is dlrectl~ opposite, and that Is~ ~to. creates less detriment to adjacent property to access off his property on Lincoln Street than It is on Lincoln Court. One would have to look at the situation on Lincoln Court in llght of the time It was developed. My house was built in 1927. %t that ti~e, ~ost residents inside that court did not ~wn a car. And that is why there ~s 16 feet of driveway which normally serves one house, but this serves eleven houses. So, I think in rev~ewlng this appllcatlon,’one would have to look at it a step [urther, because it is a special circumstance. . I have one other observatlon~ and that is~ last night ~ attended a eeetlng with the IAucolu Court and the adjacent property owners concerning this development, and nobody in that meeting was for ~r. FlemIng’s proposal. Then there were a few that could no~ make 08126187 tL tonight, as mentioned before, because of their elderly ames, so there£o~, T inv~e the rest of the co~isaioners and staff to come out and review and ~ake a Zook a~ o~ cou~ be£ore e decision ~s ~de, ~ak you, Chairman Chrlstensen~ I will close the public hearlr~ and return this to the co~i~slono Co~lss!ouer Chandler: Regarding the question which was raised- ~ncoln, is my understandin~ correct that that would be a flag lot, and therefore, not only would you still have to have access for parking on the property that is on Lincoln, but you would also need to have a separate access flag that wou!d be owned by the rear property as well? Ms. Melaua: It was not clear to me whether people were su~esting ~be a separate fla~ lot or part of the lot that fronts on Lincoln. Commissioner Chandler~ Let’s assu~e they were saying that access to" ~his rear ~ot"shou-l~d~be by way of Lincoln as a separate flag, Helena: As a ~parate flag: yes, it ~uld require its. own Chaiman Chrlsteuseu: But that ie no reason why~ instead of the way ~e is me~gingt~~cels~ ~erEe the parcel~, re~ove the lot line at the hack oE the lot that fronts on ~ncoln~ and ~ke those ~nto one b~g panel. Commissioner Chandler: Including the parcel that faces Lincoln w~ere the house is now being being constructed. Chair=an Christeueeu: RIEht. Sake that into the one parcel instead ~suraLion" that he h~s ~ade into one parcel. Co~iestouer .Chandler: Looking b~ck at a similar case, £ would like to distinguish this, as w~ start our discussion (and I believe four o~ us were here for. the discussion of a proposed flag lot ou Guinda which required an exception)~ I believe this came up iu the spring of 198~. An exception was granted, in that case, in a situation where it allowed construction of ahouse in a back yard. The person who was proposing to do that, In that ca~, came in w~h a very severe set of restrictions ou that house ~hat would be built, which lacluded protection of a lot Of t~es, llml~atlon of ~rludows~ a height limit ~ht was very restrictive ~o approximately 22 feet, and as I recall, the house itself was on the order of 2,000 square fee~. It was also a very unlform-slze parcel in back ~hat was 8o1~ to be buil~ upon. ¯ In that ~a~e~ we approved it, and. the City council approved it, ~S ~ell. I would Just say that In this ca~a~ ~ see this as a radleally different proposal where 7on come up ~th an extremely strange-shaped lot, an enozmoca house. The applicant does no~ llke the staff proposal and proposes a garage allowance and ~loor area ratio that would allow approximately 4,500 square feet of building. &nd you have an extremely sensitive area. ~ re~ember well the first time I discovered Lincoln Court. What a quaint and special part of town it is. There is no better illustratlon of the tnapprop~ateness of this propooal on this site than the proposed drawlng that was attached as Exhibit B to the application. Usually ~ try to find a way where a proposal can work so a property owner can use their property, and we dld that in ithe Guinda case, "but as far as ~ am concerned, this one is a non-starter. Zt is fatally flawed, and I intend to vote against this application. Chairman Christeusen: I did go out today to Lincoln Court, and .I was totally shocked that the fire department would find adequate access there. I think it is unsafe the way it exists, and to think of adding another access off of it and another d~veway, ~ could not imagine~ what they were tb!nkinE of, Lincoln Cou~ -i~self is probably beyond what anybody should use as an access, and I cannot see contributing more to their problem. The access_ proposed for Exhibit B that we had, taking the driveway in on the side that it does, of the existing house was Just incredible to me. Zt does not even look ten feet wide. The neighbors say that if you measure house to house, it is probably ten feet wide. I could not conceive of it. The house that is next door is sitting right on the prope~y line. The poor woman’s windows are right there. It seems to me it is a proposal that invites de, suds, variances. From the t~me we approve it they are ~oinE ~o be co~iu~ in here and asking for variances for the restrictionswe w~uld impose .in order, to build the kind of house they want. We have had a policy in the past which Is a good one -- that is, not to adopt su~d~vision ~aps that .invite variances from the outset. I agree with Con©tssioner Chandler that" ~ do not see any way I can support this proposal as currently conceived ¯ Co,-,tssioner Cullen: I won’t ~elabor this. .I ~m reminded of a gerrTmandered votin~ district map. I~ is l~lcrous co t~ that t~he small access for 12 houses-should be bu~eued by this ~a~e house. It may eonfo~ to a~e idea that te theoretical, but it d~S not bear any re~ationship to the layout of the land. It ~s ve~ ......... poor laud use planning ~d I could never support it. I might look at something ~th access off ~ncoln Avenue, not Lincoln Court, and some other .configurati~ of the lots. C~missioner Huber: ~ looked at th~s pzo~er~y On Sunday but did not have the benefit of any of the neighbors to guide ~e around. initially had trouble finding ~here this driveway was, because ~ I saw It, I could not beli~e that was w~t ~t ~e. I ~So to take a look a~ ~he lot bahia, and fr~ly, ~ ~hought It ~s square peE in a round hole. ~e p~sal foe the house that ~fore ~.us is ~eslve, ~red ~o ~he othe~ houses an all sides. do not llke to see ~o~ebody not be ah~e to u~e th~i.r p~ol~rty, but ~raukly~ lu this instante, I thi~ the appoint should c~e with so~thi~ that confoms to the nei@hbo~ho~, And I agree it should c~ off of ~ncoln Avenue, ~ere is no r~. I ~nuot support this. Chairman Christensen: Also there is a utility easement. I surprised that the ’~nginesr did not include it on the parcel map. Ms. Meleuaz As a point of clarificationj there is no easement. ~ 48 a utility line, but the city does not ha~e an easement for it. Mr. Tam: As -an architect who has been practiciu~ for ten years, I ~-~ never seen a situation where ~ have a power line overhead without an easement below. MOTION: Commissioner ~reh: ~ move denial of the application for a p’~Ina~y parcel ~ap~ with exceptloU~o SECO~): By ~o~issloner ~handler. Commissioner Marah~ Are you interested ~fe~ent configuration? in continuing it and alternatives that a~e possible. Density I do not see as ~.ncreasing that much, Traffic I do not see as a real problem because of the driveway is presently bein~ used as a driveway. All of the.,.gara~es In that neighborhood have that same con~i~uration. If you want me to limit it to one residence~ I would not have a problem with that, Chai~nau Chriatenseu~ The question iswhether you would prefer to have us go as the motion appear~ to be going, which is to recommend a denial of the application as submitted, or whether.you prefer a continuance and redraw the subdivision parcel map, re~u~ait It and avoid the n~ fee Eor ~su~tt~. Co~mlseloner Marah~ The motion would then be to continue this item to September.~O---- Chairman Christensen: Is there any other discu~elon on this motion; -" t. osd in favor ~ay aye. Opposed? (None) MOTION CA~IED~ That paa~es unanimously° Commissioner Chandler: I would .suggest to .the appllc~nt that he ~osely to-~hs ~eco~d on the Guinda case. There might be s~e lessons to be lea~ded fro~ that in terms of ~ki~ ~th the ~s ~ad.tcall~, di~£ereut ~ro,, what. you have° 1159 Lincoln Court: Application of Hichael Fleming for a preliminary parcel map to subdividefour parcels into two, with exceptions for accessover an easement where frontage on a public street is required, and a wtdth of SO feet where 60 feet is required. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt. Zone Otstrtct R-l; File No. 87-PM-20. Continued from the planning commission meetings of August 26, September 28 and October 28, 1987. -~h~irman .~,£.t,~._~,.~: This iS an item that has been before us previously. Before opening the public hearing, the city attorney has some additional findings that she would like to recommend. If, after listening to the testimony and the planning commission deliberations, we decide to recommend approval, there are some additional findings that need to be made. MS. K_tl_l.gJ~: Under Section 21.32.020, Chapter 2132 of the code, an additional finding is required if approval is granted for this preliminary parcel map, "Exceptions shall be granted only upon a finding that the approval w111 secure substantially the objectives of the regulations or requirements to which the exceptions are requested, shall protect the public health, safety, convenience and the general welfare, and shall be consistent with and implement the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan." Chairman ~hristense~: It is my understanding that thatwould have to be drafted prior to going to the city council. Ms. li~ej_}_~J1~.~: Yes, you could direct the staff to draft those findings, and include that in the transmittal to the city council, if approval is recommended. Cqmmissioner irlJ.L~.~: I was not present at the commission meeting when this was previously discussed. I have read all the minutes of that meeting, and thus feel that I am well prepared to sit at this. time. Cgmmi~sloner Whe_.h~]_e~: I was not present at the commission meeting when this was previously discussed. I have read all the minutes of that meeting, and thus feel that I am well prepared to sit at this time. ~ Fhristense~: I will now call upon the applicant. There are some slightly different conditions that he is suggesting tonight. Mi_~tJ1~.~~, ~J.~~~L£tr_~, ~.~].~LI.~Q: What you have before you tonight is different than what appeared in August. We have changed quite a bit, after meeting with the neighbors, and have gone from keeping the existing house and building ( new house to just one structure wlth a one;story limitation, having additional proposed setbacks, and to structuring the garage so that it would limit the number of cars. I have lived at 1159 Lincoln Court for two months and have had a chance to witness first hand what many of the neighbors’ concerns are, which I was not aware of when I came before you in August.’ One of the main concerns at that time was traffic. In the two months that we have lived there, ! have yet to experience having to move my car so that someone else can, get out. The thing thaicauses the congestion on Lincoln Court is that people do not geneFally use their garages for parking. They park on the street and close off their garage with fences, etc. because their living space is so small that they need space for storage or other indoor activities. If you take a !6-foot wide drive and park a car or two out front, you end up with about eight feet that you can slip through. I end up everyday having to back my car out about 300 feet, as most of the neighbors do. ! do not find that that is too difficult. It works out fine for me. I have not witnessed any accidents on the court as a result of this. !f you want to pull into your driveway and turn around, you can. It is not that difficult. It is interesting that to the best of my knowledge, at this point in time, if a lot merger comes before the city and there are no exceptions, it is an automatic process. There are nohearlngs held. The conditions that bring this before you this evening are two existing, condltions. There is a driveway that already exists. One of the things.suggested for it was an additional house. But it Is not an additional house. It is replacing one house with another. It would be larger in size, but architecturally, it would not be difficult to make it similar to the houses in the neighborhood. number of the neighbors are planning additions .to their houses. The people that wi]| be ¢omlng before you this evening are find|rig that their living space is not adequate, either, even though their density and lot coverage and setbacks exceed what is standard by a considerable amount, I have some concerns about the staff recommendation in terms of a design review. I do not have a problem with design review. My main concern is that whoever does the design review is basically qualified to do it. I do not know if the fact that the person is a city . employee or a neighbor qualifies them to judge and criticize and modify design.’ My Main concern with that is that each person that comes up and wants to add their whims to the design review will be able to do that. .It would become an endless process, and one that might not end up being architecturally pleasing. So mybasic feeling is that if that is to take place, that it be done by someone who is qualified. ~s~J~T~=~ig~:~: You indicated in your openlngstatement that there was only one house to be built. There are two houses on the property. Is one of them to be removed? And the existing house over on the side to be removed? Mr. Flemlnq: No, there is only one house on the property at this time; one house to be built, and the existing one to be removed. It. is not on the site. Con~nisis~.9.{}~IZ .~.].].~: Is it on the adjacent site? I~.~: No. h~_b_~jJ~iIL~B~: I think she is speaking to Parcel B. Mr. ~: Oh, yes, on Parcel B. Is that Mrs. Echols’ property you are referring to? Chairman Christensen: We are assuming that the parcel map you are applying for is the one that we- Mr~F_]_C.BLIJ).~: Parcel B - all the houses there will stay. There is a house, a cottage, and a detached garage. They all remain Just llke they are. Commissioner tL!.r..~: Where would you bu|ld the new house on Parcel A? Mr__~: Let me say before going on that the setbacks have changed three times in what we have been told by the city. So I am going to go by what I understand is thelatest interpretation. (Indicates viewgraph projection) This is Lincoln Court here where I envision the house going, sitting back approxlmately 30 feet from the court. The house would fit in here, the garage here. At this point in time, I envision an attached garage, whereas previously we talked about a detached garage because the setbacks have been reduced again. This is now considered the front yard and this, the back. So the house would fit in here, with a bedroom wing wrapping into this area. Commissioner J~Lr_}_c_b: What do you envision for the front portion of the property having a 30-foot setback? Mr. F1emina: The garage and the family room, living room and dining room of the house would be 30 feet back. That would all be landscaped in front. One of the things I proposed is a limitation - many of the neighbors have been concerned about traffic and the fact that if I someday sell the house, the buyer might have five cars, or six, etc. What I propose is to put a llmitati~on of a two-car garage and limit the amount of impervious surface at the front of the lot, thereby limitlng~how many cars can park there. There are people on the street who have two cars, there are single people who have three cars on the court now. It doesn’t seem to pose a problem at this time. 12/09/87 "7- o.~JE~_L~.j.OJL~~: What is the approximate square footage of the house you envision? Mr. ~: The house I envision would have approximately 2,400-2,700 square feet, exclusive of the garage, one story, having an FAR of 0.25. Many houses on the court have an FAR of 0,4 - 0.45. ~~£1b.£: I have several questions for Hr. Fleming° There was in the earlier materta] from August a footprint of the house., as ! recall. From the way you describe tt, ! gather that your new proposal for the single-story house moves that house on the lot somewhat. Mr. Flemino: Yes,.lt moves it away from the back and more towards the front. Con~lssioner !tU]Z~: Do you have any kind of footprint that we could look at now? ~ ~: No, I do not. The problem is that each time I try to get a footprint, it costs about $5,000. We did one footprint, and then we were told that the setbacks were different. We were told that our front and rear setbacks were actual(y our side yard setbacks, and that the sldeyards were our front and. back, and we were given a new Set. So the problem is that until we can get a definite interpretation from the city as to what the setbacks are, I am not willing to invest another $5,000. Commissione~ I~.~: With regard to the piece of property that I think is a rental yard. Am I correct on that? Mr. Fleminq: At this time, I have no rental yard. I have proposed to Mrs. Echols and she has talked about renting to me the back 20 feet of what is now Parcel B, but we have not done anything with that at present. Commiss~aper ~L~.~E: So that is an open item between you and her? Mr~ ~: That is correct. Commissioner~._q~I~9_E: What type of rental period was involved in your proposal to her? Mr__~: A five-year peri’od. She has also proposed, possibly, recreational easement, which would mean that we could not build any structures back there at all, and it would be left as open space. ~]:L~.b__~: The square footage of the footprint that you gave us in August was how much? 1,630 square feet. At the meeting that we had prior to this, the commission’s overwhelming suggestion to you was to have the access come. through Lincoln Avenue. Have you examined that? Mr. ~: Yes, I did. There are a number of;drawings done on it. There is only eight feet between the chimney and the fence. Fifteen feet is required. There.is no way that the house on Lincoln could be a separate parcel. In talking to the neighbors on Lincoln Avenue, they were very much opposed to having the easement be that way. What we are talking about now is an existing condition. It has always been there. It is staying the same. In terms of putting the access over Lincoln Avenue, we would be creating a new easement and a new access, ~Q_~I~_~L~ILIL~_C~]].IJ~: But one which only impinges on one property owner, rather than the number that are on Lincoln Court. I am a little disappointed that ! have not seen from you the examination of that suggestion that was made to you by the planning commission. If it was not possible, I would certainly like to see why it was not possible. I have not seen anything like that, Just a reiteration of the previous application with some modifications. That disappoints me. Commissioner ~D.~]_e~£: You mentioned the setbacks issue and the fact that they have been changed. I would like to ask you to comment on one aspect of the staff report and the recommendations that are in there. It is my understanding of that report that although legally established setbacks from the zoning ordinance would be set. out for any parcel that would be created, in addition to that, the actual setbacks that would apply to the property would be determined aS part of the review process, so that the legally existing setbacks, whichever would be the final ~etermination of where the front is (and please correct me,~staff, if I am wrong), would not necessarily be applicable to your design, but the setbacks themselves would b~ part of the review process. I wonder if you would comment on that aspect. Is it possible for someone to work in that framework? ¯M~s. ~,]_~j~: I would like to clarify that we have concluded that the front setback would be measured from Lincoln Court from the property line that is actually within Lincoln Court..The rear setback would be the parallel llne at the other end of the property. So the front,. rear and side setbacks are established. The additional setbacks that we talked about would be established through the use permit. Mr. ~: That part of the review process I can live with, in 12/09/87 -9° light of my comments earlier about the review process. I understand that some of the neighbors’ houses are very close to the new house I would be building. I feel there is a need to be sensitive to that, in terms of providing larger setbacks in those areas, and that was the proposed increased setbacks in the first staff report. I do not see any problem with that. If someone were to tell me that I have to build 20 feet from every one of my property~lines, ! would see that as a problem, especially given that I have on one side of me, the property line is my neighbor’s house. They already impinge on me quite a bit. On another side, the people are proposing to.build within about six or seven feet of the property line, and to decrease what is their back yard. If one of my~neighbors chooses tobrlng their house closer to mine, I do not see why I should have to move my house back farther. That does not make a lot of sense to me. But there is a need for sensitivity. In privacy, I think the 2D-foot height limit proposed and also the single-story character of the house ensures that privacy. ~ irldj_~.~_C_b: I am a little confused, and I think part of that is because I do not see any definltlve proposal|n front of me. lhere are a number of maps and drawings, but they all seem to be outdated. You mention that you have some arrangement with the owner of Echols’ land for about a 1,000 square feet at the back of that property. DO you envision building over that? Mr. Fleminq: Yes, definitely. Commissioner J:]~_~=~_11: But you only indicated you have a re~reatienal easement? _~£~. ~: No. Let me explain (indicating transparency). I-am purchasing from Mrs. Echols’ this part here. The other area we are talking about is approximately 20 feet here. ] propose maintaining a six-foot setback here where the dotted line is. " Part of the problem is putting the chicken before the egg. I have been asked for’des.igns, I have provided a couple, then things have changedand I have been asked for more. I have finally said, tell me what my limitations are, and I will design within those limitations. I am told, do your design and then we will decide on your limitations. So I do designs, and they say, well, that is not what we want. Do another one and let’s see it, That is why I am willing to have a review proces} to get the ball rolling,.but until the lot merger occurs, there is no sense in getting the ball rolling heavily. The planning staff recommendations that are before you this evening allow that to happen. They allow for a review to occur, and theyset limitations on that in response to commissioners’ comments. If I were to word the proposal, I would say it is for thelot merger that is before you this evening, with a limitation of one story and 20 feet, a limitation of a two-car garage, and a design review 1~/09/B7 process. ~~hristensen: I have a question for clarification. You do not own all of Parcel B, but you are proposing a subdivision map that would create a parcel which you own part of, and someone else owns part of. Is that correct? Mr. F_].eJILI~: What is now Parcel B as a result of this application . would be shortened by about 22 feet, I believe. So a new Parcel B is being created. It is already in existence. It has about 45 feet in the back of the fence that is mostly weeds. ~_~j.r_IIIg11~hrlstensen: So you are changing the 11ne. Mr. ~: Yes. And the 48-foot width condition on Parcel B is an existing condition. We are not changing that. It still fits all of the cottage zoning ordinance and all of the necessary other requirements. Ghairman Christensen: It is Just the back of that parcel that I am trying to understand. .~q~!~bS.~J.g~£~[IZe~ej~: i wanted to pick up with Mr. Fleming’s last statement about being in conformance with the cottage ordinance. Will Parcel B remain in conformance with the cottage ordinance because the recreation easement is just that, rather than an outright purchase of additional property belonging to Parcel B? Or if there were a purchase, would Parcel B be further shrunken and stlll be in conformance with the.cottage ordinance? Ms, l~@_l_~D_~: At the moment, Parcel B as configured is large enough for the cottage. If I understand your question, if a part of that parcel is assigned to what he has referred to as a recreational easement, would that reduce the land area of the parcel? I do not believe it would, ~ M~s. ~: Itwould not reduce it in fact, but it would reduce it ~n terms of use. Io me, a recreational easement would be assigned to Parcel A, not to P~rcel B, Therefore, there would be a reduction, and it would make the parcel smaller than would normally be allowed for a cottage use permit. ~Wh_b.e~e~l~: But is there a legal nicety, because there is only an easement, rather than an outright purchase of the property? MS. K_~]]_eb~: I do not know the answer to that. ~ ~J}_@_e]_~z: ! am concerned about the commission taking an action which would make Parcel B nonconforming to our ordinance, in some way. 12/09/87 -11- Ms. ~: I do not believe an easement would change the actual parcel iine of Parcel B and make it nonconforming. ~(:Lub_e~z: I have a question for Mr. Fleming. Is this recreational easement for the benefit both Parcels A and B? Or only for A? ~ le~.]~.~_tE~: For both Parcels A and B. So what we would do is landscape It. ~ommissionej2 (:Ll_r~b: And there would be no fence between the two parcels? Mr___~. Flemlnq: Mrs. Echols would like there to be a fence, but not a full height fence. There is a fence there now, and she would like it moved back approximately ten feet from where it now is. Commissioner ~_i_~.~Jl: Ms. Jansen, I did not hear your answer before. If the back part of Parcel B, which apparently has already been purchased, does that make it too small to have a cottage on it, in addition~to the house? M~s. ~!~llZ~_eJ): If it .were deeded, then the lot area would be substandard for a cottage. In this case, it is simply the granting of an easement, so the actual lot area would not decrease. .~omnllssioner ir_H.!_~_~b: I was talking about the 1,000 square feet being behind that, that apparently has already been purchased and is not yet subject to the easement. Is. Parcel B sti]l big enough if that last thousand feet were lopped off? Ms. Melen_.O.~: If an addltion~l thousand feet were lopped off. and transferred -- Commissioner (~J.r.~s_q_h: Is Parcel B okay the way it is nbw, without any easement in consideration for a cottage? M_~s. M_e_]_e_~: Yes,.it is. J~. ~!IlL~: If I can add to that, it ts b~stcally a policy issue asto whether or not 20 feet of landscaping with fencing separating the Echols from the Fleming parcel constitutes the recreational easement, or in fact, usable rear yard area for Parcel. A. I thlnk ~t more likely constitutes usable rear yard area for Parcel A. ~ ir~Li_~_~_~J!: What is the square footage of the existing house on Parcel A? ~ ~n_g: Eight hundred thirty square feet. We have four kids in one bedroom at present. Commissioner ir.H.L~_s.~b: Is Parcel A sufficiently large to have a cottage put on there? Ms. ]I~Le_~D_~: Yes, it is sufficiently large in area for a house and a cottage. Commissioner l:Ltr_~J!: So someone could have the 830 square-foot house that is there now, plus an additional 900 square-foot cottage. Ms. I~.l.glb1: That is correct, provided you go through all the procedures and pass the review process. .~_~I~L~~: Just to review the problem with the Echols property, if the area described as a recreational easement were to be sold, would they be subject to an enforcement action to cease the use of the cottage, or would they only be affected in the event of destruction of the cottage? Mr.. Fleming: In talking with Joanne Auerbach about this, she said the cottage in no way would be affected. MS. Jansen: If it is an easement, it would not, ~~.b_~J1~L~z: But if it were sold, if the Echols property became substandard for a cottage use, would the city be in a position, then, to require the cottage use to cease, or would it only be that the cottage could not be rebuilt in theevent of destruction? What would the practical impact be? Ms. ~: Policywlse, we would .not necessarily enforce that viol at ion, Ms. Jansen: Since it would take an action in a public hearing process such as this to create that substandard lot, it would be in logical recognition that the cottage existed on the site at the time. I cannot imagine our going back and forcing the owners of the property then to remove the cottage. From a practical standpoint, it does not make a lot of sense. Commis~ion¢~j1~Ll.e~: Would that acknowledgment of the existence of the cottage through that process thereby also grandfather it for reconstruction, in the event it were to be destroyed? Or would it be illegal to issue a building permit to replace it? will have to check that. Ms. ~: If it were destroyed, and is a dwelling unit now, it could not be demolished until another building permit -- 12/09/87 Commissioner ~_b~Ddler: Let us say it burned down. Could it.be rebuilt? M_~s. Kelleh~r: It would have to comply with current requirements when being rebuilt. Commi@@iQner C a_~b~_rL~L]yJ~: So they would lose it, basically. Chair_z~_a_~~: I will now open the public hearing. Heather White, J]~7_~inLtD_G.Q]~=~Lr.~, P_P.A.IJ~AI.t,.2: Before I begin, I wish to make one point about the easement, in that what is labelledup there as Lincoln Court is, in fact, Tony Tam’s and Catherine .... Cartmell’s property. Lincoln Court is actually the first 16 feet of the property in the.front there, so that the first 16 feet is an access easement. The front setback line begins, from my understanding, at the end of the easement so that the actual front setback from the property line is 36 feet. One of the reasons ! bring this up is because the easement issue about Parcel B is very interesting in that I have been told that easement property, like the driveway property, for those people on the court, does not count for setbacks nor for total square footage for any kind of building or total square footage computation. So therefore, I would assume that if a recreational easement is given for a parcel of land, i.t would reduce the square footage of the land below what is required for a cottage and would automatically become nonconforming. Even though the property, in theory, would be the same size, .the interpretation by the planning staff is that it would not count. That is my understanding, at least. I have here a petition which a number of us have signed in the past few days. The reason for. this is that even though I am not givi.ng it to you as a listing of the reasons, it is because four of the people who have signed the petition are not able to be here tonight. They wanted to be represented in some way, There i.s also a letter attached from another neighbor. Three of the people who are directly affected by this issue were not able to be reached or get over to sign this, but we have been in contact with them during this process, and they have asked t~ be part of the group in opposition (passes it to the commission, along with a density map that will be explained later). I want to make a couple of remarks infor~ally first; ThlsIssue has become more difficult to face for personal reasons, because the Flemings do live on the court, and they are fine neighbors and decent people, and our kids play together. So it does make it harder, but ~e, as a group, need to face this as an issue of appropriate scale and access, and not one of people. We also want to say that as a group, we are not opposed to development, per se. None of us has been in opposition ever to modest improvements and additions to houses on the court or surrounding area. Three of the peopleinvolved are architects or builders, and a number of us have enlarged our places modestly. There are several people I know who are planning t~ do something in the future, so it is not as though we want to keep things in an antique state. At the end of our last meeting, this application was unanimously rejected for the following reasons: 1. The existing high density of the area is already almost double of what would normally be allowed, and Just to Jog your memories, this piece of property, which includes Lincoln Court and Lincoln Avenue and is exactly the same size of the court at Forest and Hale, has 17 homes and the Forest and Hale Court developed in the 1960s has nine homes, almost all of which require variances. It gives you an idea of the difference in density. 2. Because of the extra burden, a huge house would add to the already over-used narrow Lincoln Court.. 3. Thirteen houses use the court with 25 Cars presently, The’ inapproprlateness..of the subdivision proposal, considering the unusual configuration of the property and the fact that there are other, more reasonable alternatives available. 4. The unique and intimate small-home character of Lincoln Court. 5. The inadequate access for fire trucks and equipment, Chairman Christensen stated to Mr. Fleming at the last meeting: the question is whether you would prefer to have us go with a motion, which appears to to be going, to recommend a denial of the application as submitted or, would you prefer continuance and.~redraw the subdivision parcel map resubmitted and avoid the new fee for resubmitting. Commissio’nerChandler added that he would suggest to the applicant that he work with the neighborhood to try to find a successful proposal radically different from what you have now. Mr. Fleming has not done this. This subdivision request is exactly the same, and he met with us only once to explore a different house design. He has claimed many times that the planning department has refused to consider access to ~he parcels over the Lincoln Avenue property, despite the fact that the commission suggested this and that there is obviously no difference between his original proposal, which has been changed somewhat. But his original proposal was for a cottage and a large home to be accessed off Lincoln Court. There is no difference between that and a similar cottage and large .home with access off Lincoln Avenue. We are not talking about an easement here, we are talking about a 12/09/87 cottage and home site off Lincoln Avenue, which is different from what he says he cannot do, which maybe true, which is to have the ]5-foot easement on the property. You do not need ]5 feet if you have a cottage and a large home. Iam not sure exactly what you need, but it is not 15 feet. I have measured that driveway and it is not 8 feet from the chimney to the edge of property; I believe it iS 10 feet, and if you took the chimney off, I think it is 12 feet. Mr. Fleming could also add the separate parcels to his existing two lots. He has two alternatives. The fact that Mr. Fleming is already into construction at the I131 property was an arbitrary and seemingly premature decision he made, knowing full well that this issue was not resolved. At the time of the last meeting, demolition, but not construction, was in progress. His choosing to continue this matter twice more and to go forward with constructionat the same time cannot be given as reasons to eliminate alternatives, as was mentioned in the packet.. What goes up can also go down, or he can leave it up and put a cottage or tennis court in the back. The Lincoln Court homeowners are unanimous in opposing access to a huge house off the court. We have some new figures: The current total square footage of living space for the 11 court homes is approximately 8,400 square feet; the average is 755 square feet. Mr. Fleming.is proposing a house of at least 2,400 square feet; it could be larger. He has indicated plans for a full basement, This total of potentially 4,BOO square feet or more would be far more than half the current, complete total. This gives you a good perspective of scale for the area and for our court. All the surrounding neighbors of the parcels, nine in all, and two more that corner the property dlrectly, three of which are not named on the parcel map, all these people also own much smaller homes than the proposed ones, even the ones out On Forest Avenue and Lincoln Avenue, including a court with smaller homes a bit larger than Lincoln Court that sits out on Forest. All of these people are unanimous in wanting greatly reduced development of this highly sensitive central area, We are in total agreement with the findings Lhe planningdepartment suggests, as a reason to support a denial. 1. That the circumstances are not special because there are other alternatives. 2. The exceptions are not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right in that the previous owners intentionally created parcels with no access, when other alternatives were possible. 3. It would be~detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to other property in the territory. ]2/09/87 4. It would violate the goals of the law in that Parcel A is very unusually configured and that it is located in the middle of a block. In the initial August 25th planning staff report before the last meeting, they gave four findings to recommend the proposal. The first two were based on the claim that there are no other alternatives for access or use to the property. This has been demonstrated not to be true. The third finding about public welfare and the injury to other property has been carefully countered, we hope. Better malntenance, of the land-locked property, an issue also raised in the third finding, does not seem to be related to approval of this parcel map. The land will be used andmaintained; the issue is how? The fourth finding on the spirit of the law is the question of judgment the commission must decide, We certainly hope that our concerns will be reflected in your decision. We want to stress that our input, as neighbors, is crucial to this matter, and we strongly request that a parcel map approval be linked to and dependant upon an approval of site and architectural plans for the area. We do not think the issues are separate. Because our understanding is that a dec~slon may be reached tonight, we wish to address very firmly the potential conditions to be placed on approval of this map, if that does take place. There a number of additional items that .we would want to include. I ask the commission if they would like to hear these conditions now, or would they prefer to delay this portion of the presentation to a later time this evening. This is your opportunity now. Ms. Wh|J~_~: In addition to having it be limited to one story with maximum of~20 feet to the roof and for the approval of the plans by whatever body is named to do that, we would like it also recorded with the parcel map that a use permit never be granted for a cottage to this property, because it is very conceivable that three or five years down the plke,because there is enough square footage, that is something that could be applied for in the~future, even though the existing housewou~d~be removed after the buildlng. We would llke that there be recorded with the parcel that there not be a full basement allowed with this property. The reason for that is.that it is only sensible to recognize that the larger the house, the more people and the more cars. There is no way to get around that. You have children, you are going to have teenagers, you have teenagers, you have cars. Having a two-car garage does not reduce the number of cars. I have never known any family that has said, "Oh dear, we only have a two-car garage, we cannot buy another car." Now that is just absurd and-it certainly has not reduced the number of cars on our street with the one-car garages; it does not hold people back. think it would be more sensible to require that there be a three-car garage, recognizing that a part of that garage would probably be used 12/09/87 -17- for storage or work room and that they are going to park in front of their garage anyway, like everybody else does. I do not know if this would be possible or not, I do not know what the current rulings or precedents, or feeling with the city is at this point, although this issue has created some new precedents in several areas. We would like to see a square footage limit as a way of reducing the number of people and density and impact and cars and traffic and visitors. It seems to be the only realistic way to actually have some control on that. There is also the issue of sewer; the sewer system which is on Lincoln Court is 60 years old, and the code requires for a drop. of approximately two feet for every 100 feet of sewer. Our sewer drops only six inches in that distance, and it is narrower than what is now allowed, and it is literally crumbling in areas. It requires major work almost every year from all of us. There are three separate sewers, one for the end of the court and two down the. sides. To think that a very large house, with many workings of a washing machine and disposal, which most of the houses do not have, etc. will not impact the sewer, I think, is unrealistic. It is not.the major point. I also wanted to address some of the people tonight who are in support of or in opposition to this, may choose not to speak because they are shy or whatever. We ask that we give a show of hands to show you how many people are here. There are .four addresses that could not come already. Do people want to raise their hands, just in case you decide not to talk? Thank you very much. ~ S~ewart, 11_!]_~btZg_l~ej_~e~Y_B_D3L~, ~_Q.A_].~._9: Our house is on the driveway street affair that was parceled out in 1945 that goes back off Forest Avenue. Mr. Fleming’s proposed parcel map would come around the back of our backyard, that is right up against the side of it. Up on the screen is a roughly drawn map of the area, including. the structures on it that are houses and are garages. This encompasses the houses on Lincoln. Avenue and Forest Avenue that surround it. Also Lincoln Court goes up from the bottom, you can see the houses on either ~ide of Lincoln Court and also if you come out onto to Forest Avenue, is the street that goes in or the little driveway that our house is on, and there are four other houses. Lincoln Court, as I understand, was developed in 1928 and the. street I live on, the one with the little driveway which has four houses on it, was developed in 1945. Many of those houses I would suspect, or a few of those lots are actually in compliance right now. I recognize the fact that drawing up there is a real jumble and it is very difficult to tell what is a house and what is a garage, and we are really packed in there; that is the point of it. Sometimes it is really difficult for us to determine by looking at it, .but it is enormously packed in there. There are, in that area, 26 houses and one constantly-occupied granny cottage at the moment. I would like to compare that with another densely packed area on our same street. The area that I am trying to point out to you in this comparison is right along here and the side down here and the street out in front. This area is exactly the same size as the other map that I had up there that I had drawn. The area with the little kvetz on the same block where we are located and this parcel map that we are discussing is located; the court that you see going in, the culode-sac, is Forest Court. This is generally considered to be a fairly dense area. It was developed or parcelled out in the Ig60s and built on after that. It has nine lots on it, and they are all built on. There were many variances required, and that was some time ago, to build on those lots. Next to that you see another cul-de-sac that is not actually included, not actually the same size, not actually encompassed, except a little corner of it, McAuley Court, Most people do not really know it is there, it Just appears from the street to be a very large lot with a big turn-of-the-century house on it. Actually it was plotted out legally and subdivided some time ago. If this area that is up on the map, surrounded by the square, including.Forest Court, was completely built out, it would encompass the nine lots that are now built on in Forest Court. There would be three-and-a-half houses, I am assuming, off McAuley Court, and )t also encompasses the very back of five-and-a-half lots that face onto Hamilton. Two o~ those are quite narrow lots, and oneof them contains a house. The rest of the houses are all up front. If that map was filled out to its maximum potential, it would contain 13-.I/2 houses and we have in the same space we are talking about, 26 houses and an occupied granny cottage. It is twice as dense in the area that we are in, and it requires numerous variances to build those houses on Forest Court. I cannot imagine that this parcel map could be allotted out and anything built on it that would some day "come down the pike" as having had a variance on it, If this parcel ’map is approved, Mr. Fleming will have a big lot, a very strangely shaped, lot, very difficult and I cannot imagine that sometime someone would not say, "I will just add .on to this." 7here is one more important point that I would like to make. Since ! cannot find my visual aid, let me just show you the first map for. a moment. Again, this is Lincoln Court and this is the street I live on, .Lincoln Avenue, and this is Forest Avenue. These are the lots that Mr. Fleming is proposing putting together. This is the house that Mr..Fleming presently occupies, I believe 1159 Lincoln Court. lhis map also encompasses the houses he is presently building on 113! Forest Avenue, which also butts back up to this property. This and this are the interior lots that have existed there for well over 40 years as non-accessed lots. This area right here is the lot that is referred to as Parcel B, currently the back of Mrs, Echol, s’ lot. I live right here on Forest Avenue. As I see the footprint of Mr. Fleming’s house growing, I see it rapidly wrapping itself around 12/09/87 my back yard. But this is where Mr. Fleming’s hous.e would be if he put it in there, the house that Mr. Fleming proposes building. It would come down through here and grow up into here as he has proposed it tonight; it is a bit different each time. This house would come out as he has proposed, but that three-car garage would easily amount to the same amount of house that exists there. This whole area right here would be Qccupied. I think you can see that there are nine properties that it backs up onto. It would impact on all of our privacies, there is just no way to get around it. Some of it, as you can see from that map, that parcel in the middle is the only buffer zone that many of us have from anyoneelse. I would llke to thank you for your time and that, as you can see, it would greatly impact on all of our privacy, and due to the shape of the lot, it impact nine peoples’ back yards. Thank you for your time. Fatherine ~artmel..l, ~__~_~~, P.~_~]~_loIA_~.~: I live at 1181 Lincoln, across the street from Mr. Fl.eming’s property. Basically we are pretty consolidated on this issue, so I pretty much agree.with.. everything Heather White has said. I am not against development. I am an architect, so obviously I am into building. But I also believe in being reasonable. I am just concerned that the combination of all these parcels will create a very large, buildable area and that if there are no limitations set on it, it ¢oul.d be a very big house. ~ Stewart, 1_J~tF_9.r_~y_ej1_q~, P__a_!_~]_t_~: Basically how this affects us: The last time I was here to see you, I had the garage about nlne feet from my bedroom. The garage has since moved over, but I still have this house; it is still close and it wraps around ~ our existing house and our yard. When we bought into this house, it was a.f}ag lot, but it was protected from the back by Mrs. Echols’ yard and we did have the two land-locked lots back there. With no access to them or difficult access or access off of Lincoln, or off of Forest, it did not look like that much of a problem until now. Another thing that I do have expertise in is fire and safety. For five years I was a ~ireman. The one main problem that I can see here with the court is fire. There is a-hydrant that is on Dana which is down on the lowerright, a little past the 20 and over a bit; the f~re trucks, according to the fire depar.tment now will be carrying five-inch hose. A five-inch hose is an upgrade from their two-and-half-inch tack lines. The truck in would pick upthe hose on Dana and start laying out and driving up the court. It would possibly get up to the turn, back to where this house would be, then the truck would stop there and the tack lines would be run out. The ¯ hose that is lald is a single five-inch house should be dropped down the middle of the court. A five-inch hose is a beautiful upgrade of fire protection because it is like bringing a hydrant with you. You have much less friction and more water pressure. So the five-inCh line lays up to the truck, and then several small two-and-a-half-inch tack lines are taken into the parcel to fight a fire in that area. The main problem is that the line that is lald stops all other emergency vehicles coming up the court, and everything else is. carried. The five-inch line, once it is laid and full of water, can’t be moved and you cannot drive over it. Also we are upset with the delays which we have had with the proposal. It started.back at our first meeting in August and there have been several cancellations. Since that time Nr. Fleming has continued to build on Lincoln, although he has not gotten that far along, but there is the opportunity for him to tear that house down and to build a beautiful big house back in thls area. We have no objections against that; the objections have been about a small access all along that house and keeping that as a cottage, which would not work as it was not big enough in the first place. The rented lawn thing has always bothertd ~e, and basically that is what it is and how it impacts the rest of it. If this lot is so ill configured that the only wm.y to get any recreation is to get an easement or to get some type of a rental situation which is infringing, as it looks, on the cottage aspect of Hrs. Echols, something basically is wrong. The opportunities that Hr. Fle~tng has at the present ttme~ts to add to the back yard of that house at 115~. Also hts property at 1131 Ltncoln, which he is building and would like to sell, he could add onto the back yard of that, or at least put a yard in. He does not seem to have much ~here. That does not shut him out of any opportunity that he may have at thts point. These lots have been land-locked for almost 40 some years, and there has been a reason why. Oick~_!.~r.~, l]_J_B_~in~j_D_~Q]J1, P_~]J~k]JLQ: I Just want to add my voice to the concern over the traffic. My living room is on the court. I hear cars as they go by and I would worry about increased traffic over the court. Thank you. obB.q_b_tl21)IQ.~{!, ~ ~ )(~, ~ YJlJ]~, ~J~: My wife and I own 1155 Lincoln Court. I object to the larger lot because the next potential is a larger house. I think a larger house is incompatible with the neighborhood. The net increase in living area means more people, and that means more traffic on Lincoln Court. It means more stress on an old community-owned sewer line and more maintenance costs for the community that owns it, and we have concern for fire truck access to this property. Thank you. Lee ):L~J:J), ~J).(~W_A~, ~_OT_)6LIJI~IJj.P,J~: We own the property at 1155 Lincoln Court. For the sake of brevity, I refer you to my letter of November 23rd that ! sent to the planning comission. This letter restates everything that was said tonight. Thank you. cr__c i s l .l~k]_~. My opinion on the matter and my wife’s, I believe, falls halfway between Mr. Fleming’s position and that of the neighborhood group. I do not object in principle to Mr. Fleming’s building a house on the site, but I do have-so~ concern about lack of a definitive plan at this point. I would be in favor a design review, or short of a design review that locked in some of these aspects of the house, something that could be approved~by the council and the neighborhood group. Myown opinion. would revert tothat of the neighborhood group as it is articulated in the petition that was received by the council. Thank you. ~H_/.11, Z.8..O.P_P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P~I..t~Ae_y.g~, P_P.@.!.Ql~]_t.~:. As I understand it, this is not an application for a house and a cottage, but for a house only. There seems to be someconfuslon on that. If a limitation needs to be imposed, I think that is clearly Mr. Fleming’s intent. Another important factor is the impact that now exists, the people. It is true that it is small in terms of the children having not grown yet, but the children are going to get bigger and they live there now. Like everyone owning a piece of property,, they want to have some right to expand to accommodate their family, like everyone else on the court has requested variances and plans to request variances. Many projects are in the planning stages now for that court.. This project does not require a variance; there is no variance planned or intended. I happen to be on the ad hoc committee for residential design and am currently discussing the issue of the size and impact of houses and second stories, particularly, I would like to make some observations that have come from the studies of that committee. We are talking about impact. Scale is really a ratio of lot area to house area. I think this house is clearly going to have the lowest ratio of any on this development. Another is that it is very conwnon throughout Palo Alto and, in fact, charming and desirable, to have a mix of house sizes. If all houses on the street are exactly the same.size, that is not necessarily desirable. Throughout Palo Alto there will be very large, older houses and very small cottages side by side, and it is charming, it is interesting, It is not necessarily adverse. We have found on the committee that there is inherent And understandable opposition to change, especially when it happens to be in your back yard, or your side yard, or across the street. The ad hoc committee on residential design has eliminated that as a consideration because the world changes, and unfortunately, or maybe very fortunately, %t will continue to change. We have also eliminated design review as a desirable aspect of how to control residential design, because it is so difficult and su subjective and maybe does not necessarily create the end result we desire, as seen by my observation on the architectural review. It does. not necessarily create good design, does not necessarily create low impact; it just creates a kind of a monotony. The impact, upon the neighbors is not necessarily a function of square footage, but it 12/09/87 is a function of setbacks and height. I really do not believe that with a single-story proposal at 20 feet high that the impacts will be very great at all. Some things have been stated that I would really like to remark to. One is that this is not a different proposal than the one you saw before. It is a very different proposal. It is proposing a single-story house. The street, as defined, has changed from Lincoln Avenue to Lincoln Court, so the setbacks are all oriented differently. The recreational easement is also a different approach. A house proposed at 2,400 square feet I fail to see as a large house. I agree the other houses on the block are very small, but that does not make this a large house, by the same logic. There is an interesting implication that because the existing houses are on the property line and violate the statee coverage ratios and were built that way, that somehow, something Mr. Fleming wants to do that complies with all of the rules and regulations of setbacks and lot coverage is a vlolation of their privacy. It is very easy to twist that and turn it around, to try to limit what Mr. Fleming can do because they are in violation. That is an interesting twist of logic. I do not think it is fair to impose their problem upon h|s lot. He owns the, property. That gives him the property rights, the very same property rights that they have. Even without the recreational easement, currently this property would have much more yard area than any of the other developments on the site. So I do not see the .complaint that "there will be no back yard,"that they will need this exception to make i.t work. ’Even without it, it will work.- It works better than any other In the court or in the neighborhood. The fire department and the utilities department have all found that access to this project is reasonable and adequate. The cars tha~ are now parked and supposed increase in traffic already exist. In fact, with this development they will be able to be parked off of the court, where now they have to be Virtually parked on the street. I understand the questions, I understand the problems, but I really think that this is going to be an improvement to the court, an. increase of the spaciousness. As you get back in the court, you notice how it opens up; .it is very narrow at the front and opens up at the back. This will open it up further. ! really think it is going to be an improvement. Thank you. ~hai.rmBn Christen@en: ! will close the public hearing and return this to the. commission. Con~niss~oner Cullen: Question fo~ staff: One of the recommendations, should we approve this, is to have design review go through the zoning administrator. I do not see any provision in the code for that kind of review. Are we breaking new ground here? What is happening? M._~s. ~bIII_S_~: I would like to respond to that. The way we envision this is a process parallel to the cottage use permit. It is referred to as design review or architectural review by a number of people who have spoken. I think the kind of things we would be looking at would be setbacks, loss of privacy to abutting neighbors due to window location, etc,~ I do not see it as a process where you would be looking at the distinct architectural features of the building. That was not our intent, Our intent was to try and-protect the privacy and to look at things such as access and other things, off Lincoln Court, in particular.. In turns of breaking ground, I will let the attorney’s offlce talk to that. It was actually their suggestion that we go with this parallel process in the absence of an ordinance that would allow us to do so. What we envisioned is something that is comparable to the cottage use permit provisions. M~s. Kelleher: Just as Carol has stated, there is nothing in the ordinances now that would let us use the use percit process for the cottage-like review. We looked at the state subdivision map and decided that we had the authority, under the act, to use the conditioning process for the preliminary parcel map to do something like this. One thing we thought about in the course of doing that was future projects and that maybe we should codify or prepare some kind of new ordinance that would put this expressly in our code, but with respect to th~s situation we think we have the authority under the map act to do this. We chose this use permit-like process, like Carol said, to go along in spirit with the cottage provision, but it also provides the ability for appeals to go to the planning commission and the council so that there is the public hearing process as well as the review. We thought that it made it pretty appropriate, and the provisions were all set out in the code as under these permit processes. So that made it easy. ~Qmmissioner ~: I appreciate your answers, and. I am sure that probably under the subdivision map of the state, it may be legal, but it is a policy kind of decision which has not gone through ~he usua| policy review, something that has not heretofore been under the purview of the zoning administrator and would suddenly come under the purview of the zoning.administrator on an Individual application. If this kind of thing is~needed, I really feel that it should go through the process of the policy decision. That aspect of the recommendation from staff troubles me. I have other problems, too, but this certainly does trouble me. Ms, Jans~_o: If I can respond to that, I concur that it is a policy decision. It is one that we considered, among a numberof alternatives. An architectural review process for single family is one that has been shunned consistently by the council and by the architectural review board, for that matter. In an extremely odd configuration llke this lot, we tried to presuppose Just what kinds of proposals cou)d cfl~ iO’ @nd they a~W~#Imn, s) u~limited in their many, at least. So w) W ~()"b!..-( |f,tective measures, and if we wanted to prop,iN | Ithlng,";l M|N n||m,or a pro=ess that would allow for tholl(g~!)l{tlve m~Im=)l|)’.(h~i),could that be. That is why you had i~be(!))ty(i,...BUt=,( qqMiur.o]BO percent. It is Co i sionecG. J a)i ’| h(W(,6pe :hpr GW~)Ipn~ Have we any ~. ~: I am g))i@W@r@ ~( any for #i~91@-family either. it must be legal, but whether it fits the policy for residential properties and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, I just wonder about that. ’~,, Ms. ~)J!.O~II: I do not know whether there is specific language in the Comprehensive Plan about borrowed yard area, but that is basically what we are looking at. It is a borrowed yard area. Hi. Kell-ehe~: I did not understand that that was part of the current proposal before you. ~he leasing. to negotiate with his b~k,,fmnce,.)~(@h~)~.,fB~,w~atever easements they are willing togiq~B(~"I"~":6~’@~{@~t~(hai it is relevant to this particular subdivision map that is before us. You can negotiate with your neighbqrs for easements fo~ all kinds of things, including access and recr~lon and:for’:w~at6~er you want, but it is not part of this parcel map which is the issue before us. Ms. ~: I would agree with that, with one exception, and that.is thatif any proposal were to come in that did not allow for usable yard area, that would probably be one consideration of the development proposal the staff or commission or whatever body is . reviewing that proposal. Chairman Christense~!: Staf~ has already said’that there isa requirement attached to this parcel map that has a )O-foot setback in that rear jog area. A’BO-~ot setback is certainly a larger backyard than my backyard is requi~(~’~to be. It is.not part of the recreational easement. ’~ ’ .’"~ 12/09/B7 Commission~JC ~: Some comments were directed to the setback from the easement. Is, in fact, any setback on this property measured from the easement, or would it be measured from the property line? Ms. IELe_~: Are you talking about Lincoln Court? (Yes) We recently discussed how variances should be treated on Lincoln Court, because the~e is another one pending. As I recall a discussion, it was decided that since Lincoln Court functions as a street, albeit a private one, the setback should be measured from it. That is different from our usual approach where we do require measurement from the property line, but the entire court is within people’s property. Therefore, the decision was made that we would measure setbacks from the Lincoln Court easement, that purple dash line that you see. Com~t.!ssiq~erJ:LtT..S_c~b: In any event, we could make that a condition of approval, if we wanted to. It would not be unreasonable to measure any setback from~the easement itself, rather than the property line. MS. ~: I think that it would reasonable. Commissioner ~: At the beginning, I said that I had read the minutes of the August meeting and that. I was prepared. I am not sure that I was prepared for what I heard tonight, however. I am uncomfortable with the rather amorphous proposal that is before us tonight. Either I am being awfully dense, or I just really do not know what is here. Every drawing ! have seems to be outdated or countermanded or changed. On that basis I find it very difficult to come to any conclusion. I do not basically have a fundamental objection to Mr. Fleming’s building a house on that piece of property. I just do not know what the size of the property is or should be. I have been sitting up here for a half-hour doodling around sans calculator, trying to figure what ! would do if I were in Mr. Fleming’s shoes. I do not know what his objectives are, but I have come up with a series offigures that I think would enable him to build a relatively sizable house in a more sensitive way, certainly a more sensitive way than was described in Exhibit B to the August 21st staff report, which showed the house snaking around in some unbelievable fashion, while retaining the existing house. Now there is a proposal to eliminate the existing house, but I have no idea what is being proposed in its place. Mr. Fleming mentioned that he would like to do something in a sensitive nature. I think that there, is significant opportunity to do that, if he moves any proposal forward on the property, maintaining at least a 20-foot setback from the easement, maintaining at least a 10-foot setback from either side property llne, and keeping a rather sizable back yard. Now how to describe that so that everybody can follow my thinking: devvelopment wou}d be on the existing parcel as it stands right now, including some develQ describe~ whatsoevpr on Avenue.’-Th~ Echols my approximate calcul FAR, ~o~ething og be configured.:In" appropri=te~.! back to to figur~out council structur~-’b review threugb t! first, because I IN con Mr. Fleming owns tha do som~; nei~ years, ago, for whatever re~ parcel that is or no developmentIpn toward Lincoln inopt|on on from the next of that; build, with a 0.2 house,.but it would know if that is here, and I will go culty tonight trying vote~t~.mpve this to seeIpg what that the staff wants a to ~ee it here . I agree that have a right to ~h the somebody forty n, but I~do not think that makes sense, Mr. Fleming should have a right to do it, but we do not often see pieces of propertY that impact nine " different parcels. So as far as I am ~o~erned, I would like to see what it is that is going to go there before I vote to move this along. I appreciate, Mr. Fleming, your concern about the cost, but it seems to me that the staff can give you what you need by way of setbacks, and we can have something in front of us that will give us an idea of what you are going to put there. Chairmen Christensen: Are you talking in terms of a footprint on the. property? ¯ ¯ " Commissioner ~J~.I:: Y@s,...a.:~g~1;~l~.~h~ ,~R.~.~I~ fg~otage total. Chairman Christ~ns~n: Square footage, but you are not talking about architectural drawings. ~ommissio~er H~ber: ~. No,] am not talking about architectural drawings, per se. But I would like to know the square footage and where it is going to sit there. ¢O~nis~Ioner ~: ] would like to ask the staff if that is something that we can, under the subdivision map act, require? i.e., is Commission Huber’s suggest#op that we, the planning commission, see a footprint and get some S~uare footage figures on a proposed building on Parcel A, is that something that is permitted to us to require under the subdivisipn map? M.~s. ell~]_~b~: Yes. Commissioner~: I share the concerns that have been expressed by the two commissioners who have spoken before me.. ! think that the building envelope as it was proposed tonight, the fact that it would impinge on nine neighboring properties, is extremely unusual and extremely’ upsetting to me. There are not many situations in town where you could find a parcel that would.affectthat many of its neighboring properties, and even if it is one-story high, I believe that being that close to that many fences would be detrimental to the neighborhood. I also believe, having visited the site (because it has been such a long time since this item firstappeared on our agenda, I have had occasion to visit the property on more than one occasion) and that is a neighborhood that has a definite neighborhood character. I feel it would be very important that any building that is constructed on that court be in keeping, with that character of the court. I also have the concerns that were expressed earlier by Commissioner Cullen.about the review process that is outlined in the staff report. ! feel very uncomfortable with setting up a new type of procedure for review of single-family houses in the sense that it was proposed in the staff report, I would rather, if it is already within the purview of the planning commission and the city council, have whatever review is done of the siting of the building come through channels already set up to take care of it, instead of creating a new process and a new procedure. ! also want to repeat my preliminaryquestion to staff which indicated my concern about that easement. While I realize that Chairman Christensen is right and that that does not directly affect this subdivision, still ! feel this is an item that ought to be looked at by the city attorney’s office, just as a matter of general concern, what the effect of that kind of thing would be on a piece of property which has a cottage already on it. That is a question that is of legitimate concern, if not in this application, then certainly in future applications. M~s. ~: I will look into that, Commissin.9_~: ~: Thank you. Chairm~n Chri@..te~$~n: I guess it is a continuance we are headed for. ] wou~d like to make a few comments about the ways I think this is an improvement as far as what ! hear the applicant beingwilling to accept over the prevlous proposal. I feel that removing the existing house and removing the possibility of. having two houses on Parcel A is an improvement. There is already an access off Lincoln Court, and he is entitled to an access off Lincoln Court. If he is only going to have that single access, we are not in a position to take it away from him. But I am happy to see that he is not pursuing the idea of a cottage in addition to the house. I also feel that the suggestion he made tonight of moving the garage off Lincoln Court is an improvement. I was not enthralled with the possibility of a large, two-car garagesitting right out on that court. I am willing to look at the issues the other commissioners have raised as far as setting up a footprint within the current setbacks, which I trust are what the city has decided; that we have decided how we are going to orient the house, and which is the front yard and which is the back yard. That helps decide what the side yards and other setbacks are. It would be helpful for the comcnission’s deliberations and for the city council’s deliberations to see a footprint. ! am willing to entertain a motion to continue to allow the applicant to do so. He obviously has the option of asking us to 9o forward and make a decision tonight, so I address the question to him and what is his decision. Mr___~. Fleminq: I would like to hear exactly from you what you want of me. Do you want a footprint, and that’s it? Do you want.a parcel map? I need to know exactly what you want so that it does not get continued again. It makes sense to me that if you say, "We want you to do this, and then we are going to have a review process again," let’s do up a set of plans, and do it once. Let it go through the planning commission, go through city council, because I can guarantee you (you are worried about seeing this again), but if we go with the proposal that the planning staff has, I can Just about guarantee you that these people are going to appeal it for $I00, and you are going to see (t again anyway! $o there is no sense In seeing it twice, and dragging it on for nine or ten months. If you want me to do up a set ¯ of plans, I would like a definitive letter from the city as to what the setbacks are. I would like it in writing, which I have been told previously that they would not do. Chairman ~: IS that something that is possible to do? M_~s. ~_!~9_~: I believe it is possible to do it. qommlssigner Hir~b: As a condition of approval, could we increase the setbacks? M_~s. a~: Yes, our recon~endation is to increase the setbacks now, ~_~I!~_~}~_~~: Because my own personal feeling is that, given the size of this property relative to adjacent properties, and given the size of the home that is potentially buildable on this property, relative to the size of homes on adjacent properties, we ought to have increased setbacks of over six feet. I feel they should be .at V least ]0, ZO for Lincoln Court, and 20 from a given llne at the back of the property, and that the actual footprint area ought to be significantly limited, if we are to remove those property lines and merge the lots. Chairman ~hrlstensen: ] believe the staff is recommending 30 feet, at least in the front from Lincoln Court. M._~s. ~.~]_~: When you say 30 feet, we are not sure what you are referring to. The setbacks are ZO feet. The question is, is it measured from that front property line or from the dashed line which is the.Lincoln Court easement. ~bairman Ghri@tensen: So it is 36 feet from the property ~Ine,.and 20 feet from the Lincoln Court easement. And 20 feet in the rear yard. ~_~. Melen______~a: lhat is correct. Commissioner Chandler: I think the discussion between Commissioner Hirsch and.Mr. Fleming is really illuminating for the situation we are in. When we look at previous situations where we have been in circumstances like this (like the flag lot on Guinda in 1984, as an example), at that time, when the parcel map came to us with the request for exceptions, conditions were placed on it regarding the size of the house and its position on the lot. It was a relatively easy job for us to impose those conditions at that time, because that flag lot was fairly regularly in shape. The problem here is that we have a very irregularly shaped lot, and from what I heard Convnissioners Huber and Hirsch state, and thinking in my own mind as I look at it, I feel it is very possible that we have at least seven different perceptions of what would be the appropriate way to site a house on that. Given that situation and the fact that we have our own ideas of which particular jog should not end up having a house wrapped around it and the property line, but should be set back farther, I think Mr. Fleming is in a difficult position to come back and does not have a lot of guidance from us as to which setbacks he should do. So in a sense, it is a stab in the dark for him, What I wonder is, when all. is said and done and we have all put in our opinion, whether there will be anything left in the middle of the lot at all)So I am very concerned about putting this off with such a low level of guidance. If he is willing to go ahead and propose something that he thinks will be acceptable to all of us, that is certainly his prerogative, but I have not felt that the guidance we have given has been particularly useful. That is what I gleaned from the comments he just made. ~ ~: In terms of a building footprint and setbacks, I can give you that tonight. ! could do it right now, very easily¯ What. ) would propose is the following: A 20-foot setback from Lincoln Court. A ten-foot setback along here. An eight-foot setback along here. An elght-foot setback along here. k ten-foot setback here, a ten-foot setback here, a six-foot setback here, a six-foot setback here, 20 feet here, ten feet here, slx feet here, and six feet here. I might mention that this yard back here is basically closed off by a sort of a garden structure on .the back of the Salabert lot, which sis totally unused. The structure comes right here on the property line. In reruns of the footprint, I would propose an FAR of 0.25. That limits the footprint of the building. Chairman ~hristensen: You are not suggesting that as the footprint of the building.. You are suggesting those are the setbacks. Mr. ~LD_~: Right. Those are the setbacks. The footprint of the building would be less than this size. This is more than an FAR of 0.25. I have no desire to build out to all of these lines. ! would have no yard. I would like to make it architecturally interesting with garden spaces in this area, and patio spaces here, a lot of landscaping up front, creating a parklike setting, andl would like to preserve these areas as yard with a lot of landscaping. ~ommissioner ~.~!~b.: How are you proposing to useyour 20-foot height? Have you thought that through yet, whether that is a peak. ~.. 1F_!.e=~j~: That is a peak, I do not plan to build a 20-foot box. I do not favor those kind. of houses. There is not one style of architecture on this court.. There are about three different styles: sort of an Aztec look, there is a style that has sort of a 10 and 12 roof on it, which is rather pleasing to me, and there is another style that has a lower roof and is tiled; I do not envision any kind of a mansard roof or anything llke that. Cha.)r~Bn Christensen: Do you have any idea of what the square footage of the envelope you have drawn is? Mr. F e_l~_~j~: No, I do not. I believe from theprevious calculations, I recall a figure in the staff report of about 6,500 square feet for thi~ envelope. This will probably be a little leas than that. Commissioner ~: This area where the six-foot setback Is at the rear, that adjoins the area you have mentioned with respect to the lease for the recreational easement. Correct? {Yes) Also, to the extent that your actual footprint is smaller than these setbacks, then the practical setback that would exist would be larger than these minimums you have set. In other words, in some places, instead of it being 10 feet, it would be 15 feet. (Yes) So if you 12/09/B7 can lay that out a little bit more, then you have basically established a deeper setback in certain locations. Mr__~. ~: Correct. This allows us a design frame in which to draw. The two tight areas on this lot are here and here. So if this gets down to five or six feet wide, it is pretty difficult, designwise, to join those two areas of the house. It is almost llke two separate houses. Commissioner !~J~.b: I have a question for staff, Why was the area adjoining Parcel B not considered part of the back setback, since it is parallel to the other area where 20 feet was required? Ms. l~__e.!_~I!~: There is only one line that can be called the back property line. It is the one that is farthest from and adjacent to the front property line. Commissioner .~U_~J}~]I: Mr. Fleming, I would like to give you my idea of what might be acceptable to me. Those two elght-foot sideyard setbacks I would propose to be ten; and ten, basically, all the way around, except for the bottom six that you show coming off the top of Parcel B, which I would propose to be 20 so that you could not have a building segment in that lower right-hand jog. That is the problem that Joe Huber and ! have up here. It looks like you are going to push the building pretty far back from Lincoln Court and keep going around these jogs. I feel that is going to impact a lot of people and be unacceptable. That~will give you some guidance as to my thinking, and if you look at that, if the ?O-foot setback comes off the top of Parcel B, so that in essence, you have two rectangular areas, the one on the present lot where the existing house is, and. the other which generally is around the words mParcel A," I might find that suitable and you could end up with a relatively large house on that property. Mr. Fleminq: Let me explain why ! do not want to do that. The reason why I want to avoid that is that the whole house is then pushed up front. The problem that exists on Lincoln Court and the reason it feelsso congested is because everything is up front. If I push everything up front where the existing house is, the house is going to feel out of 1cole to the neighbors. If I can spread out the house somewhat, then I can keep the same streetscape, give the house a smaller feel, and architecturally, it blends in better with the rest of the street. I understand there is a tradeoff there. Commissioner Hirsch: I guess that is the problem with doing design work up here. We are all fumbling with this. I have given you my viewpoint; you can infer from that that anything far removed from that is not going to be acceptable to me, and you are free to design anything you want. But I would recommend a continuance on your part so that you can come back with something a little more concrete than what we have to deal with tonight. Mr. ~: If that would be the case, what I would rather do is come back with a full set of.plans - elevations, etc, You cannot do a footprint without a floor plan. If you are going to do a footprint, you have to mark out where your rooms are, so you have to do a floor plan, and then impactwise, in terms of privacy, I would imagine that you are definitely going to want to see elevations. ~~: I don’t think we want to get into the exterior appearance of the building. That is not our concern. The concern I have is keeping the size to a reasonable maximum and sufficient separation from the nearby neighbors who will be affected’. You can put out your floor plan on a piece of paper. You areonly going to do a one-story anyhow. You stated that, and we are going to hold you to that one. You can do that and see how it plays out on the site within the parameters that we might find to be acceptable. We do not need elevations, We are not going to deal with them. Mr. Flemina: The only thing is .thatIf we do that, and then go through the review process, you are going to see that all over again. So I would rather do it Just once. Chairm~b.C.~L~JL~: What we should make clear is thatif we go with a continuance tonight, I feel that what the commission members (who are suggesting this) are suggesting that there would not be this staff review process in addition to whatever we set up as the setbacks. What Commissioner Hirsch is suggesting, I believe, is that the commission decide, based on what you come back with, what the setbacks will be, and that is the recommendation we would make to the city council. There would not be thls additional process of the zoning administrator holding a hearing and working with the design of the building. Mr. Fleminq: That would be great, Commission~rM_.~T_~b: Frankly, I am notentlrely comfortable with not having elevations. I think the elevations and the way in which the height is used could~substantlally alter the effect this building has on the,adjacent, neighbors. You remember the cottage application we had in South Palo Alto about four months ago. It was a 20-foot height but an extended 20-foot height. It was very clear from the comments that were given that it was the height that was the problem, and the way it was used in the elevation. So we need to think about whether a footprint alone would give us a11 the information we need to judge the impact of this project. .C~mmissioDer ~: But that was when we had an existing house that was remaining. Here, he is willing to remove the existing house, and I concur with the woman who suggested that we put on as a condition 12/09/87 that he relinquish his right to have a cottage on this property, as well. So the fact that it might have a 20-foot height limit-- Commissioner O)~!_~b: I don’t think we can do that. We tried to do that a couple of months ago. MS. Kell~her: .The question is whether you can take away the right to put a cottage on the property? I don’t believe we could. It would be subject to a conditional use permit process, and that would be discretionary following the use permit procedure at the time of application. Commissioner~.U_b_~E: What if the applicant agrees and records it? Fommissioner Wheeler: If Mr. Fleming agreed, and then sold the property two years from now, would it be binding to a future owner? Mr___~.~: Can’t the FAR take care of that? qhairman Chri~t@nsen: We could impose an FAR over the entire site, as we do in the foothills. We could also do site coverage over the whole site. That would be a way of controlling the cottage application. If you set the site FAR at a level that would not allow a cottage to be built, based on the size of the house to be built, or if he wants to build two smaller sized houses, two cottages that equal the same -- Mr__~. Flem!..nq: Wouldn’t an FAR or lot coverage then also take care of any future additions? Ms. Jn_~l_O~_~O: Certainly an FAR restr~¢tio6 would. If I may throw out some numbers - a floor area ratio of0.25, as the applicant has .indicated, on a ]2,250 lot would be 3,064 square-foot structure, .If that were to include the garage (and there have been FARs in the past that have or have not), if it were to include it, that would allow for about a 2,500 square-foot home and a 500 square-foot garage, if it were limited to approximately 3,000 square feet. Commissioner Hir_j~_~j?jl:~ Exactly the numbers I have been fooling with. up here for an hour. You are right on, Would you be willing to relinquish that right? Mr. Flemlno: I have no problem with that. I would be glad to relinquish that right. Chairman Christensen: I think the problem is that the city attorney is telling us we cannot ask him to relinquish the right, but we can impose a floor area ratio. Commiss~~: But if he volunteered to do it, and it w~s ~2/09/87 recorded, would it be i11egal? Ms..K{:kl_e__he~r: ] am not certain, but I suppose if it were a voluntary re~{rict.ion on the property, and it were recorded and ran with the larld, it would apply. L()mmissioner Marsh: If 1 could just note, we raisedthat question in (’)n,(,ction with the subdivision over on Palo Alto Avenue with the larger parcel. We were told at that time that there were real legal prublems with trying to enforce that. Lh.~jrman Christen.Fen: The issue is whether the city is in a position l(~ e~force the restriction on the deed, It may cloud the deed title, b==l. it does not give the city the power to enforce. Conm~issioner Hirsch: The size house that Ms. Jansen was talking abm~t would fit within the outlines that I proposed. It would be a rc, lativei~ good. sized house in an area that basically does not have relalively good sized houses. ~hairm.a~ Christensen: So again, the question is, what do you want to (h~,Mr. Fleming, and how much time do you want? Mr. I l.emi._n_q: Let’s continue it. I would like 30 days. Jansen; We have a meeting on January 27, ]988, but we would need ~e~ the plans two weeks prior to that.. (|)m,.~! i()n from the audience) Would the FAR include the garage or Lhai)’m~ Christensen: | believe the .sentiment I am hearing on the (nmmission, although the condition would be imposed at the time we the action, is that it would include the garage area. (,mmis~iq!~ ~_I.!.~: I think we should be very specific when he ~.m,,~ ha(’k a~lain, because I share with Commissioners Huber and Hirsch ~hi~ b~i~inessnf which plan are we looking at. When it comes .back, I w()t~IH like to see a .fqotprint that matches the setbacks and the FAR lhal. wP are talk.ing about. As I understand the sense of the ~’nn~nis~ion, the 0.25 includes the garage,includes the square footage ll~at Carol Jansen has just figured.for us, So that we know clearly ~md see clearly, not comparing this to something else, but this is Lhe proposal that is coming. It shows the existing cottage to be removed. On both of these it looks like it is staying. I would like I(, ~r,e a11 of that clearly laid out. I do not need to see ,,l,,v,~t i(){~s, but. we do need to see the footprint, and if there are ,(h~,r (:onditions that need to be imposed at the time it comes back in l(,rm~ of" whether it is going to be straight up or not, we can discuss ll~at. If it is20 feet high and abox, we are not going to like Iha{, u,il we do not need to see elevations to say that that is not wha| ~hou~d be built on the property. M~. llo~i~g: I am hearing that you do not want to see that built -- .L.omm1:,’;io.u.e_r. C.u_J._i.e_n.: I do not need to see elevations to say that I w()ul(l clmdilion the approval of the parcel map on not seeing a box 20 1~.~,1 h i~lh. Mr. t l(:m.i.q~: I think the best way to handle that, once we have drawn 4ho i,l~ns, is Lo create a daylight plane for you. That would not al l,,w ?O-f~oL hi(.ih walls. L(}mmi~.Fioner llirsch: I would like a point of clarification. When .yo~ .~ay footprint, do you mean a footprint of the house he would hal Id, or just the envelope of the setbacks within which he would L~,ml, i,,~i_o.ne!, Cq.!.l_e.!~: The footprint of the proposed building. We haw, tile s~l>acks. ~:hairman (:hristensen: The footprint is different from the setbacks. ll.w(,ver, 1 heard Commissioner Hirsch saying he wanted different .,eLba,’ks than what the city would otherwise be requiring. I have not h~,,~rd anyDne else speak about the issue of setbacks. I am not ~nl.erested in getting involved with telling Mr. Fleming what kind of ur~hitectural style to build. If he wants to build a box 20 feet hi~.lh, I am not comfortable with conditioning the preliminary parcel map 1.1~ prevent him from doing that. L~m,,issi{mer Chand!er: Is there a difference between FAR and {~ml pr iilJ ? M,,. ,ta~en: ~es.- In this case, they would probably be the same .l,,~a,..,, w(. ,~, lalkinq about a single-story structure, bul normally v,". l l~(n’ ,~r(,a raliu is the liveable space in relation to .lhe lot, wl,~l,, lhe |~mlprint is simply the area on the lot thai. you could put th,, t)uildin!] ~,nvelol)u .- (h,,i,’man Christensen:~ It is also the consideration of an additional , omlitio~ that would limit the FAR of any building on the site to a {(,~missioner Wheeler:" ~here was mention made earlier tonight about a m~pox,)d basement for this house. Would the basement be counted in fAR as usable space? M.,. ,}an~eg: Yes, it would. M,’. llfmilDg: Would it be considered if it is not habitable living 12109187 -36- space? Ms. ,lans~n: No, not if it is not habitable. Otherwise, it would.. I,..mi~i~ ilir~h: ! believe we did that with the Roberl. IrenL ,l~me~ item. We indicated that.if it had a five-foot height, we would not consider it in the FAR calculation. That was the sense of the con~ission at that time. So if you want something that is five feet for storage -- HOTION: ~ommiss~oner H_j.I~: I move that we conti’nue this until the meeting of Oanuar~ 27, 1988. ~_D: B~ Commissioner Cullen. Chairman Chri,stenFen: Is there any discussion on this motion? All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes by a unanimous vote. fo~ a ".l~ret.tmtnary parcel .eraS- to .sulxtt~e -i~oai~ parcels into two, with excepttons.foreccess:over an easement where frontage on a public .street is required; and a width of 50 feet where.60 feet is required. Environmental assessment: f~tegorlca]ly exempt. Zone district R-I; File No. B7,PM-20. Continued from the. planning commission metiBgs of August 26, September 28, October 2B and December 9, ]987. Chalrm~n Chri~ensen: letters relating to HorB, and the Stewarts. Com~i, is~!one~, Hirsch: two-story plan. As We have at our places several d~fferent this item, from John Brooks Boyd, Mr. andMrS,. I have a question for staff ~Ith regardto thls- I understand it, it was submitted "rather-. ~belatedly, if I understand the covering memo. Has staff takeh a. position at all on the two-story plan that would differ in any respect from the staff recommendation in the staff report? Ms. Jansen: No, we have not. Commissioner Hirsc~.:. In other W6rds~ you still prefer the one-Ttory. M~. Jansen: Yes, that is more in the direction the commissiongave the applicant at the last meeting. Chai.rman Christensen: I will now open the public hearing by c’al].ing’ first on Michael Fleming. 01/27/88 Commissioner Chandler: Before Hr. Fleming begins, there is one issue I would like our city attorney to address. That is, what are the obligations of the city with respect to this? In particular, if landlocked parcels come before us, as in this case, with a proposal to give them access requiring an exception, but the exception is denied, so the parcels then remain landlocked, is there a basis for suing inverse condemnation against the city for denying the landowner the use of h~s land? Ms. Kelleher: No, i do not believe there is. The city does not have the obligation to add economic value to the property. Those two parcels are, now landlocked, and they could remain landlocked. We do not have to add value to them. Michael Fleming, 115g Lincoln Court,. Palo..Altp: First of all, I would like to thank the city staff, the planning commission members and our neighbors for the time and energy they have put into the application before you this evening. The process has gone on for almost six months, and a number of people have invested a great deal of emotional and physical energy in this project. I am appreciative. of that -effort. Secondly, I would like to apologize to anyone whose feelings I may have hurt as a result of this process. What I am dealing with here is my home. It is in an area that we like, with neighbors we enjoy, and we find the street is fantastic for raising a family. Our children feel secure in this environment. We intend to stay on Lincoln Court. We have no intention of moving, and this is where .we want to raise our family. Because the project you have before you is our home, and not just a stopover or a financial investment, there have been times when I have ignored other people’s . opinions and feelings, and for this, I apologiZe. With Larick’s permission, I would also like to publicly apologize for my architect, Larick Hill in that he sees this project from the point of viewof more than our client-architect relationship, from a broader architectural viewpoint and also in light of his current involvement in the ad hoc comlttee, and their investigation of many pf the issues that are critical to the project before you this evening, such. as impact, setbacks and daylight planes. At times, these theoretical and broader design issues take precedence for Larick over individual feelings and concerns..For that I apologize. I also need to recant. a statement I made regarding the Salaberts’ backyard in that they do. use their backyard. It is used for gardening, picknicki.ng and sunbathing. The project you have before you tonight is for a unique situation. The lot has a unique configuration, and the neighborhood in which it is found is also unique. The plans we are proposing have special circumstances surrounding them. You will probably hear many words tonight such as "huge," "giant,"’ "enormous," *large" and "looming." 01127188 -21- I know that such expletives arouse in all of us a negative emotional response. I would ask that you consider such adjectives in relation to the reality of what we are asking for. Comparisons have’been continually made between our property and the houses on Lincoln Court. There are some very basic differences I would like to share with you. The majority of lots on Lincoln Court have a 30-35ofoot width. Our property has a 65-foot width. The majority of lot sizes on Lincoln Court are 2,000-3,000 square feet. The lot we are proposing is in excess of 12,000 square feet, and even if you were to deduct the rear amount of the lot, it still has an excess of 7,000 square feet. Although five of the eleven houses on the court are similar in architectural style, as you move toward the rear of the court, there is much greater architectural diversity, with several of the roofs exceeding 20 feet. Because the property, neighborhood and house are unique and not necessarily conforming to the standard rectangular house and lot typically found in PaloAlto, it is not grounds for rejection of our proposal. Indeed, the entire reason this merger is before you is because it has exceptions. The’ city staff has assisted us in identifying areas around the perimeter of our lot where we needed to provide additional setbacks. We..have attempted to" do that in the plans that are before you this evening. It has been said that our lot borders too many other houses, but may I point out that the majority of each of those houses each have three neighbors - one on each side and one in back. Our house is the only one that will have 12 neighbors. I think that the impact on.each of these individual neighbors is not extreme with the one-story roof line that we are proposing. I feel that the impact is far less than the 30-foot height l~mit, 20 feet back, that is typical of PaloAlto I would also like to note that the plans we have proposed ~educe the impact in several ways on Lincoln Court. ,The width of the street is not what causes Lincoln Court to feel so dense. Streets throughout the Southgate area of Palo Alto are 18-20 feet wide, yet one does not feel the same density as on Lincoln Court. Rather, the smaller, 30-foot lot width, and particularly, the closeness of the homes to the street, that is the reduction of the front yard setbacks, bring, this feeling tO the neighborhood. Three of the five houses.across the street from us have been granted variances for decreased front and side yard~.s~tbacks and for lot coverage. Heather.White rBcently applied for and was granted a variance to decrease her frooLyard setback from approximately 14 to about four feet. The.lpeople purchasing the Parcel’s property which is adjacent to our home have let .us know of their intentions to seek a variance for lot Coverage to put an addition on the rear of their home. I was told by Mrs. Echols that in recent months, the Stewarts have approached Mrs. Echols, seeking .her support for a variance for a second story addition to their ~ome. It is my understanding that they have now suspended progress towards that variance application. Impact is not new to this neighborhood. By that, I do not mean that we have the right to severely impact our neighbors’ privacy or property rights. I do think that the plans before you this evening are reasonable in their impact, given the unique situation with .this lot and this ’ neighborhood. ] do not think that these plans severely impact the neighbors’ privacy or their property rights. These plans, while bringing about new impact to .the .neighborhood, I feel are reasonable. Also, they severely reduce some impacts that are currently present. The Parcels and my own house share 30 feet.of 12-foot high walls approximately ten feet apart. This strip 6f land now. serves as our driveway, which results in the Parcels experiencing some of my car exhaust between 5 and 6 a.m. every morning as I leave for work. Mycurrent ]8-foot long garage is their property llne,.as their house is my property line for 30 feet. With our proposed plan, the setback is 10 feet, but the houses are staggered-so that they clear each other for the width of the.entire front yard. Furthermore, the increased setback from the street allows some relief to the otherwise dense street frontage. At the rear of Lincoln Court, the houses are set back farther from the. street. Their 16 to 22-foot height, considerably greater than their counterparts at the front of the court, is mitigated by setbacks from the street. The plans that we have proposed are consistent with these features. I would emphasize that the plans before you this evening are not the result of a sho£ in the dark. Larick and I have looked at approximately 15-20 alternate plans for this property. We have spent numerous hours considering alternative setbacks and designs. The plans before you this evening seem the best culmination of setbacks, design and the living needs of our family. Our family looks forward to being able to move into larger quarters. We would ask you to approve the proposal before you this evening. Thank you. Commissioner Cullen: When you say "the proposal before us this ev~g,"--M~ F~e~ing, do you mean the proposal in our packet that was analyzed by staff, or the one that you brought in.with you at the last moment which staff did not have a chance to analyze.. Either one. Larick.~H~]~ Architect: In the flrst plan, Plan A, we have tried to anticipate, after the input received at the last meeting, what setbacks~ you are. asking for, even though they were not specific, and have tried to find some way of accommodating the Flemings’ needs within the rema~ning, envelope. The significant things we have t~ied to achieve is, the e~sting house is here. The Flemings would.prefer to be able to live in this house, since they are going to be bu~Id|ng it themselves and anticipate it taking a little while to do so that they don’t have to move out, be gone for eight months and move back in. ~That is one consideration. Another is to allow the new house to. be far enough back so you don’t have to be literallylooking into each other’s bathroom windows when you are brushing your teeth. We tried to balance the setbacks, but unfortunately, the nature of this plan is such that the bedroom spaces end up being carried toward the back because the kitchen and other spaces need to be closer to. the front entry in order to get groceries, etc. to the kitchen. I think this plan works, and I understand the .plan is acceptable to the Flemings~ The setbacks balance the needs of the neighbors, but quite frankly,. I do not think it is a very good plan. I personally would 01/27/B8 -23- not .want to live in it. One reason is that the kitchen and living space is far from the play yard, and supervision, etc. are not .real great. One thing I do want to point out is that we have listed the standard city setbacks, which are six and 20 feet, and the setbacks that we are proposing, as well as the percentage of overage of those setbacks that we have. Generally we are 150 to 200 percent owr th~ standard required setbacks that any other two adjacent lots would be required to meet. This gives you an idea of the elevations of the home. I hope you can see that we have trled to give the distances as set back from.the adjacent homes so that all of this elevation is not right in front of people. The distances at some points are as close as six feet at two points, but quickly set back to 20 and 26 feet, much greater distances. You may ask why the steepness of the pitch? This is a photograph of the neighboring house. There are about four houses that are very similar, I cannot tell ifthey are exactly the same floor plans, but they are at the back end of the court and all have the same ]2 and 12 pitch~ The peak of this roof is about 20 feet high, a foot higher than the restraints that have been placed, on us: This was given to the Flemings today, Just to give you an idea of what a neighborhood group has proposed for setbacks. You can see that in some locations they are considerably larger than we have proposed, and in some cases, it is less than we have proposed, My general impression is that it would be very difficult to bu~Id a house on that site without the removal of the existing house, and again belng very close to the Parcel and Savoye properties. In my own. time and effort, not being satisfied with the first plan, and the basic restraint on that was, as you said and staff suggested, that they wanted a one-story plan. I really feel that for a number of reasons most of ~nich have to do with the configuration of the site that a two-story plan would be better. When I say two-story, I want you to know what I have in mind. This little shingle house, which is on Channing, is what I have in mind, where the second-story. rooms are essentially buried in the attic space of the first-floor home. If you look at this proposed alternate plan, you will see that the setbacks are far, greater than I am able to provide on a one-story plan, from the Salaberts’ property, which is a two-story house, I can get a 20-foot setback. From the other closest adjacent neighbor, the Savoyes, I am able to get a ]O-foot setback. In general, I am able to reduce the size and shape of the house. With the two-story plan, the profile, the size of the house, the square footage, the amount~the neighbors can see looking over their fence is less than half of what the one-story plan provides because it is not snaking all over the property. The two-story house/rea!ly minimizes the impact. Of course,’ privacy is a consideration. What we are proposing is that there would only be dormer windows on the front, facing the front yard, none along this section behind the Parcel .property. There would be dormers facing Echols’ property, and that is all. You can see how far set back the garage is and the 01/27/88 house is even behind that on the Echols’ property. In no case is privacy violated. In no case are you looking down into a neighbor’s yard. The other point is that there is an assumption that this is primarily a single-story neighborhood. I started looking around, and it turns out that the Salabert property is two-story, the F1emlng property is. two-story, this property is .two-story, this property has the potential of being two-story, as do all of these propertles,and apparently the Stewarts are considering a second story. So more than 50 percent of the adjoining properties have the potential or already are two-story properties. So I Would urge you to conslder this, so the Flemings get a house plan they can live with. The family room is next to the yard, The neighbors have much less of a house that they have to look out at. It is no higher, it is half the frontal and side area, and I really feel it is a superlative alternative. I hope you will consider both plans. We have tried really hard with both of them to minimize the impact. Commissiop~r Hirsch: To clarify one point. On the two-story plan, my blueprint says the height limit is 60 feet. Is that correct? I assume that must be 20 feet. Hr. Hill: That is incorrect. It is supposed to be 20 feet. Commission_e~: What is the total number of square feet in the two-story house? Mr. Hill: I designed it to be the same square footage as the first-floor plan, and I cannot remember what that was. .~o.mmissioner Marsh: 3,200 square feet, I believe. Mr. Hill: That is including the garage. I believe it is about Z,BO0 square feet. Commissioner MarFh: Is there a basement in the two-story plan? ~: There coul~ be. Commissioner Mar~h: What is the footprint of the second story? It appears from the elevations that all but the living room of the two-story house is two story. Is that correct? Mr. Hill:’ Yes. Basically the width of the main block of the building is 22 feet wide, and coming in at a 45 degree pitch, youend up with a kind of 12-14 foot wide section where you can put a hall and one bedroom. So the hall goes to the side which does not have exposure to the neighbors. Fommiss~er Mad: Out of curiosity, if you can build a two-story house in a 20-foot height limit, why was the one-story house that you 01/Z7/SB designed also 20 feet? Mr. H!il: Because of the neighbors. That is the look they llke~ and it is also consistent with the last four houses at the end of the block. Caro]e Flemina, llSg Lincoln Court: ~e have been living on Lincoln Court for approximately three months now, and we have been negotiating both privately and with the neighbors in relatlon to this issue. We were not given guidelines from the planning staff until late in December so we. were not able to come up with some plans until early January. We were not able to really show them to our neighbors until the middle of January. We are now towards the end of January, and the reason why I point this out is that I do not think we have done a real good job of negotiating anything with our neighbors, because frankly, we have been a little hamstrung by the process. Being the new kids on the block, we have felt as though it was not really our place to start calling neighborhood meetings when the process was already there on Lincoln Court. When we received the plans from Larick, I first showed them to our most immediate. neighbors~ The neighboracross the street Indicated a preference for the second-story plan. The neighbor next to us indicated a preference for the second-story plan also. The neighbor across from us said she could llve with the one-story plan, and the new buyer on the right said he had no problem with the one-story plan. The other neighbors’ reactions have been mixed. The .reason I think they have been mixed is because I think they have been impacted in different ways. I have personally .spoken with as many of the neighbors as I was able to reach during this two-week envelope between then and now. Frankly, I was a little confused by what I heard because I was trying to work through the leader of the group, and I was unable to sift through what the group wanted in relation to what the ]eader of the group wanted. So I have been rather frustrated in trying to arrive at a consensus of opinion. I am not sure that there is even a consensus within the group currently. We have receive~ four different versions in the last ten days of what the neighbors’.needs .are, and frankly, I am rather frustrated and do not know where togo from here, except ~I can say that either Plan A or Plan Bwould work for our family. Plan B would be ~uch more sensitive to the.visual impact, as well is the privacy impact on the neighbors, particularly the Salaberts and the Stewarts, being quite far away from their back yards. We have spoken with. Mrs. Echols, and she is not terribly concerned about having a 20-foot setback behind her home. The new buyer is not particularly concerned with a 20-foot setback behind their home, so frankly, I am confused about what the neighbors really do want. I know’ that .they have individual needs that relate specifically to the configuration of their property and in relation to ours. We have not been included in the last round of meetings, and I must say that that did not help the process of negotiation. We have all learned a lot through this process, but I am not sure we.can accept what the neighbors are asking, or what Heather White’s plan is because I am not sure it meets all the needs of the neighbors. 01/27/BB -26- Larick’s two plans, either one, meets the needs. Plan A does not meet the needs for the Salaberts’ setback nor for the Stewarts’. setback, but I firmly believe that ’Plan B is extremely sensitive, particularly in view of the fact that the height.of the roof, atIts highest point, is basically the same as the last four houses on Lincoln Court. The front, dormers would look out on the Flemings’ front lawn and the back dormers would look out on Mrs. Echols’ back lawn, and her house is set back quite a ways from there. She is not particularly concerned with a setback on the order of 20 feet, especially since her yard is so long. So I would ask that you approve either Plan A or Plan B, but I prefer Plan B since it is much more sensitive to the neighbors. Thank you. J~.~_ther White. 1177 Lincoln Court: Obviously, we have gotten down to the final arm wrestling here. I do not consider myself the leader, but I have agreed to speak forthe group because I am the only one, it seems, that is not so nervous that I fall down when I come before you. I have tried to pull things together, At the last meeting, the Flemings were not invited, although it would have been fine with me . if they had come at the end. We spent quite a bit of time. just trying to. stamp out what we, as a group, wanted at the bottom line. That does not mean that there is total agreement on all the issues, but the bulk of the things I will talk about we are in agreement on. I will try and address where there are some differences as-we.go along. Also I want to explain what I mean when I say I am representing the majority, There are ]8 households that are directly affected by this subdivision. They are either houses on the court or houses that surround the property. Of that ]B, one belongs to Echols and one belongs to the Flemings, so that reduces it to 16 households that are not owned by Mr. Fleming. Two developers on the court have dropped out at this point. It is not that they do not have some restrictions that they have let the Flemings know about but they are no longer with the majority of the group. I think it is obvious why two developers would not philosophically or.personally be able to stand behind the kind of restrictions that we want to see.. As a matter of fact, we felt we got bogged down in details at the.last meeting, and we lost t~e thrust of what we wanted to accomplish, The majority of the Lincoln" Court homeowners and surrounding neighbors of the Fleming subdivision proposal at 1159 Lincoln Court are united in adamant opposition to the proposals that have been presented thus far for various reasons. I certainly hope this has not. come down tonight to be either Plan A or Plan B. We certainly would rather see Plan C or Pla~ D developed. This is a high-impact Z-shaped lot with 12 sides. There are actually three front lines, three back lines and six side lines. Eleven of those lines directly affect the back yard. Standard zoning regulations are not designed to deal with 12-sided lots. A five-sided lot is highly unusual. A six-slded Ro] lot would be bizarre. A 12oslded lot is unthinkable. As a matter of fact, I called several.planning departments, including our own, and asked them if there were any 12-sided residential lots they had ever heard of, and the several I phoned couldthink of some fives and a couple of sixes, but nobody had heard of even aseven, let alone an 8, g, 10 or 12, so in other words, we are being asked to be the proud recipients of the only I2-sided lot probably in the entire Bay Area, if not California. So we need to look at this in the perspective of what it really is. It Is impossible to meet the splrit and the goals of the front and rear setback regulations in such a situation. You can’t)fit a Z-shaped peg into a square hole. The only way to meet the goals of front and back setbacks is to make all six front and backlines, have 20-foot setbacks. This effectively narrows the central building space which is, of course, the highest impact space also, which is something we want. It would bethe only fair way to deal with the ¯ numerous neighbors who would be wrapped in the building envelope without the usual front and back setback relief. If the spirit or goal sounds too frightening, I can demonstrate why this is fair in numbers also. A traditional 12,000 square-foot lot (this is a little more than that) is a IO0 feet x 120 feet, if it is going to be square, and I know they are not all square, but let’s say that is it, setbacks,, depending on which is the width, would take up between 2,000 and 2,400 total square feet for both the front and back setbacks.In other words, setbacks are not just for distance from neighbors.It is also total square footage of open space on a lot and that open space does usually match with your neighbor’s open space, so if you are going to meet the spirit and the goal, I ~hink you need to have an equal amount of front and back setbacks. The way we worked it out on this, (referes. to transparency on overhead projector)the dotted lines on the corners, ls buildable space. I recognize this as an odd configuration. It is not impossible. It is an interesting design project. The numbers for the front and back setbacks are, for the front, a total of 2,253, which we think is fair, since this is such a high impact lot, we should go for the highest number which is assuming that the width would be 120 feet. From the back it is 2,390 square feet. That meets that portion of what people would llke. There is not agreement.. Idrew this up after we had agreed on wanting the 20 feet on all three fronts and backs. We have not come to final agreement on the sides. Obviously the Savoyes would be a lot happier with ten feet. The 12 feet on the Parcels’ lot is very important. I think 12 is a better number than 10 for the reason that the first three houseson Lincoln Courtdown from him, all of their setbacks have been historically made a~d they were designed and built that way by the driveway on thenelghborlng property. The houses, as you know, are built right on the property line. The Flemings’ house is actually 13 feet from the Parcels’ house. That is. not counting the chimney. The other driveways are the same, 13 feet. Sixteen feet side setback is standard, rather than 12.. It is real instructive just to talk about setbacks in general~ust a little bit. It is real instructive on the Flemings’ proposal that they are 18 feet back from their other property on Lincoln Avenue~ 01/27/88 which is a reflection of their understanding of what a good setback does for property values for their own property and for privacy. It was the widest and longest setback on the one-story proposal, other than a small line up by the Stewarts. So that is a statement. It is not Just we that want that. Everybody has their own interests here, and our interests are pretty much the same, except that we are coming at it from different sides. About the 44 feet in the front. That existing house is actually five feet closer to the road than they indicate. There has been a lot. of fudging on numbers, which I will try to correct as we go along. If you measure that, it shows 17 feet back, but it is actually 12 feet back from the court. There is a thing called two-stage building. I bring this up because I do not want. to see 44 feet of driveway. If you have a two-car garage and you have a 20-foot driveway 44 feet long, you have BBO square feet of cement. My house, with my variance, is going to be 750 square feet. That means that their cement is going to .be bigger than most of the houses on thecourt. I really do not want to see that. If it is nicely landscaped and all, you still can’t camouflage BBO square feet of cement. There is no amount of trees you can put near that that is not going to have that. Also, if they stay there forever, they would keep the landscaping up, but if somebody moved in and was not a great gardener, then we have 880 square feet of cement and a desert. So I would really prefer a more attractive building line closer up, and I am pretty sure the majority is behind me on this, and they are going to speak about their own special concerns. With two-stage building development, you. can put in your bedrooms and your family room and your kitchen, which makes it very livable, tear down that house, and then add your living room, dining room, garage. You don’t have to do the whole thing 100 percent. You can design it in two stages. Even if they can’t design it in two stages and the only way they could build this house is to tear down that one, I want to remind the planning commission that it is not the neighbor’s responsibility nor the City of Palo Afro’s responsibility to provide housing for someone while they develop a lot. Even though it would be very nice and I would like to be able to have them do this in two stages so that they can save the money on rent,.that is not a primary goal for any of us, I don’t think..I certainly hope it isn’t, because something would be odd there. I could live with this basic envelope. I would like to see the Savoyes have ten feet, I would like to even move the corner of the Stewarts over ~to ten feet so that the dotted llne is actually at a greater angle, and maybe do the same with the other dotted llne. There~ are ways to do this.. This is a huge envelope. A good architect can build something fun in a huge envelope. A total square footage, however, of 12,000 square feet does not imply, a right to build. Period. It certainly does not imply a right to build a typical .35 percent coverage house without direct access. What if someone had acquired 20,000 square feet and it was shaped like a skinny W. This is a Z. We are square. We are traditional, and so is Palo Alto. Our first choice is for these to be ordinary, 01/27/BB square lots, and they can be. We keep losing sight of this, or we have not lost sight of this, but it keeps getting shuffled off. The only really reasonable way to merge the two landlocked parcels (and may I point out that the Echols property has not been purchased yet, that is subject to getting the subdivision) that the F1emlngs own is to attach each one to. the closest property they already~own on Lincoln Court and Lincoln Avenue. This would create two large, almost ordinary, decent lots where the usual setbacks would apply and be fair to all. The Flemings would not lose a penny if they did this. They would gain the most from their own square footage. It is not too late. We will not accept any.other optlons other than selling the land to interested neighbors for back yard space, or the setbacks that we have talked about, with a one-story, 1,800 square feet house. I have to listen to some of this stuff about two stories and windows, and we have not looked at specific plans. Part of the reluctance to do that is that it seems premature to look at plans and say, Oh I like this and I like that, and let’s move this line here and move that line there. It obscures our main thrust which is that we do not likethis subdivision. We want two, big square lots. That is it. The other thing .is that the majority of us, the majority of the majority, I should say, a couple of people want a little less than what I am going to say and couple of people are willing to give a little more. Nobody in the majority of the people, and I am speaking for~ all the people you can name - the old folks on the corner, some people down in Southern California, a couple that lives in Los Altos, Wendy Peterson who could not be here tonight who is representing the interests of herproperty, the developer is reluctant to get involved because he obviously does not want to make enemies before he has even moved in or startedwork. All these people and several who are here, we are in touch. Most of the lots are not 30 to 35 feet wide. There are three of them that are that narrow. The majority of them are 50 feet or more wide. Mine is 4g, and I think that other than the long, skinny lots that are 33, I think I am the narrowest. The three lots at the end, other than mine, are quite large..They could easily, add another couple of bedrooms and a bathroom without even a variance, probably. They have room to move back there. At any rate, all of us are very strong ih not wanting more than an I,BO0 square-foot house on the court. That includes the garage. This works out to be a FAR of about 16.25 calculated on the square footage minus the easement square footage, because you can’t calculate coverage on FARsby.the driveway easement, it has been decided. It is a major point for all of’us who live on the court. In the packet it said it is a social issue, not a physical issue. We really. disagree with. that. None of us is against children or families.. I am not against a big house in a big place, but the impact on the court andon the driveway of a larger house is going to mean more people. It is going to mean more cars. I worked out some statistics here based on. our progress on the court so far. Originally on.the court there were ]] houses, or 13 who use the court, because the two 01/27/88 at the very end side on the court and their garages use the court, so they use it for a driveway but their addresses are. Lincoln Avenue. These 11 houses that have Lincoln Court addresses have 13 bedrooms total, and initially ]4 garage spaces. This was about 60 years ago, so if all of them were lucky ~enough to own a car in those days, that would have been 14 cars. Now, we have 20 bedrooms that exist on the court, or are in progress, and I include mine, and ! am including the one that I know the fellow who is buying Parcel’s property is going to add, so we have 20 bedrooms within easily the next six months. Now we have 21 cars owned by people on the court. That is seven more bedrooms and seven more cars. If the Flemlngs get (I counted the two bedrooms they already have) two more bedrooms, and have four, which I hope would be the maximum, and if the three houses on theend all added a bedroom, which they could easily do, and Carol and the Horns decided to add a bedroom too, like the Parcels, then we would have 27 bedrooms, and I’ll bet you we would have seven more cars, too. Bedrooms mean people, and large houses with a lot of bedrooms mean a lot of kids. It often means teenagers. Even if their kids are young now and they never move, they are going to be older then. This court is not designed to handle 28 cars and teenagers and visitors, etc. etc. It is impacted. The other reason for not wanting a large house is that it is completely out of character with the cottage atmosphere of the existing homes on the court, which we like. The average square Footage, as I said before, is 755 square feet, without the garage. We welcome modest enlargements, and none of the small improvements have been opposed, like adding a bedroom or adding a bathroom. Let’s try and make it nice for all of us in a small way. If anyone on the court wanted ~to do two stories and get a variance for that, we would fight that, or if they wanted to build up to six feet all around, we would fight that, but we are trying to be real reasonable with each other. Anything that does not destroy the cottage character we approve. .Even if all the homes were improved to a one-story maximum for their lot, even with~ minor variances, the average square footage would still be less than 1,200 square feet. I think the Flemings are being selfish= But I don’t blame them. If I were in the same position, I might try and do the same thing. They took a gamble. We refused to allow this to happen. They may not make as much money, but they certainly won’t lose any by being forced to take another route or meet stiffer restrictions. We insist on it. Not everythlng.in life is up for negotiation. Dick .... Clark, 1185 .~: My concern is the size. The only aspects that have not been covered, the lot has been covered, is that we recently chipped, in and paved that street. We havetomaintain and keep it upourselves. That is one of the problems. I feel that a large house is going to impose increased traffic, and a bigger house means that during the long construction stage, it will be that much more torn up and hard to get in and out. O1/27/B8 Bob... Horn ..... ]80 Erlca Way. Menlo Park: My wife and I own ]155 Lincoln Court and have owned it for about 25 years, My concern is for population density in this very compact area, and the huge size of this 3,200 square-foot home plus abasement, which is also presumably additional living area. The question I would like to leave with the planning commission is, is population density a criterion, or do you solely look at the size of houses? ee Horn. 180 £rica Way. Hen!~: As you heard, my husband and ! own the property at 1155 Lincoln Court, and we adjoin Parcel A, even though it is not listed on your information dispensed January 22. We have owned the cottage since 1963, so by our links of ownership, you can see we arenot Just tn it to make a buck and are not fly-by-night owners. We have a vested interest in maintaining the property and the property value. We feel that the F]emings’ development will detract from the status of the court now. When Hrs. Fleming phoned me last week and asked the basic question, just what were we opposed to, my answer was density and traffic. Density.is the cause, trafftc is the effect. It comes down to the size of the house. The larger the square footage allowed, the greater the impact on the court and the surrounding properties, resulting in greater traffic, noise and potential danger, with damage to the privately maintained street, as well as the. sewer. The proposed 3,200 square- foot house with possible addition of a basement as a living area could add another 1,000 or 2,000 square feet. That is absolutely overwhelming. The court can now be described as being cozy, but it can become claustrophobic. I am holding up a can of sardines. They are. neatly packed little fish, side by side in an orderly manner, and the~e is a little room on the edges for juice and oil. This is important for the preservation of the quality of those fish. Perhaps you can think of Lincoln Court in the same manner, having tiny little houses, neatly .packed, side by side, and on the edges, there is alittle space for preservation of quality. Injecting a much larger fish five or six times greater in size sardines, and it has affected applied to Lincoln Court. Chairman Christensell: I want is out of character to the tiny the entire can. The same..can be to respond briefly to the issue of density. We are in a position to consider the physical impacts on neighbors and privacy issues and issues like that. We do n6t have the ability to control the number of people who live: in a single-family home, or the size of a family that a person wants to have~ and any home in Palo Alto is entitled to have as many children or as few as they want to, or as many families living there as. they want to, and we are not in a position to control that particular issue of population. We can control the size. TerrY~art. ]]4] F~Z~.}_t.~=~3_P=D_~: I have one correctlon on the staff report. Parcel B is in the wrong location. It is actually directly behind Parcel A, You can see the upper view of our property and basically, this is the way it really looks. We have a.]ot of 01/27/88 houses in a small space. This is a one,story proposal, but the mass of the roof is what worries us because of our views and how close it is in this tight little space. Now they have gone to the plan with the second story, and within a foot or two, they are alnmst identical. We are worried about this upper space in the attic and the dormers and skylights that might be built up there. The reasons for not granting the preliminary parcel map are the ones already brought up - density, traffic, safety, and interest in the property values and quality of life for the neighbors, loss of privacy and encouraging variances. A lot of us are asking for variances for existing properties, but now we have something that is being created, a rear lot subdivision being created, and will be asking for more variances as time goes on. We have a proposed solution to this which Heather has announced. It is to take the property at I]59 and add on to the back of it, and make that a larger lot of 60 x 100. We are not opposed to an 1,800 square-foot houses that would fit there. That would not impact the majority of us as much as the proposed Z-lot. Also, the other part ofthe lot could be added on to the 113] .property on Lincoln which Mr. Fleming owns and which has no back yard because he. has ,built over so much of it. Also Mrs. Echols is not concerned because she has not sold her property yet. If the PC does endorse Mr..Fleming’s reconfiguration, we are.asking for basically what Heather had down - 20-foot setbackson all lot lines parallel to Forest Avenue and all side yards to a minimum of 10 fee~. My particular lot is a flag lot off of Forest. Our sideyar~ is actually facing Forest and our front yard faces the other neighbor;s driveway. In my front yard, I have driveway over half of it and a garage six feet from the property line. On my side yard which is up against the Savoyes, we have a garage that is three feet from the property line for about three or four feet. The other side yard has zero clearance of the garage which extends all along it. The only prediction I do have now is basically my back yard, which would face Flemlng’s development. We were protected when we moved into th~s property by. Mrs. Echols’ property which was parallel to our back line. You take your chances when you buy something but.to have something like this created taking 21 feet of her lot is doing away with our protection. Now we are ending up.wlth an opposing mass wanting to be created in our back yard. One thing that has jelled this for the neigh6ors is the house constructlon, at 113], which now has a second story on it which we see from the back of our house, our kitchen, dining room and our living:room. We knew that was coming~ and that .was ~art of the allowable city codes, but to have this looming structure all of a sudden come out of.the foliage kind of brought the point home. So basically another point we had in our letter was concerning the undergroundlng of the utilities. ! did not see anything in the proposal for what would happen, but we don’t want to have expense put on present owners .for the undergrounding of these utilities or to have new telephone poles popping up on our property lines. Craig .....Savoye, 1153 Llncol~ .Court: I have a couple, of points I would like to make. One ~is to give you a little background on the negotiations that went on here. It was the hope of a number of us in the neighborhood that the neighborhood could come to some sort of consensus and take that to Mr. Fleming and then reach a position that we could bring to the commission. That would have made the commission’s job much easier to make a decision on this. The neighborhood was not able to reach a consensus and that ts why Mr. Fleming was not approached. I don’t think it was incumbent upon the neighborhood to reach a consensus. There are 14 properties impacted, and each of those 14 families are entitled to their opinion. I just mention all that because I think the point is, and I don’t presume to speak for the commission, the commission simply has to speak out on this and impose a decision. We cannot, from this side of the podium, come up with something lock, stockand barrel that you can agree to. The second point ! want to make is that we have spoken an entire evening about the size of the house, the footprint, etc., but there are several side issues that I think are as important, and are not toss-off issues. Dne is the construction of the house..It is basically a landlocked lot, as you know, with the house remaining there. It seems to me it would be very difficult to get cement mixers and lumber trucks in there, notonly up the court but past the existing house. I don’t think that in itself is any small issue. Grea O@born, 1450 Greenwood Avenue. Palo AI~o: I happened here by accident and was not really coming to address this issue.but to listen to some later ones. I happen to llve in a house that.was designed by Larick H~ll, at least, the remodel Was. I place a great deal of trust in his architectural judgment. As I hear this, and I live a couple of blocks away so I am not in the middle of this. ’ discussion, but it seems to me that the house with two stories has half the footprint, that the lawn area will. be substantially increased, and at least in our neighborhood, we appreciate the lawn area in front of all our neighbors’ houses. It contributes to the whole nelghborhood. So the more green, the more plants, the more flowers, the better the whole neighborhood is. As I hear about the roof size, it’ sounds llke the roof line of the house is toward the back of the court,~the same as what is being proposed. I looked at the designs and have listened to this whole thing, and it seems to me that this is a classic example of designing a camel. In fact, if you put the one-.story footprint up there, it kind of looks like a camel, So just as abalanclng comment, I trust Larick’s architectural sensitivity to design a twd-story structure and I think it will wear well over time, not only for. the occupants but also for the neighbors. Austris Runais. 683 Old La Honda Road~ Woodsid~: I am one step removed from these proceedings tonight because I am not a homeowner, but .I am a property owner, and therefore will not be speaking with the same passion as some on both sides have spoken. However, the map that you have here entitled Parcel B is owned bymy family, the.Zunte family, and some of .my mother-in-law’s comments are probably applicable. I have enjoyed sitting here listening, not only to Item #2 but also to Item #1, and I notice the community spirit that was expressed by the Palo Alto people. I think that to some degree this is the same concern that my family has with this particular project. The Fleming architect intimated that there is a. two-story possibility. That is correct. The Zunte family has had this two-story possibility and I must say they also have the resources to do that. However, my mother-in-law has chosen not-todothat. She has chosen not to appear in front of you, and I assume it is to lighten your load. But I think it is more than that. It is notonly a discussion of economics, but also a question, as I can see here, that the Flemings are trying to squeeze as big a house as they can on a 12-slded lot. We view this whole issue a little bit differently. My mother-in-law has always seen this as a quality of life issue. She, as you can see from the lot, has had plenty of opportunity to do a lot of things with that particular property, and she has chosen not to do so, because she honors it, even though.~hedoes not llve in this community, to maintain the community the way it is. That is why we support the people of this long-term, well established community. We, on behalf of the property that we own, ask that the commissioners seriously consider tonight some of the proposals that were advanced. Thank you for your time.. Juliet Stewart, ]141 Forest__Av~: I feel a little odd being here as a member of a group whose leader was elected this evening bsfore my very eyes, Her main ability, so she claims, is that she doesn’t fall down in public as much as the rest of us. However, I would.like to say that even though she was elected by somebody else, she is a very good leader and I will vote for her now. I am Mrs. Stewart, the person about whom the rumor started before my very ears tonight that I was putting a second story on my house. I find that sort of interesting, I have never had a rumor start before my very ears before, Besides that, I do need more space, and. if the whole neighborhood is going to go second story, led by the Flemings, maybe it is a good idea. However, I want to make it clear that that is not my intent.. It is clear that we all feel very strongly about this in the neighborhood. The point I want to make is that even though we have little odds and endsthat we do not agree on, and have differences of opinion because we have differing viewpoints on this, we all agree that We are very unhappy with the situation. Everybody takes risks in life, and some. are successful and some of them are not.: Mr. Fleming purchased the lot at 1131 Lincoln Avenue with a house on.i~, and he purchased the lot at I]59 Lincoln Court with a houseon it. He then purchased two interior non-access lots. They are two separate lots, as I have down on record. Neither one had access for 40 years. He wants to add to this holding 21 feet ofthe back of Mrs. Echols’ yard. There were risks involved with that, and Mr. Fleming knew that, I am sure, when he purchased those properties. He knew that to develop them as he wants to, he had to ask for a parcel 01/27/BB map, and he knew that in order to get access, he choseto accessover 1159 Lincoln court. He knew there was a risk in that. He is having to ask for an exception in the drawing of the parcel map in that it is a private driveway. He knew there was a risk involved in that. There are all theother things that we have come before you about in the last six months and three planning commission meetings to discuss. There is the density - if we were standing in the mlddl.s of those lots now, people would not be up here fumbling with their visuals and would not be fumbling with their words to describe the situation. It is very clear when you are there. Some ofyouhave been there, and both sides appreciate that. I am sure you can see how densely it is packed in there. As Chairman Chrlstensen saldl,it is not a matter of the people. You can’t address~that. It is well .over R-] zoning now, as far as the buildings that are there, as I understand it. When Mr. Fleming bought this property, he saw it, it is just so clear when you see It, that it is really densely packed. Any additional large volume houses are going to impact on that density. Surely he knew he had access over the court. He chose to do that. He chose to request that, anyway. There is the Issue of the traffic, too. It is clear that the court is narrow. It was not designed ~or the .kind of traffic that it has now, to say nothing of additional traffic. All those things we have been talking about I am sure we are very clear on. There is the utility easement that he was going to have to ask to change that and ask for a different. easement. There is a risk in doing that, I would assume. Hechose to take all those risks, I guess, and it is very clear that the neighborhood is not ver~ happy with his request to develop them the way he is requesting. It makes me feel like what I am being .asked to do, if Hr. Fleming is allowed~to develop that property the way he wants to develop it, is that I am being asked to pay for the risk that he took by letting him insinuate his house far back into the property, exposing the court to this large expanse of cement and parking lot and’the rest of us to this great big house which seems to grow all the time, even though I keep leaving PC meetings hearing one story, and the next thing I know, it is two story again. It just seems to keep popping up. The point is that there is a risk taken and I don’t really think that we should be responsible for the.fact that we don’t have: to, as Heather White said, provide Mr. Fleming with housing. ’He chose to take the risk. I don’t think we should be responsible for paying for it when it is, in fact, going to infringe on our quality of life, on our privacy, on all of those things. We have worked together as a neighborhood group and we have clearly had lots of different thoughts on it but they have all been unified in one thought, which is that we are really opposed to this. We have worked hard to come up with acceptable alternative suggestions and alternative plans, and we have presented them to you. I know it is late and I know you people have a lot more things in front of you, and for us to ask you to really answer all of thes~ questions that we need answered. It is difficult, but after this meeting is over, you go home to your houses and your backyards but if this plan is approved, we all go home and live with whatever is there for as long as we live in our houses. .Bill Han~el, I|21 Lincoln Avenue: The only thing I want to say is to please not put much stock in whether or not the neighborhood is together on this, because a lot of us were thrown into this. Most of us knew each .other, and some of us didn’t, especially the landlords who live elsewhere..We certainly have never been here before, but my. wife and I support Heather White’s position. Chairlpan Ghrist¢nse~: Since I have no other cards from members of the public, I will close the public hearing and return this item to the planning commission. I have had a request from Commissioner Chandler that we consider postponing the hearing on RM multifamily. zoning ordinance changes that are before us to our February meeting, with a special meeting for action on February Commisslon~r Chandler: I know that staff does not llke special meetings, but these changes in the multifamily zones deserve very detailed attention when we are wide awake. To try and tack them on when we have a busy agenda is not the right way to go about making a significant change in our zoning ordinances. We need to clear space for it when we can deal with it unencumbered with other issues. Ms. Jansen: I would agree. It deserves a lot of attention, and there is a lot of interest by the public inthat issue. We have a meeting scheduled for February 10. It is all noticed for the tenth, and is ready for that date. We could go ahead and notice a special meeting for February ]7 for action by the commission on the multifamily regulations, if that is your desire. We have plenty of time for the noticing. However, if the commission wanted substantial changes between the 10th and the ]7th, there would not be adequate time. TM__0_T_I.QJ~:Commissioner Wheeler. order.I move that we lake Item 5 out of ~.F._~_QJ~: By Com~issioner Chandler. Chairman Christensen:~ All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes by a unanimous vote. Now we need to set a date to take this up. ..~_=__J_IJ1}_~: .... I wouldsay that February 24 would be a good date..At this time we have only one other item on that agenda. MOTION: Chairman Christensen: I move that we move the multifamilY zoning ordinance regulation changes to our meeting of February with the action part of that agenda item to be moved to our February 24 meeting. SEC_~F_0_~: By Commissloner Wheeler. Chairman C~: All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Marsh: I first want to comment on how much consideration I feel that members of the planning commission and the staff have given this in.the three hearings it has had before this body. I and other commissioners have been out to that site before each hearing. I was out there twice today, as I.wanted to go .back and look at the things I had seen earlier in the afternoon. So each of us, individually, has worked hard to try and find an equitable solution to this. There are possibilities in the second-story~esign that has been proposed, but I do not feel it is there yet. Basically I would characterize two real problems for the development of this site. First are the setbacks as they apply to each of those 12 surrounding properties. Secondly is the accumulated mass. Although the setbacks certainly have a very direct effect on adjacent neighbors, the neighbors are also affected by the general mass in that back area, The one-story plan that has been proposed is really unacceptable on both those bases. There are possibilities in the two-story plan, but as I said, I don’t think it is there yet..I really don’t want the commission to get into a position of trying ~o redesign that house or suggest acceptable changes in it up here tonight. We tried to do that the last time, and now we are confronted with a footprint that we probably cannot accept tonight.- I think it would be a mistake to continue that.process and talkmore about second-story restrictions and additional setbacks or moving the front. Instead, I would make the following proposal: we deny this application for a parcel map and that we encourage the applicant to come back with a parcel map that includes the merger of simply two lots, that is, the lot.that fronts on Lincoln Court and Parcel B- the oblong piece of Parcel A that is adjacent to the Lands of Salabert. I believe that within that section, particularly that section of those two merged lots that is included in the 64-width on Lincoln Court, we could have a footprint of a house, with some restrictions on height and on the size of the second stor~;that mlght be acceptable to both the neighbors and the homeowner. However, there is no need to include the merger of the second landlocked parcel or the Echols’ land at this point, if we are in agreement that that rectangular a~ea is where we would like to see the .footprint of the house. The cleanest way we can proceed is to deny the application and ask that a different application come forward which addresses those two parcels. Commissioner Chandler: I am inclined to agree that that is where a house should go, but I do not necessarily see that the process is going to be .improved by Just saying that tonight and then not going any further, waiting for yet another plan. We could use that.as a starting point, and I would be interested in hearing whether my colleagues agree that that is where a house should go, and see if we can take some of the different options that have been presented, and see if there is a set of setbacks in there that is workable. Commissioner Mar~h: By my calculations, that would produce, on the 01/27/88 rectangular piece that fronts Lincoln Court, a lot of approximately 7,000 square feet, a very reasonable size. ¢o~iss!oner Cullen: Under your proposal, Commissioner Marsh, what would happen to the rest of the }and that would still be landlocked? Con~issioner Marsh: It could be used in any way that the landowner wished to use it. It could be used. as back yard for the house on Lincoln Court. It would not have to be merged. It would still be under the same ownership and used as private open space. Or it could be merged or used as backyard space for the Fleming houseon Lincoln Avenue. There are several possibilities that we would leave to the discretion of the owner. : Then I have a question for staff, Are we creating an unusable lot if we were to simply use the Iotllnes that Commissioner Marshhas recommended? Ms. Jansen: If you are talking about the lot that is proposed to be on Lincoln Court, it would not be an unusable lot. It would be a very usuab~e lot. The remaining portions, as Commissioner Marsh suggested, could be merged with others. They would be unusable for other than recreational or open space purposes. They would not be usable for building purposes because they have no legal access. This would not make it more unusable than they presently are. Chairma~ qhristepsen: they presently are. It essentially does not change them from what {~_s. JanseD: That is correct. Chairman Chrlstensen: So the city would not be creating anything. Commissioner Hirsch: My figures indicate that we would have something under 8,400 square feet for the parcel Commissioner Marsh proposes. Commissioner Marsh: ~ I think you have included the L. What I was calculating was just the simple rectangle thatfronts on Lincoln Court, the 106’ x 65’ piece. Commissioner ..Hitsh: What part would you be eliminating? WhatI see is the front parcel that fronts on Lincoln Court, plus the re~tangle that has the words "Parcel A" within it. Commissl n r Marsh: Yes, that is the piece I am talking ’about, and 7,000 was justa ballpark figure, using LincolnCourt frontage.. ~er Hir_F_s_~b: Right, and my calculations are up around 8,400. Would you also put an FAR limitation on there? o i i r Marsh: This parcel is going to have to go through a OII271BB -39- similar process. If you are in agreement, if we take this action, the new parcel application would have to have some limitations on it. It seems cleaner to me to begin fresh that that is where the footprint goes. The staff and the applicant can work together, rather than to sit up here tonight and try to make these judgments, particularly when the applicant may want to think about how he can use that last landlocked parcel. Commissioner Hirsch: The thought I had was that if we use an FAR of 0.38 which.has been used previously by the city, you would still have a house with an excess of 3,000 square feet, albeit it might be a two-story house. If you reduce that somewhat, you still might come up with something significantly larger than the nearby neighbors would like to have. ~ommissioner Marsh: I would not suggest that you accept a parcel merger of those two lots without any other restrictions. I think this would come as well, but we would be starting afresh. I wonder if the staff would like to comment on this approach. ’ ’ Ms. OBnsen: If this is the commission’s desire, you have a couple Of alternatives. One is to ask the applicant if he would be willing to resubmit a map under the present application, therebysaving the application feesL If he is not, then it would be prudent to recommend denial of the map .before you. In regards to any redevelopment of that property, I do not think that the issues that have been raised with this proposal will go away. We still have the situation where we have substantially smaller buildings, no garages fronting on Lincoln Court, a number of physical development factors about that street that I think it would be important to address. You need to give the applicant and.the staff some good direction as to which way you wanted that application to go, in terms of theactual housing development.We can help you with those, if that is the commission’s choice. Commissioner Hirsch: I feel that Carol said that very well, and as I understand it, under single family zoning, the~e are no FAR limitations for a~single lot, so we have to condition, that. Otherwise we. Willbe back in the same situation we are in now. We may have a slightly smaller lot to deal with, but wlthout.an FAR limitation and other limitations, a pretty substantial house can be put 6n that lot, one which is significantly larger than the adjacent homes. As you say, the issues will not go away. Commissioner Cullen: For purposes of discussion, let’s take a look at this in another way. If you create that kind of lot, you are going to force the building closer to Lincoln Court, and therefore, it would be even more out of keeping with the surrounding neighbors. If you have the lot larger, you force the building back, and we could condition it so that the house, whatever its size, is not quite so proximate to Lincoln Court, and therefore, is less intrusive on the neighbors. I am a little concerned about creating a lot that pushes the house right out there. ~andler: [ do not see the dangers involved in a11owtng these parcels to be configured the way they are, if the building is- limited in terms of where it can go. What I do not understand is that a new application to merge the pieces that Commissioner Marsh talked about would also require a parcel map, correct? There would just be different resu]ting parcels from what we have now. ~:That’s correct. ! would, like to speak to the issue of the house.I feel that the streetscape is crtttcal to all of this. One of the issues relating to the application before you now, thts 3,000 square-foot house, is that the streetscape is broken by the removal of that existing house. This has been an issue that has been addressed at length b~ the ad hoc single-family subcomittee. If a single-stor~ house with no garage fronting on Lincoln Court were to be built on a standard, rectangular lot, as.suggested by Comisstoner Harsh, that would, in my opinion, be the most compatible development along that street that you could have. However, if it ends up being a two-stow house, if it has significantly different setbacks or if. it has a two-car garage fronting on Lincoln Court, the streetscape will not be the same. Chairman ~: I agree with Commissioner Marsh tha~ I see some potential in the two-story proposal that is before us, by moving it slightly on. the lot and changing the walls in certain places, but I do not want to sit up here, and I do not feel any ofus are in a -position to sit up here, and do that tonight. I see the neighbors willing to accept less of a setback, and I think there should be less of a setback. I don’t think the issue deciding this should be the fact that the Flemings want to live in the first house while they are building the second house. It would be nice, but it may not be possible, so I would like to see it moved closer to Lincoln Court; I would like to see some different treatment of the driveway, ~rather than just a straight however many feet back it is. If it were going to be the 44 feet, I would suggest a curved driveway, so it wouldn’t be Just this long driveway; but I do not want to sit here tonight and design it. ! do no, know where that leaves us. That is why I’was in support of her suggestion to deny it and try to move it forward into those two lots. What happens to the rest of the lots is not as much of a concern. Comm~~: I don’t want to sit here and design a house~ either, but that Is the situation we have been placed in by this application, and we will be, even if we say we only want to look at this front rectangle - bring us something back that we can react to, because we are going to get the same kind of testimony and we are going to be faced with the same issues. So ultimately, the question that presents itself, if we don’t want to design a house on this parcel, is to say, awe do notwant to do any reconfiguration of~lots here. There is a parcel that fronts on Lincoln Court that has access, it has a house on it now, that is the parcel that exists, live with it." If we don’t want to say that, we do need to look at this and ~see what we want to do, rather than bringing ~n yet another plan. I am reminded of anextreme situation that we had three years ago along the lines of Heather White’s. We had a lot on the West Bayshore frontage road, a standard size, rectangular lot that was proposed for an office building, but where the owner also proposed to merge it with an eight-foot wide, 2,600 foot long parcel fronting the creek directly~ behind it. That way he would get all that extra. square footage so he could then build his office building on the normal shaped front lot. That one was a non-starter. This is not as extreme as that, but at some point, we need to look at that. I have some ideas about what I would view as acceptable, including looking at that second-floor option on the front. If we are looking at that front ~rea and a rectangle as being the place for the house, I would like to be able to expound on what I feel wo~Id be a senslbl~ approach and see if we can reach agreement on that, rather than putting it off and bringing in yet another plan. Commissioner Hirsch: I have really heard enough discussion and detail on this issue, and we should.go ahead and make some decisions, based on either Plan A or Plan B in front of us, letting this move its natural course after that. I am concerned about moving the house forward, as might be proposed under Commissioner Marsh’s plan. Then- it would most likely be a two-story house, and would have a greater impact on the .Parcel home, and also the Savoye home, which would be extremely close on either side. Parcel is virtually up to the property llne, and Savoye has only a seven-foot setback on his side. So I cannot say I am particularly in favor of that. I would haveto say that the staff recommendation is pretty much something I said I would support the last time around. This is a horrible situation, and it has~ not been particularly exciting to sit here and listen to all the sentiment being posed against it. If the Flemings build home here, I cannot imagine how they are going to live satisfactorily with all these people and all the divergent opinions expressed so far. Maybe over a period of time, that will ease, and once something gets built, they will all become good neighbors again. There is an FAR being proposed by staff of 0.24, and I find that relatively, low, Multilot subdivisions, if I recall correctly, have an FAR of O.3Bi plus 400 square feet for a garage. I recognize that is on more uniformly configured parcels, but I for one quite frankly would be in favor of the staff recommendation. I amnot enamored with the two stories, unless the neighborhood said they were significantly:behind it, because that does create a significant number, not a lot,. think there were six shown) of second-story windows which have the potential of invading the privacy of nearby neighbors, particularly the Parcel home, the Savoye home and the Stewart home, where the house would be sited most closely. So I would be in favor of the’ staff recommendation limiting .the square footage to 3,000 square feet. ! recognize that is an awfully big home, but on theother hand, it is a relatively large lot. If you take the lot tha~ Co~missioner Marsh suggests, you come .up with a relatively good sized lot - according to my figures, B,400 square-foot. If you tare the conventional FAR (and I recognize there is no FAR in a single-family zone for one lot), a relatively good-sized lot could be placed on that. So really what the staff has done up to this date has balanced quite a few objectives, quite a few conflicting considerations, and ! am prepared to support it, with minor modifications. I would hope that the side yard setback between the Salabert house and the Parcel lot which is presently six feet could be increased somewhat, maybe at the expense of the setback between the adjacent Fleming property., which turns out to be 18 feet. MOTION: ~mmissioner. Chandle~r: I move that the building be limited to the west side of Parcel A, and that we consider two-story options within there. If that motion passes, we can then talk about setbacks and the nature of a second story within thatsp~ce. The motion for now is to define the building parcel (described as a straight line extension of the property line separating Parcel A from the Parcel property). I am suggesting that the parcel map be granted, but subject to the limitation that the building area that we defined be within the area to this side of a line to be drawn right here. SECOND: By Commissioner Marsh.. Co~issi~ner .GR~le~: For a point of clarification, when talking about the building envelope, we will take care of the setbacks afterwards?Is this granting the entire Parcel A and Parcel B subdivision?.. Commissioner Chandler: Yes, but looking at the building envelope (that we will define in the next step) as being within that area that I have shown, it could include a second story option, but we w~ll be considering that as well. I would like to get those issues clarified first. Commissioner Hir@ch: I will not support it, as I do not see any reason to ]Im|t it to that particular area. What you aredolng is cutting out area for potential development where there are no adjacent homes, .and you are pushing it forward to a place where it. will impact at least.~hree homes significantly. I don’t particularly care for that type~f design myself. I think it’s kinda crazy, but it at least it has the aspect of snaking around adjacent to people’s back yards where it won’t affect any major development, particularly if it is.limited to one story. ~ommi.s~ioner Wheeler: I would remind Commissioner Htrsch of two things. First the comments made by staff.about ways of preserving the current streetscape. Moving the envelope for the building closer to Lincoln Court is more consistent with maintaining the streetscape. Also remember where this proposed building envelope that you see outlined on the transparency came from. It came from the neighbors who would be impacted the most, in your opinion, by the building envelope. They were the ones that proposed the removal, of the existing house and the placement of the bulk of the new house up close, that you say you object to because of its impact on the neighbors. Commissioner Marsh: I am going to vote against this because, flrst of all, ] am not sure we should be redesigning this house. Secondly, I don’t like the way the lines are drawn, as they approach the’Echols property. If we were to do this, I feel strongly that we need to draw that bottom boundary of the rectangle across at the Lands of Savoye line, rather than including that additional 22 feet of Echols. property. You are really endangering that Stewart neighbor at the back as.long as you allow the house to come around the corner. Commissioner Chandler: Nobody is talking about setbacks or where the house would be. I am just saying that the house, to the extent that. it exists, will be within that area, Then we can define setbacks. Commissioner Marsh: I am saying that as long as you use that bottom line, you are guaranteed the 20-foot setback as the rear setback. Chairman Chri~tensen: As long as we have all the parcels merged. together~ from the city’s perspective, the rear setbackdoes not change, wherever we draw the envelope. So as long as we keep the parcels merged as proposed by Mr. Fleming, the setbacks from the city’s perspective are measured at the same places that they currently are. Commissioner M~: What would be the rear setback on that as drawn by Commissioner Chandler? Ms. Melena: As Chairman Christensen said, you are still merging the four parcels, so the rear setback still is technically the one that backs up to the Lands of Zunte. ~om~issioner Marsh: So we are still going to have to get into the setback .questions ourselves. That is precisely the problem. If we drew it as a cleaner rectangle, the rear setbacks are set for,us and we do not. get into -these. issues of how are we impacting all the adjoining lands;. That is what I object to. I object to our sitting up here and trylng to draw setbacks for adjacent pieces of property. Chairman Christensen: We have a notion which is basically thaiwe allow the parcel merger as proposed, but limit the building envelope to within somewhere yet to be determined, the territory that Is the front of the property off Lincoln Court. Chairman Christensen: All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes by a unanimous vote. That passes on a 5-2 vote, with Commissioners Marsh and Hirsch voting no. ~~er~ Chandler: Phase 2 would be setbacks. The buildlng envelope will be defined within them, The setbacks would be as shown on this map, with the exception of where it shows six, feet along Savoye, which would become eight feet, and a second story would be limited to BOO square feet and a height limit of 20 feet. Let’s see if we can move another step along on this. Chairman Chrlstensen: I do not feel comfortable with the 800 Square feet because it does not relate to anything. Gommissioner .Chandler: I wanted to avoid having the second story cover the entire first story. I wanted to minimize the impact of the second story by bringing it in a little further from the property line and not having it directly back on top of the Stewarts. Commissioner Hirsch: I would like to ask the applicant what he ~hinks about this, or his architect. ~jC~._Fleminq: My wife and I have considered that this alternative might come up tonight. I can tell you what. we propose, The neighborhood wants things traditional, square. We would propose a. traditional, square, Cape Cod much like the onethat Larick showed you earlier, except that the front would have two or three dormers, and the rear of the house would have a shed dormer on it. It is a traditional design. The problem that happens, however, if we limit the square footage on the second story to 800 square feet is that the first story spreads out and we end up with a shoebox on top. It is really hard to design that in. If you do end up with BOO square feet and you then try to put some roof planes over that, you end up going up too high, or you end up with a mansard roof. I think mansard roofs are ugly. A Cape Cod design is nice and clean. It is actually considered a one-and-a-half story. We have a real basic requirement for about 2,BOO square feet of living space for my family. I have four children. The streetscape on. Lincoln Court has houses three to five feet off the street. It is becoming- increasingly so.. I do not have adesire to maintain that streetscape at my house. So I would request a 20-foot setback from Lincoln Court. I would request a 20-foot setback where it says "Back Three" (from the Echols’ rear lot line). I could go along with a 20-foot setback where lit says "Back Two" (from. the Stewart rear Iotline). Instead of the.six-foot setback there on the corner (from the St.ewart side lot line), I would propose a 12-foot setback. I know the Savoyes have continually asked me for a 10-foot setback on their side. I would propose a ]O-foot setback on the Savoye side.~ I think that takes care of their needs. Their house is another seven feet, ’so the two houses are 17 feet apart. I would propose a IZ-foot setback on the Parcel side, as it shows, and I think that takes care of all the setbacks. ~ommissioner Hirsch: neighbors want. You have actually increased them from what the That is right. Commissioner Hirsch: -But you want two stories. Mr. F]e~tno: I~ ! get pushed into a square configuration, I want to make an attractive house. The Cape Cod is the only destgn I know. It is traditional, there are other Cape Cod styles at the end of the court, so it fits in with those. Gommissioner Hirsch: Can you do it within a 20-foot height limit? I~c~__~.l_@~b~: Yes, I probably can. it, but I think we can. Commissioner Hirsch: sideways, right? I would have to take a look at As I see it, the . house would be turned Mr. Fl~ina: It would be like the one on Channing, that I showed a photograph of. The front door would be toward the street. We would have to build a garage in on the front of the house. Commissioner Hlrsch: All the upstairs windows would be facing the Parcels, the Savoyes and the Stewarts, is that right? ~r. Flemlnq: Yes, there would be upstairs windows there. There .could be accommodations made for frosted glass or some type of screening device, or louvers that allow the light in, but don’t allow you to look in one direction. C~mmissioner Hirsch: Could you write down the setbacks you would be willing to accept on the transparency? Mr. Flemipg: Yes. Chairman Chris.~Le,.D_~.e~B: You are basically accepting thesetbacks as shown, except at that corner where it says six, you say ten, and at the Savoye property line, where they say six, you say ten. ~ommissioner Chandler: all the way back? Does the 12 feet on the Parcel side extend Mr. Flemipq: Yes, I W~uld say so, because it is a square box. Commissione~. Marsh: If we were togo ahead with this, wouldyou still want to merge that.second landlocked parcel i.n with the first two parcels? ~: It doesn’t matter to me, because ! am still going to use it for the same purpose. As long as you don’t say, "We are going to put an FAR of 0.25 on there, and your parcel is only 4,000 square feet so you have a 1,000 square feet house." I am talking square footage, a certain square footage that I need. Commissio er Mar h: Right, I~ understand. But you would not’need that parcel necessarily in with the. first two, which is why I asked 01/27/88 -46- if you had considered that. ~: It does not have to be that way. Whether it exists with that front parcel or by itself, in either case, it has a unique configuration. Chairman Chrlstensen; Very well. I think we understand. Is that your motion, Con~nisstoner Chandler? ~ommlssio~er Chandler: The only thing I might add is that we may want to limit this to the 2,BOO..I cannot see from this what the size of the footprint is, but limit it to 2,800 square feet at grade or above on these two stories, and the 20-foot height limit. Ms. Jansen: Is that 2,800 square, feet total for the house? Fommissione~ Chan(L!_~Z: Not including the basement, l.am inclined to think there is plenty of room that can be utilized in a basement for living space, or 3,000, including the garage. Commissioner Hirsch: I feel compelled, without getting into a lot of discussion, and I have asked the applicant for his opinion,can the neighbors .just say with a shake of the head whether they have any problems with this? {Yes, they did.) ~hai~rman Christense~n: .What did you decide about your square footage, Commissioner Chandler? C~mmiss~e~: Commissiopcr Cul~en: administrator’s site proposal. 3,000 square feet, including the garage. And does that include the zoning and design review? (No) That was an original F.ha.ir~an Christe.~sen: That was something we decided we did not. want to do. The current staff recommendation does not include the.zoning administrator idea, although it may be something we want to consider for future, unusually., shaped parcels, as opposed to this process, which has taken up an e~ormous amount of time. C~mmissioner Huber: What is the procedure now? Does the applicant have to come back with a redrawn plan for us to then move on? ~hairman Christensen: What we adopt tonight he will draw for the ¯ city council and . this will go to the city council as the recommendation from the planning commission. The neighbors and the applicant will both have their opportunity to speak to the council, He does not come back to us. ~: Not unless the commission so desired, That would not be our recommendation. Is it your intent that he have a design that would proceed with this application to the council? Or simply to 01/27/B8 establish the footprint and the maximum size of the house and the map? £ha|rm~n Christensn: We are not suggesting that he get the house designed for the city council. If he feels it would help him.in his case, he might want to, but I do not feel we should require it. Commissioner Hlrsch: Comissioner Chandler, what is the concept of the basement here? Are you putting any limitations on that? (No) We should be clear that this is a single-family dwelling unit, and the basement is not set up as a means of having a rental area~ Co~missiqner Chandler: That is what our zoning requires. This is an R-I neighborhood and I was not thinking of this as a duplex. Commlssloner Hirs¢h: in the basement. So you cannot establish a second dwelling unit Ms. Jansen: Not legally. You cannot have two kitchens. Commissioner Huber: Suppose that Mrl Fleming keeps this whole configuration, but is only allowed to work within a rectangle. Is it then possible to stick a cottage or something in a portion of the other area? ChairmB~ Christensen: Slzewise, it is possible, but the cottage would have to go through the use permit process, and would also have to have access to the cottage. At this point, I don’t know how he would have.access unless he bought another house on the court. Ms. ~]_PJ:L~: In addition, you are establishing setbacks, so that he could not build in certain areas, such as the rear. ~: The building setback area would not allow..additional structures within that "back six," "back seven," "back nine area," basically (referring to a transparency). Chairman Christensen~ So we have created a building envelope that he cannot build outside of. Ms. Jansen: That is the way we would Interpret it, yes. Chairman Christense~: And you are accepting the setbacks as he proposed them, with a 3,000 square feet limit on the house, including the garage, but no limit on the basement and a 20-foot height limit? SEC__~.9.~: By Commlssioner Christensen. Chairman Chris~: Is there any further discussion? Com~i i ch: Do we need Condition No. 6 report? Would staff recommend that? of the staff 01127188 -48- PUBLIC HEARING: ~PL~d~NING, COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLICATION OF M£CHAEL FLEMING FOR A PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE FOUR PARCELS INTO TWO~ WITH EXCEPTIONS FOR ACCESS OVER .AN EASEMENT WHERE FRONTAGE ON A .PUBLIC STREET IS REQUIREDr AND A WIDTH OF 50 FEET MERE 60"FEET £S REQUIRED, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1159 LINCOLN COURT (Continued from 2/16/88) (CMR:187:8) (300) Council Member Renzel referenced the portion .of the lot "that was to be kept in open space and asked if there was any way to require it stay as one parcel.. City Attorney Diane Northwly replied the only way She could think of was some kind of covenant running ¯with the land. If it was given to the City,: the City could waive it.; end if it was given to other propertyowners, .they could waive it as. well. The Council could require it be kept that way in perpetuity, but a subsequent Council could change that, and different’ ProPerty owners could agree to c~hange that if it were to run to them as part of a covenant running with the land. If-the COuncil wanted the covenant to last a longer time, shesuggested it run to the neighboring propertieS. Council Member Levy asked if there was any obligation on the part of the City to access a land lot. Ms~ Northway said not if the City did not create it. Council Member .Levy asked if that was the case with the lot~ in question. Ms. Northway. sa¯id yes. ~ouncil Member~ Renzel, asked if the ~ouncil c~uld regufre future divisio, of land from the parcel to go to the City Council and Planning Commission for approva!. Ms. Northway said the~ procedural requirements"~ in the~ cod~ would be the ones¯ that would be followed, She believed there would be an argument for equal protection and some kind of violation of due process, if the City .had a special type .of procedure For one particular, parcel.. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. Michael Fleming, 1159 Lincoln Court, believed the p!an before the Council reflected the concerns of th~ neighbors for the most part. He emphasized they wanted to provide a suitable home for their family and intended . to spend the next 20 to 30 years on Lincoln Court. ’The plan. provided the best combination of meeting thsir familyrs ’ needs and 59-2963/1~/8~ ’minimizing the home’s impact on ,.the ,immediate -.surroundino’ neighbors’ properties and .the. neighborhood .in general. ’ He: asked the Council to approve the proposal. Council Member Cobb understood Mr. Fleming planned to stay at the Subject property with or without the approval Of the application. He asked if. it was correct that .if the. Planning Commi.ssi.on recommendation was denied and. the appli- cant was forced to stay within the confine~ of the existing substandard lot, he intended’ to build the lot out to the maximum allowed. Mr., .Fleming said yes; their .plar&s were .ready to go to the Building Department in that event, Mayor .Sutorius referenced correspondence ¯ entitled "Condi- tions’for Support of the 1159 Lincoln Ct. Subdivision,": (on file in the City Clerk’s office)., asd asked whether Mr. Fleming was agreeing to a setback beyond what was conta~ned in the Planning Commission recommendations. Mr. Fleming said he was agreeing to a setback be’yond that contained in the Planning Commission recommendations. : Mayor Sutorius asked if that would also apply to the s~t- back from the Savoye’s side property llne, which the.docu~ ment indicated as 12 feet= Mr. Fleming.said yes. There was-a fireplace projection .into that which was not normally considered part of the setback[, so it was a 12-foot setback.. Mayor Sutorius asked . if Mr. Fleming was concurring..to a limitation that .the basement would have a maximum finished ceiling height o{ 6 foot 9 inches. Mr.F.leming said. correct, Cot.lcil Member Renz~l asked -if it was the applicant’s intent "to. sell any of. the land that would remain open, Mr.Fleming said it was not his. intent. Council Member Ren.zel clarified Mr..Fleming wou~d not .anti- cipate within the nex.t 10 or 15 ~ears. selling any of the land, .Mr. Fleming said be did not anticipate ever selling. Council Member Renzel assumed the basement would have a sump pump, and she asked how that wo~id drain. 59-297 3/14/88 Hr. Fleming said a sump pump normally drained into a drain tin, to which the gutters.of the house Were.also attached, rind it bubbled out onto the normal drainage line on the sur- Lace of the Court.It was illegal to tie the sump pump into the sewer system. Council Hember Cobb asked if the applicant had considered-a single-story variation which would involve some of the "footprint~ o£ the house he wanted to build now, but still left the area undeveloped to the corner. Mr. Fleming said the alternative was aonsidered fairly extensively with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission’s decision was that’ the footprint was about 40 percent less for the two-story variation, and it was a trade-off of impacts between having some .second-story windows versus l’klving the house spread out more,, smaller setbacks on the sides, and having the house seem more expan- sive on the’ lot. Council Member Cobb was referring to an single-story alter- native that restricted the house to Parcel A of the existing parcel. Hr. Fleming said no; they did not look at that exact alter- native. Larick Hit1, 3250 Ash Street, showed t~ansparencies of the proper ty. Carol, Fleming, 1159 Lincoln Court, said they had worked with their neighbors as much as possible and understood .the concerns regarding oversized housing in Palo Alto. In the agreement referred to by Mayor Sutorius, they had agreed to two.extra restrictions. Beeause of the 26- to 30-foot set~ back, they provided relief in the perceived density on Lincoln Court. The character of Lincoln Court changed as one moved toward the end where it opened up. They would make the transiti(~n one house earlier. The p~operty would fit the architectural style of the last four houses. She implored the Council to deliberately extract the issue from the overwhelaing political arossfire relating to building restrictions .in Palo Alto. Helen A. Low, ~230 Emerson, .spoke on behalf of the appli- cants so they might build a home for their family.Palo Alto should encourage young £aailies.~ 59-298 3/14/88 Robert Johnston, ,1754 Southampton., .Suppor..ted the " Pla~ning. Commission’s recommendation for approval of .the :plan for 1159 Lincoln~ Court. He urged approval. Julie Kead¥, 3444 Kenneth Drive., said the Flemings were .good .neighbors, the quality of Mr. Fleming~s work was outstand- ing, and she hoped the Council would vote in their favor. Lucy Berman, 535 W. Crescent Dr-ire, had watched the Flemings work hard to piece together land large enough" for their family to have room to grow and play, and she hoped the Council would .support them. Heather White, 1177 Lincoln Court, did .not believe whether the Fl.emings li#ed, on .the court, was the issue. The issue was the long’term effect on the court of whatever was built there. She wrote the petition against the subdivision ~sal but decided to withdraw her name and support from the. ’petition after .working out an agreement with the Flemlngs and others. The agreement was for~ the Planning Commission’s recommendations and the points referenced by Mayor Sutorius. She knew the only difference betw.een a subdivision and keeping the lot substandard was the size of the front, and side setbacks. Besides the Flemings, 12 homes used the court driveway and 6 were for the subdivision proposal and 5 were against. If the subdivision was .granted without.tbe conditions worked out, three would withdraw .their supp.ort.’ The current plan was very reasonable, and if she had seen it initially, she. would never have complained. Something would be done with the land-locked parcels and the proposal was the best use of the lot. Council Membe£ Cobb asked for Ms. White’s position ~on the issue of dhe sewer line. Ms. Whi£e said a larger house would obviously impact the substandard, .60-year old .collapsing sewer. She hoped at the same time the undergrounding was done on ~incoln Courtl.for the utilities, they <:ould . put a new sewer line down the’ center for everyone to hook up to.. If that could not "be done in .the near future, in the meantime the intention was to upgrade the sewer as far down as people Wou.ld al.lpw, Council Member W0olley asked the location of Ms. White’s house. " Ms. White said her house was across, the stredt and down. one house, ; CounCil Member Woolley. asked about the neighbors’ posit|ons ¯ either side of £he proposed development. .Ms. White added Mr. Miller who owned the house ,ext door to her had also signed the agreement. There appeared to be no correlation between one’s location on the court and whether one.was for or against. In fact, people farther away seemed to be more opposed. Mrs. J. W. Burgess, 1178 Hamilton Avenue, said her two-story house overlooked the proposed lot. She was famil~ar with the traffiq patterns and the problems of t~ court. She was concerned about access and creating a fire- and earthquake- trap. She understood the City could be liable if a cata- strophe occurred. Allowing the population to increase by overbuilding diminished the park facilities in perspective. She also expressed concern about parking and sewers. She requested an environmental’ impact report on the Lincoln Court proposal and the City’s decision on deflnlte’regula- tions for building. " Trish Johnson, 1435 Parkinson Avenue, said her .house was designed by Mike Fleming and Larick Hill and She received many compliments on it. She .was confident the .subject pro- perty would be in. keeping with the other homes on Lincoln Court. She wholeheartedly supported the request. Rudi Newmarket, 1444 Edgewood Drive, knew Mike Fleming and Larick Hill to be responsible people. He welcomed a ~amily with four children who supported the schools. Leslie Newmarket, 1444 Edgewood Drive, hoped the Flemings could raise their family in Palo Alto and that the applica- tion would be passed tsar evening. Robert Horn, 180 Erica Way,. Portola Valley, owned 1155 Lincoln Court, and said the proposed development ~uld change the character of Lincoln Court. A concern related .to increasing the population density of the Lincoln Court area, which implied less privacy, less open space, heavier traffic and parking. They requested the property remain as a sub- standard lot. ’Lee Horn, 180 Erica Way, Portola Valley, asked fl~e Council.’ to. "just say no" to the project-being proposed. She was concerned about overloading the old sewer line. It ~as. a private line, and it was not known where it hooked bp to the City line. Problems would come in the form of .additional traffic and in maintaining a prlvately-owned driveway. 59-300 3/1~/8.8 Jackie SalaDert, 1141 Lincoln Avenue, was . opposed t~..the curre,~h plan and hoped the Council would realize its impact. ~ Terry Stewart, 1141 Forest Avenue, .said .the proposed hous,e. would look into .his backyard. The letter of the law on set- backs might have been met if it. was a normal rectangular or square lot, but when deaiing with a 12-sided lot, the spirit of the law was violated. It was.still a rear-lot .subdivi- sion off a subs[addard access of Lincoln Court. A "yes" .vote would set .precedence that would justify develoDers in putting together unbuil(Jable lots with .sections of other properties to getaround the spirit, of the law. The devel-. oper had other options. They were not opposed to the Flemings" adding on to the property; at least, it would not .be looking into the neighbor.s’ backyards. ¯ . Council Member Bechtel asked how far Mr. Stewart’s house was from the back property line. .Mr. Stewart said six .feet. Council Member Bechtel clarified the maximum size agreed to was 2,800 square feet plus a 200-square-foot garage. .~ Mr. Stewart believed the size was approximately 3,400 square ~eet with the garage. There had been many sets of plans and he was not certain. Council Member Bechtel understood one of the conditions of the Planning Commission had to do with the maxlmumsize of the home to be developed. Mr. Stewart said that was true.. Juliet Stewart, I141~ Forest Avenue, referenced a ~e.tition requesting that the Darcel map change as requested by Mr. Fleming be denied and said 135 signatures were indicated. Since that time they collected 20 more signatures. They had." an overwhelmingly positive response to the petition. ,People felt strongly that the character and scale of the neighbor- hood should remain the same. On behalf of the 155 people represented in the petition, she requested, the Council .deny. the parcel map change and help ensure a more appropriately sized house was developed on the property. John Boyd, 1196 Hamil ton Avenue, spoke in favor of Mr. Fleming"s plan and urged the Council to make a positi.ve vote on the matter. 59-301 3/14/88 8arold Oustman, 715 Ashby, believed there should be rbne~al of the C.ity’s housing stock. He asked ~he Council to vote in favor of the proposed house. Greg Osborn, 1450 Greenwood Avenue, pointed out the floor area ratio ..(FAR) was only 26 percent of the whole lot. Me said the City had laws about the use and occupancy of single-family dwellings,none of which addressed sewer ¯ capacity or fam!ly size.The Flemings had done everything. possible to accommodate their neighbors, tO provide for the lowest impact, possible, and to come up with a reasonable alternative. They deserved to have the plan approved. Mr. Fleming was aware their plan still generated concern for the neighbors. He was still open to talking with the neigh- bors about such things as the sewer line and fire hazard. ¯ He had offered to replace the sewer llne ’and Was willing, to sprinkler, his roof. The plan was the result of many compro-. raises and was reasonable. It would.benefit the neighbor- hood, was not detrimental to the ¯ general welfare of .’the ¯ neighborhood, and addressed the neighbors’ concerns. C~uncil Membe~ Renzel asked if Mr. Fleming was willing in some. fashion to covenant not to develop the open space on the remainder of the lot to all of the remaining people on. the court. ~Is. Northway said the covenant would be to properties, which abutted that piece. From the standpoint of real property law, a covenant usually ran with the land that touched the land and should in some way affect properties that had a common boundarywith the property they were concerned about. Since the covenant would run to all of the properties, even it one wanted to buy it, there would still be others to deal with. Council Member Renzel asked if Mr. Fleming would be willing to enter into such. an agreement. Mr. ’Fleming was willing to enter into an agreement. Sis only concern was that he would llke to be able to build a movable .playhouse with no ~foundation or install a swingset. Council Member Renzel was not concerned about those kinds Of things but about items that would require a building permit a~d’ be considered structures within the ambience of .the law. .."..Mr, Fleming had no problem.since there would be no habl.table . ~. ’; -structures .on th~ land in question. .- .. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing closed.: [.. ...Planhingi.~%dministrator. Lynnie Melena said on the parcel.of land that fronted’, on [Ji’ncoln Court, which was "about 4:400 ¯square feet including the easement; the size house that could be built t.bere was about i,’500 square £eet, and a¯basement undernea, t~ ~o61d bring it up ’~to ’3,000 square f@..et&~ but if’still could n~t~ exceed 20 feet in height. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:31..p.m. - 9:50 Council Member Bechtel said the Council received vol.umi-nous amounts of material on the projectand had read and obseDved’ that~ the proposal had. gone on for e. ight months. She Walked up and down Lincoln Court and into the backyard of the pro.- perry to see exactly what was involved. They w.ere spea.king to the replacement of one house with one other house, to a property that had been .looked at carefully by the Planning Commissiori and staff and had received, their support’ with the ¯ conditions outl.ined, limiting the hei.ght.of .the building,. the size of the. structure, and the rear, side, and. fr’on.t setbacks. The neighbors had, in addition, .a notarized agreement for further conditions. MOTION: .Council Member Bechtel moved, ~econded by to adopt ~hs Planning Commission recommendation .to approve the preliminary parcel map with 0ndlt£ons. The Council finds that the. approval will secure substantially the .objec=, tlves 0£- the regulations or requirements to which the exceptions are requested, in that¯ the. private 4asemant (which is one of the exceptions)historically has provided acCeSS to a. single house .at.thls. location, an~ will (:on’tinue to.do so and¯.Parcel B’ has always been" 48 feet wide ¯(the other exception) and will continue to be 48 feet wide; that. the approval shall "protect¯ the public health, safety, con- venience, and the .genera! welfare in that special require- ments designed to [~rotect neighboring properties are to ’be¯ placed on. Parcel- A as conditions of. approval; andthat .the approval shall, be consistent with, and implement the poll-~cies. and¯ objectives of," the Comprehensive¯ Plan in ~:hat the. conditions of approval are intended to preserve the single- £ami.ly .residential character of the nelghborhood, "59-303 3/14{8.8- mOTION CENT’ D In addition, find that: There are Special circumstances or conditions affecting ’the prol>srty in that the only reasonable access to Parcel & is over ~he existing 16-foot wt~e easement, and Parcel B has always been 48 fact wide and will continue to meet area requirements under this proposal. The exceptions are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the peti- tioner in that two of the parcels cannot be ~sed ~nless they are merged with a parcel which has access to a .street, and the parcel with which they are being mrged. presently has access to a public street over an ease- ment. The’granting Of the exceptions, will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property’Is situated p~ovided that conditions of approval on building location, size, height, and setbacks are established. The granting, of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law in that Parcel A ~eets the width; depth, and area requlre- ments of the R-I zone district, and Parcel B meets all requirements except the width, which will ~ontinue to be 48 feet. CONDITIONS OF KPPROVAL Buildings shall be limited to the ~st side of Parcel a and two-story options ~y be considered in that area with a 20-foot height limit. (The~ west side was defined as the ~rtion of Parcel A ~vi~g direct ~rontage on Lincoln Court a~ extending to the ~Is’ ~o~rty line.) 2.Within the buildable area described in Re. 1; the setbacks shall be 30 feet fro~ the Lincoln Court access easement~ 20 feet fro~ the Stewart’s rear parcel line; 20 feet from the Echols’ rear property line; 10 feet ~roa the Stewart’s side ~o~rt~ line; 12 feet from the ~voye’s side ~o~rt~ line; and 12 ,feet ~rom the Parcelos side ~o~rty .llne. 3.The size of the house and garage shall ~ llalted to 3~000 square ~eet. 4.Belght shall be li~iS-~ to 20 feet to the the roof, 5". The Condlti~h~ ~ ~h~O~gh 4 shall be recorded with the The overhead electric telephone lines crossing parcel’.A shallbe placed underground at ~he owner’s expense and a flve-foot wide utillty easement ~hall be granted to the City of Palo ~ito tO aC~om~O~ake the underground lines. The undergroundlng must be done to city of PaSo Alto spec~£~cat~onso Counci[ Hember Woolley understood, the present house was about 800 square feet and the proposed house was 3;000 square feet. Ms. Melena said that was correct. Council Member WoDlley clarifiedthe square footage did not include a 1,000 square foot basement. She asked what .was the biggest house that could be bui.lt on the Lincoln.~Court parcel if the Council denied the lot merger. Ms. Melena said a house of "1,500 square feet could be built on the Lincoln Cour’t parcel, assuming 35 Percent .lot cbver-. age~. The house could have a basement t~ndernea.th which have another 1,500 square feet, as long as the house was less than 20 feet in height, for a total of 3,000 square feet. Council Member Woolley said the chang~ seemed major for that neighborhood, not only from what was there’at present, but from, what could be ;there if there was a new house on the present lot.. She asked staff, to explain the neighbors" request that the basement be limited in he£ght to 6 feet inches so the basement was not habitable.Most people were not taller than 6 feet’9 inches."’ ., Ms. Melena said by Building Code .requirements, 7 feet 6 inches was the minimum for the space to be call’ed "habit- able." Council.Member Noolley clarified that~according to codei.t was not habitable space, but it probably was habitable space tot human .beings. "59-305 3/14/SS Ms. Helena said probably. ’Counci[ Member Woolley believed they would be getting, in effect, a 4,000 square-foot house versus the present. 800 ’ square-foot house or the 3’,000 square-foot house allo~ed by the Substandard lot, inclLK~InQ the basement. She op~x)sed the motion. She could not make the finding the Co~il needed to make that the approval would not be a detriment to the public welfare and that .it would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan which spoke to preserving the charac- ter of single-’family neighborhoods. The character of the neighborhood.would be significantly changed. She referenced Council Member Levy’s question that there was no obligation onthe part of the City to permit building or to permit the 3oining of the parcels or necessarily to allow someth|ng to be built on a very small parcel. The Council needed to say "no " and needed to take a firm stand in order to send a -message to people who were assembling small parcels that it was not necessarily their right to expect that they would, be allowed to build on them. Council Member Cobb said originally he believed he uould oppose the motion. After much thought and visiting the site, he found himself comparing what the approval would give’against what would be built if the approval wa~ not given. His comparison was predicated on the idea that the Council could covenant the back property against any further. development, as suggested by Council Renzel. If the Planning Commission recommendation was granted, they. got Larger setbacks, more space for cars, an owner-occupied .unit tot a small family--which they wanted to encourage--the front of the prope.rty would be opened up, and they had the opportunity to restrict the back piece of property essen- tially to permanent open space. They had heard a lot of talk recently of the concern for R-I homes, and he sh~red that concern, but they also heard a lot of talk about encouraging families to reside in Palo Alto. One of the comments that:evening wasto somehow draw the line between speculators doing ~terrible things to neighborhoods and the opportunity for young families with children to live in Pa.lo Alto. "Mr. Fleming made it clear something would be built on the lot, and.the Council had to look at what ~ould. tmppen and what could happen and make the .best choice from the alternatives. He concluded the best choice for the .commu- nity as a whole, the least impactive on people, and ~:he one that gave the benefits was to go along with the Planning Commission recommendation. 59-~306 3/14186 AMENDMENT: ¢ounci1,Me~er Cobb moved, seconded ko approved .an additional requirement kha~ the appl:ieant: execute within 60 days a Covenant Not To’Develop, running with the land, that provides for restrictions identified in the 3/IQ/88 staff report (CMR:I87~8), with all of ’the adjoinin~ pro~rty owners to require that no ’habitable buildln~ be permitted in th~ area. council Member Renzel asked if the Planning Commissi.~n intended ’"not bui.ldable" to include any. structures that required a building permit, including garages and accessory struc tureSo Ms. Jansen said yes. C~unc~l Member Renzel said a garage was not necessarily habitable, so that might not be the right word on the cove- Ms. Jansen asked if the wording "any structure .reguiring,.a building permit" would be acceptable. MAKER AND SECOND OF ~MENDMENT AGREED TO REPLACE "NO RABIT- ABLE BUILDING". WITH .ANY STROCTORE. REQUIRING A ’BUILDING PERMIT" Council Member Renzel believed’ the wording was important, particularly if the parcels were transferred to. adjoining properties, it would change the flexibility for .those prov perties to intensify in an area that was already twice as .intense as R-I normally would permit. She lived in " the neighborhood and was very familiar with the lot, with Lincoln Court, a°nd with the scale.6f the property. It wa.s extremely difficult to .come down on the. side of approving the ~,otion. On the other hand, in the absence o’f approval, sh~e .believed they would see a massive structure, bui~It because their rules were too ]~.nient, and they would prob= ably see the. rest of the site parceled out to ~other adjoining parcels~and big ¯structures built on them as well. That would be .tragic in the delicate environment of Lincoln Court. If ..the Covenan’t Not To Develop was applicabl.e to’all the adjoining property owners so it required all of..their approvals .for any of the property to be sold, that. would. provide as much .protection as the Council would be abl’e to require, unless .the City Attorney could offer.., other sugges- tions. The vast majority of the properties abutting the landlocked lot would have more stability .than they otherwise would have if the Council was to deny the approval. Some the more technical concerns had been addressed in terms. 59-3’07 3/14/88 the sewer fine and the electric line running over the .pro-. perry, She.would support the motion i£ the covenant passed, otherwise she would not, Vice Hayoc Klein concurced with Council Nembers Bechte] and Cobb. He walked on Lincoln Court wi th .Count ii Member Bechtel. and they came to much the same conclusions. In response to the comments made by Council l~ember Noolley, who .found the addition of l,O00 square feet wa~ a disaster, he did not, particularly with the existing trade-offs. He believed the neighborhood was getting some benefit for the extra 1,000 square feet of building. The setbacks from the street and the various lots and the Covenant Not To Develop the other portions were significant benefits. Indeed, one of the criticisms some of the Opponents had made was that the construction of the house would somehow be a fire ard. To the contrary, having more room by ~he ~etbacks would actually reduce the danger of fire on-Lincoln Court. ~ newer house was probably less of a fire hazard than the present house. Council’s task in any decision with regard to single-family homes was to do a delicate balancing act between preserving the character of Palo Alto but still allowing change. He worried some of the comments heard that evening indicated they. should never have any change in Palo Alto, and that was an impossibility. ~Th’e change must be sensitive, and he believed the subject change was sensi- tive. The Flemings had gone the "extra mile," but they had to keep in mind that no community could stay stagnant. Be did not believe the question was "just say no." That phrase referred to an illegal activity, and he hoped they never came to the point where wanting to build a house sensitively in Palo Alto was regarded as an illegal, activity. To the contrary, they should be affirmative and say that was what the Council wanted so the community could remain vital. Council Member Levy asked staff ho~ the effect of the cove- nant that was the subject of the amendment would differ from the restrictions t.hat had been already put on the property by the Planning Commission. Ms. Northway clarified the difference ~ould be in terms of ease of change. Some future "Council could change what was done that evening and allow the land to become usable in terms of comp~ting allowable building area, either for the subject site or for another site. If t~e applicant executed the covenant, she believed it would be more restrictive in terms, o~ his’ ability to ever get all the adjoining neighbors to agree to let him out of it. Counci[ Member Levy asked if under the amendment the occu- pant of the home could build a sw£mming p.ool. Ms.~ Northway said no. She clarified the amendment .had been changed to "requiring a building permit." Council ’Member Levy was uncomfortable not allowing the home owners to have some kind of use of the property with~ .a swimming pool or possibly a tennis court. He .assumed those changes would have to return to the Council. The ’Flahning Commission had given the City Council .the power to eostrol the usage of the.lot, and he was comfortable with that. The° idea of a covenant where every, neighbor had to be contacted. was unusual and not n4eded. CouncilMember Fletcher also visited the site. Although the structure was larger than fitted harmoniously with the other buildings on Lincoln. Court, .it did have other protections which, on balance, made it acceptable ~to her, i.e., signifi- cant setbacks ~rom the other properties, the 20-foot height limit, and the dedicated open space. There wasmore protec- tion built into the.conditions than would otherwise be.. the case. The "fact the issue .created-so much discussio6-and. controversy pointed to the need for the City . to adopt restrictive rules .on R-I developmen£s. She would vote in favor of the amendment and motion. Council Member Bechtel referenced the change in .the .motion from "habitable bui~idin.g" to "any structure requiring -a building permit."She asked what structures required a building permit. Chief Building Official Fred Herman said accessory buildin’gs that met the zoning setbacks and covered less than 150 square feet of projected roof area were exempt from Building ’Code requirements. "~ Council Membe~ Bechtel believed the p~operty.should not be developed to a.llow~ anybody to live:"there, but a proper~ty owner should not be denied all uses of that property. Even with staff’s clarification as to what required..a building permit, she believed a swimming pool might be permissible. AMENDMENT TO .AMENDMENT: Council Member Bechtel mowed,. seconded by Klein, that the Covenant Not To Develop shall for any habitable .structure incl~ing the .garage. Council Member Renzel opposed the amendment to the amend- ment. .There were generous setbacks within the buildable area in which some of the things could be .accomplished if’ desired. She asked if the covenant would .say that the 59-309. 3/14/88’ nonbuildable area might .not be counted as part of anyone else’s buildable area even if it was sold to someone else. Ms. Northway clarified the intention was for the covenant ".to run with the land. If the land was conveyed to somebody else, the covenant ran with the land no matter who owned. it. Council Member Renzel said the purpose of the covenant’ in her mind was to prevent pieces of the land from being sold to adjoining property owners which could enable increased density on any of the surrounding properties. Shebelieved any structure ,that required a building permit should be covered. That was the deal the neighbors bought into, and the change in the center of a neighborhood where it abutted eight or nine properties was structured so as to minimize impact. She did not believe anybody could say swimming pools or tennis courts did not have an impact. If the cove- nant did .not cover those, she would not support the motion. Nayor Sutbrius asked the City Attorney if the land was transferred to another property, would it require a subdiv’i- sion and then need to go before the Planning Commission and the Council. Ms. Northway assumed it Would require a lot line adjustment and that could be accommodated at the staff level. Mayor Sutorius clarified under the present wording, Council Member Renzel’s concerns potentially could be realized. Ms. Northway believed so. Other than making the property somehow permanent open space, she could not think of another way to accomplish the result. Council Member Patitucci..asked if there was a lot-line adjustment and part of the land could be parceled off and sold to someone else, how much could be parceled off and sold and still be within the zoning reguiremeht. Ms.. Jansen said th& requirements for the 3,000 square-foot house would be 8,600 square feet. The total, lot was approximately II,000 square feet, so the difference was approximately 3,000 square feet that potentially could ’be parceled off. council Member Patitucci clarified the 3,000 square feet would probably have to come out of the nonbuildable area. He.believed the Council was playing "Planning Commission= to the micro-level~ If there were no ~erious problems with the process .the Planning .Commission had gone through, even if certain parts made the Council uncomfortable, be belieued they had to permit the project to go ahead. He did not.. see why the Council should place any stricter .requirements. on the people who llved on the property than, for example, .on. .people who l.ived on Hamilton. There. were many deep 10is .on Hamilton of 12,000 or 13,000 square feet and people could continue to build out into their backyards. Changes .in .the. future should be left to future City Councils. He would vote in favor of the.amendment to the amendment and. against the amendment itself. Council Member Renzel said the whole reason the matter, was’. before the Council was because there were some "landlocked lots, including .about 21 ¯ feet being merged to ~ the developable parcel. The ’Council was not obliged to let the applicant use the landlocked parcel.. Without the covenants, the Council would essentially increase the size of ¯ a substandard L~ncoln Court property, allowing much more than .otherwise could be developed= and they would also enable the restof the landlocked parcel to be sold off and incorporated as part of.Parcels which could be used for purposes of other density calculati’ons. In comparison, Forest Court was built according to the zoning ordinance. ¯ A. court built today would.need a full street rlght-of-way, a 90-foot bulb, and. nine houses. The corner of Forest and Lincoln,including the court, had 18 houses on it, twice the normal R-I density. When the Council was expanding, the court property by adding the landlocked.parcel to it,.they were in fact changing it from a substandard~ parcel to one which would be.not quite substandard ands in effect, were releasing some landlocked parcels w.hich were currently not. developable. ..It was important to~ recognize that.the owner of the property, if .the motion passed, .would enjoy substantial benefit that would otherwise not accrue from the landlocked lots, and it was important for the Council .to protect, the rest of ~he neighbors from the potential of .having the .~est of .the landlocked lot used to intensify further all of. the properties surrounding it. She believed the Council should ~eny the amendment to the amendment and support the original amendment. If that was not the case,~ she believed the application should be denied. Council Member Cobb asked if it was legally possible ~.o that the Council covenant the so-called nonbuildable area .so as to not count ag’ainst the buildable area of any lot it might be attached to, ms. Northway said no: Mayor Sutorius would support the amendment to the amend- ment. Mayor Sutortus asked staff if accessory structures were "habitable." Herman said no,. as long as they were not cottages, Ms. Northway suggested that. the amendment include language that the covenant would be in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. MAKER AND SECOND OF MOTION AGREED TO IRCORPOR&TE L/L~GUAGE "IN A I~ORR &CCEPT~LE TO TEE CIT~ ATTO~NE~’o" "’ Council Member Renzel clariftedthe map condition said that there .was a nonbuildable area, and she assumed that meant anything. She asked if the covenant was all that, was restricted to the criterion or whether they were saying the nonbuildable area was now also fair game for anything except uarages and habitable structures. Ms. Northway believed the amendment was in addition to the motion, and the motion contained that condition. Mayor Sutorius clarified that =nonbuildable area" was a des- criptive phrase to say they had decided the setbacks would be involved and that was the envelope, in which the home could be built. The phrase was not the same as saying what the covenant was saying. The covenant was not saying it was ,or a buildable area, but. that a habitable structure could not be built, in that area, including a .garage. He hoped that was what the wording would represent because: that was the intention of the maker of the motion. : Ms, Northway~ disagreed, The ~ot~on was originaIl¥ as approved by the. Planning Commission with the modifications contained in the letter. As approved by the Planning Commission~ ConditioK 1 said ~Butldings shall be limited to the west side of Parcel A," and she understood from staff that had to do with nonbuildable area. Therefore, if~that condition stayed~ then the Council was .free to change it~ but if that.condition stayed as written~ it was in addition to that; She’ did not hear the maker of that motion saying there was a substitute for that. Mayor Sutorius asked if it was the intent of the Planning Commission in theirmotion to describe the envelope ~n which 59-312 3/14/88 t.he home structure, including its" garage, would be . phys- ica[.I.y cot~f, ined. Planning Commissioner Huber said yes. ’It was .not clear.froi~ the Minutes, but his sense was that the Planning Commis~ioh did not w~nt.anythlng in the nonbuildable area~ They were not interested in seeing swimming pools or anythinglike p0ols, and he believed his colleagues would agree that .the sense was to leave the area alone. Council Member Patitucci asked what the view of .the Planning Commission was on the mechanism for enforcing that intent. Planning Commission Huber said he was giving the intent,and it was clear the mechanism was not there. Council Member Patitucci was satisfied with the o~iginal proposaI.from the Planning Commission and believed thecon- fusion generated added .to reasons why the amendment was not productive. It should be left to {utUre City Councils and staf~ to deal-with the property. It was not;a good idea to tie nine o~ ten"properties into deciding what should happen to the property in the center. He opposed the amendment, ANENDMENT.FA£LED by a vote of 4-5, Cobb~ Fletcher, Renzel~ Woolley voting "aye." Council Member Renzel said without the covenants she did not believe there was adequate protection to Lincoln Court nor to the abutting neighbors as to what happened with the supJ posed open space that was being tradedoff for the enhanced-~ value proper~y on Lincoln Court. There’ was a Serious problem in the future~ and when .the Council could anticipate a ’problem, they should’not leave it to some future Council. Future C~ty Councils might.not see any of the subsequent things that might take place. As a result, if .there was a lot merger, staff could do tha~., and there would be no notice to anybody. It was unfair to intensify the ne~ghbor- hood Wi.th a merger~that created a subdivision and, at the’. same time, not provide adequate protection. She opposed the motion.. Council Member’ K~ein said the neighborhood was adeguately protected, and to say otherwise .indicated there was no faith either in future City Councils or future City staffs to adequately protect neighborhoods. The applicant or any successor owner of the property could not do things "willy- .hilly" with the nonbuildable property but would have to go through various governmental processes. He supported the motion, 59-3.13 3/14/88 ~ouncil Member Levy was uncomfortable to rind .OUt a change could be made in the process by staff alone and believed ¯ that was inappropriate. to the property should go before the Planning CoMisston andthe City Cou~c~l. Ms. Northway had concerns about establishing a dif£erent type of procedure for the property, Under procedural due process everyboOy should have the same ability to have things changed. She did not believe they could changethat in the manne~ in question for the property.She was also concerned about equal protection problems. WITHDRAWN BY MAKER Council Member Levy said his overall concern in any of the processes was that the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan and of their zoning laws was maintained. Be believed ~n the subject case that the spirit was maintained. What the .Council was approving adhered to all the setbacks for zoning and, in fact, exceeded them in some cases; it adhered to the height .limits; the lot coverage was well below the maximum; the lot was la~e and the (ootpri,t was only a small percentage of that. With all the built-in protec- tions, the safety and flexibi&ity for Lincoln Court expanded. They had more than sufIicien.t protection and, theretore, he supported the motion. Mayor Sutorius ’associated with Council Members Cobb’s and Bechtel’s opening comments. Council Member Woolley and he were recently involved in a situation involving a decision ¯ o£ the Council in the 1970s that affected a cou~t that was under p~vate ownership.. A subdivision process came before th~ Council at that time# and the Council labored over the. issue extensively and. invented a new solution.for the prob- ]am. It d~d not solve the problem to the satisfaction of some. of the people currently at the premises and had been thorny s~tuatlOn.o They hoped it was reconciled now, but reasons o~ that nature .he did not care to invent a new pro- cess ~t Council meetings. The covenant activity and discus- sion had considerable ri’sk associated with it and not. considerable benefit. Be supportedthe main motion. NOTION PASSED by a vote of 3/]4/88 ATTACHMENT "C" DRAFT FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, IN PART, OF AMENDMENTS TO PARCEL MAP WITH EXCEPTIONS 98-PM-1 1159 Lincoln Avenue Planning Commission Recommended Findings for Denial Pertaining to the Proposal to: A. Eliminate the building restriction on eastern portion of the subject parcel and apply standard zoning setbacks in this area. B. Reduce the additional side setbacks on the subject parcel to a minimum of l O feet (currently required to be 20 feeO. C. lncrease the allowed floor area on the subject parcel to maximum of .3 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) instead of the current 3, 000 square foot limitation. ° The proposal changes only physical aspects of the subdivision in that the proposed amendments relate only to previously recorded restrictions on the subject property; The proposal is substantially inferior in bulk, degree or importance to the overall dimension and design ofthe development and does not add any lots, units or buildings to the subdivision in that the proposed amendments are only to previously recorded restrictions on the subject property and do not propose to change the configuration of the original parcel map; The proposal does increase the adverse environmental effects of the subdivision in that the proposed amendments propose to reduce or eliminate development limitations that constitute the currently applicable City policy for this site based upon the City Council’s action in 1988. The proposal is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that the existing and proposed use is residential but is not consistent with intent of the original map approval and related land use restrictions applied by the City Council on March 14, 1988; and, 1159 Lincoln Avenue (98-PM-1) Attachment "C"Page 1 o The proposal does not violate the Palo Alto Municipal Code in that the proposal will comply with all currently applicable Zoning Regulations. 1159 Lincoln Avenue (98-PM-1) Attachment "C"Page 2 ATTACHMENT "D" DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL, IN PART, OF AN AMENDMENT TO PARCEL MAP WITH EXCEPTIONS 98-PM-1 1159 Lincoln Avenue Planning Commission Recommended Findings for Approval Pertaining to the Proposal to: A. Eliminate the basement ceiling height restriction on the subject parcel requiring a finished interior basement ceiling height of 6 feet 9 inches at maximum. o The proposal changes only physical aspects of the subdivision in that the proposed amendments relate only to previously recorded restrictions on the subject property; The proposal is substantially inferior in bulk, degree or importance to the overall dimension and design of the development and does not add any lots, units or buildings to the subdivision in that the proposed amendments are only to previously recorded restrictions on the subject property and do not propose to change the configuration of the original parcel map; The proposed amendment does not increase the adverse environmental effects of the subdivision in that the elimination of the basement ceiling height restriction pertains to an existing basement feature of the dwelling that will not be altered and that the new condition number 3 to be recorded on the Parcel Map serves to clarify the existing land use limitations on the property. The proposal is consistent with the Palo Alto comprehensive plan in that the existing use is residential and is consistent with intent of the original map approval. in that the original Parcel Map restriction was intended to control future development of the site and related to the fact that in 1988 a basement in excess of 6 feet 9 inches in interior height would be counted as floor area. Subsequently, site has been developed with a single family home and basement and the Palo Alto Municipal Code has modified to exempt below grade basements from floor area . calculations. The new condition number 3 serves to clarify the land use limitations placed on the property by the City Council in 1988. These amendments, therefore, are consistent with the intent of the original Parcel Map approval; and, 1159 Lincoln Avenue (98-PM-1) Attachment "D"Page 1 The proposal does not violate the Palo Alto Municipal Code in that the proposal will comply with all currently applicable Zoning Regulations. 1159 Lincoln Avenue (98-PM-1) Attachment "D" Page 2 ATTACHMENT "E" DRAFT FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF AMENDMENT TO PARCEL MAP WITH EXCEPTIONS 98-PM-1 1159 Lincoln Avenue Staff Recommended Findings for Denial Pertaining to the Proposal to: A. Eliminate the building restriction on eastern portion of the subject parcel and apply standard zoning setbacks in this area. B. Reduce the additional side setbacks for the subject parcel to a minimum of l O feet (currently required to be 20 feeO. C. Increase the al.lowed floor area on the subjectparcel to maximum of .3 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) instead of the current 3, 000 square foot limitation. D. Eliminate the basement ceiling height restriction on the subject parcel requiring a finished interior basement ceiling height of 6 feet 9 inches at maximum. The proposal changes only physical aspects of the subdivision in that the proposed amendments relate only to previously recorded restrictions on the subject property; The proposal is substantially inferior in bulk, degree or importance to the overall dimension and design of the development and does not add any lots, units or buildings to the subdivision in that the proposed amendments are only to previously recorded restrictions on the subject property and do not propose to change the configuration of the original parcel map; The proposal does increase the adverse environmental effects of the subdivision in that the proposed amendments propose to reduce or eliminate development limitations that constitute the currently applicable City policy for this site based upon the City CounciFs action in 1988. The proposal is consistent with the Palo Alto comprehensive plan in that the existing and proposed use is residential but is not consistent with intent of the original map approval and related land use restrictions applied by the City Council on March 14, 1988; and, 1159 Lincoln Avenue (98-PM-1) Attachment "E"Page 1 o The proposal does not violate the Palo Alto Municipal Code in that the proposal will comply with all currently applicable Zoning Regulations. 1159 Lincoln Avenue (98-PM-1) Attachment "E"Page 2 July 20, 1998 Attachment F George White Department of Planning City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Application for Minor Subdivision with Exceptions - File No. 98-PM-2 1159 Lincoln Avenue Owners: John and Margaret Toor Dear George: I am submitting this letter to correct a misconception on the part of Planning Commission members concerning the FAR suggested-for this property. Page 3 of the July 8, 1998 Staff Report summarizes the applicant proposal. about floor ratio as: The floor area on the site is to be limited to 3,900 square feet or a maximum of .3 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) instead of the current 3,000 square foot limitation. Planning Commissioners elected not to recommend a .3 FAR because they did not want to see an additional 900 square feet added in the current buildable area of the lot. A .3 FAR results in an additional 680 square feet no__$ 900 square feet. The current building envelope can accommodate that amount of additional square footage Sincerely, M; garet K. Toot 11 ;9 Lincoln Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 329-8899