Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-01-13 City Council (15)C ty of Palo Al o City Manager,s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment DATE: SUBJECT: January 13, 1997 CMR:109:97 679 Maybell Avenue: Application for a Preliminary Parcel Map to Subdivide a 21,000-Square-Foot Vacant Parcel into two 10,500- Square-Foot Single-Family Parcels in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 96-PM-2). _REOUEST The applicant requests approval of a preliminary parcel map to subdivide an existing 21,000- square-foot, vacant parcel into two 10,500-square-foot, single-family parcels. The majority of the site’s street frontage is on Maybell Avenue with a small portion fronting on Driseoll Court. The applicant intends to sell the resulting lots without improvements, including utilities. The applicant proposes to bond for the installation of required improvements and utilities which would be installed as the individual homes are constructed and would be the responsibility of the individual home builders. No trees would be removed as a result of the subdivision and subsequent construction. The applicant proposes.an angled property line which would result in both proposed lots having the minimum required lot width of 60 feet, measured at the 20-foot setbaek line, but the proposed line would not comply with Section 21.20.030, which states that "side lot lines as far as practicable shall be at right angles to straight streets or radial to curved streets." Proposed lot 2 fronts on a portion of Driseoll Court and is considered a cul-de-sac lot. This lot would be subject to a 20-foot setback from the property lines fronting on both Driseoll Court and Maybell Avenue and, as designed, proposed lot 2 would not be consistent with the current lot pattern on either Driseoll Court or Maybell Avenue, and as designed, proposed lot 2 would not be consistent with the current lot pattern on either Driseoll Court or Maybell Avenue. The resulting 10,500-square-foot lots would far exceed the 6,000-square-foot minimum lot size required in the R-1 zone district. Each lot would have an average depth of 210 feet, which would exceed the R- 1 depth requirement of 100 feet. Each lot would b~~’~ CMR: 109:97 Page 1 of 5 allowed 3,900 square feet of floor area (37 percent), and 3,675 square feet of lot coverage (35 percent). Each lot would also exceed theminimum size for a second-living unit, which would be subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council deny the preliminary parcel map based on the attached findings (,Attachment 1). This recommendation is based on the fact that the proposed subdivision does not comply with Section 21.20.130 of the Palo Alto Subdivision Ordinance which states that "side lot lines as far as practicable, shall be at right angles to straight streets or radial to curved streets." Staff further recommends that the applicant revise the application or submit a new application for an alternative subdivision design, where the proposed property line bisects the existing parcel at a 90 degree angle to the front property line. Such a subdivision would require exceptions for two 50-foot-wide lots where 60 feet is the minimum required in the R-1 zone district. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The following Comprehensive Plan policies and programs apply to this application: Housing Element, Policy 1: "Maintain the general low-density character of existing single-family areas." The proposed single-family lots maintain the low-density character of the neighborhood because each lot would exceed the 6,000-square-foot minimum lot size in the R-1 zone district by 4,500. The lots would provide ample building area. Required setbacks would assure that proper separation between homes would be maintained. Housing Element, Policy 3: "Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo Alto’s neighborhoods especially desirable." The applicant’s proposed subdivision design would not protect nor enhance the quality of the Driscoll Court neighborhood. The proposed lot configuration would likely result in the house on Lot 2 being setback farther from Maybell Avenue and slightly angled toward Driscoll Court. The resulting front yard setback would not be reflective of the existing houses on Driseoll Court and would disrupt the cul-de-sac pattern. It would also not be consistent with the lotpattern on Maybell Avenue, where side lot lines are at fight angles to the front lot lines. A consistent pattern of development, especially among adjacent properties, is an important element in the creation of a desirable neighborhood. Modification of the subdivision design to either two 50-foot-wide lots or a cul-de-sac type of pattern would better preserve the existing neighborhood pattern. CMR:109:97 Page 2 of 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On December 11, 1996, the Planning Commission voted 4-2-1-0 (Becham and Cassel against, Schink absent) to approve staff’s recommendation to deny the preliminary parcel map based on the attached recommended fmdings (Attachment 1). A more detailed discussion of the project history and the issues related to the Commission’s action is contained in the attached Plannin~ Commission staff report dated December 11, 1996 (Attachment 2). Minutes of the December 11, 1996 Commission meeting are attached to this report. The Commission’s recommendation is based on two factors: The first is the applicant’s ability to alternatively subdivide the existing lot in a manner that would be consistent with the Design section of the Subdivision Ordinance. This would require the proposed lot line to bisect the. existing parcel at a right angle to Maybell Avenue, which would be more consistent with the existing lotting pattern for properties fronting on Maybell Avenue. A consistent pattern of development, especiallyadjacent properties, is an important element in the creation of a desirable neighborhood. The second factor relates to the applicant or successor property owners’ ability to construct homes that reflect the existing pattern of the neighborhood. The major concern was the future placement of homes on the lots, especially lot 2, which is directly adjacent to the Driscoll Court cul-de-sac. The Commission determined that, without design review for the homes, the orientation of the future homes would likely detract from the neighborhood pattern. The homes would neither be related to the development of the cul-de-sac nor would they relate to existing development on Maybell Avenue. A subdivision with a right-angle property line would provide an ample building envelope so that both future homes would relate to the Maybell Avenue pattern of development. The Commission recommends that if the Council decides to approve the proposed preliminary pared map that the project be conditioned to require design review for the future homes, and to require the applicant to extend sidewalk improvements the length of the lot’s Maybell Avenue frontage (Attachment 4 - Alternative Conditions of Approval). In accordance with Chapter 21.28, the conditions of approval would require installation of sidewalk and utilities to be the responsibility ofthe subdivider. The intent of design review by the Architectural Review Board would be to assure that the design and orientation of the future homes would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Although the code section which requires design review specifically exempts singly-developed, single-family homes, the Commission recommends that it be required as a condition of approval if necessary to make the required findings of approval. In this ease, the design of the homes relates directly to finding number 1 and consistency with Comprehensive Plan policies related to the preservation of single-family neighborhoods. Staffhas attached alternative CMR: 109:97 Page 3 of 5 findings of approval should the Council vote to approve the preliminary parcel map as proposed by the applicant (Attachment 3 - Alternative Findings of Approval). ALTERNATIVES The City Council may: 1.Approve the preliminary parcel map as proposed by the applicant based on alternative findings of approval (Attachment 3) and subject to conditions (Attachment 4). 2.Approve the preliminary parcel map as proposed by the applicant based on modified findings, but without a design review condition (Attachment 4, Condition 8 deleted). Findings are required to support whatever action is taken on the map. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact will result from action on this application. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Article 19, Section 15315, minor land divisions. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL If the Council denies the preliminary parcel map, the applicant can submit a new subdivision application, with an alternative design, without prejudice. If Council approves the preliminary parcel map, the applicant will be required to submit an application for approval of a parcel map. The parcel map will be reviewed for compliance with the preliminary parcel map approval by the Public Works Department and the Planning Division. Once approved, the pared map will recorded at the Santa Clara County Recorders’ Office. ATTACHMENTS Attachment I - Recommended Findings for Denial Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Staff Report dated 12/11/96 (with attachments) Attachment 3 - Alternative Findings for Approval Attachment 4 - Conditions of Approval. Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt ’ 12/11/96 Attachment 6 - Letter from Joan Oakley, dated 9/5/96 Attachment 7 - Letter from Mitchell Zimmerman, dated 8/1/96 Preliminary Parcel Map (Council Members only) CMR: 109:97 Page 4 of 5 PREPARED BY: Joseph M. Colonna, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment (CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CC:James Rhodeos, 415 N. California Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cheryl Goodwin, Trustee of the Ruth E. Goodwin Trust, 415 N. California Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mr. Klien, Miller, Morton, Caillat & Nevis, 50 W. San Femando St., #1300, San Jose CA 95113-2413 CMR: 109:97 Page 5 of 5 Attachment I Recommen ded Findings for Denial 679 Maybeli Avenue. 96-PM-2 o The proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs and the design requirements of the Subdivision Ordihance, in that the project would not be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance design requirement (PAMC Section 21.20.130) which states "side lot lines, as far as practicable, shall be at fight angles to straight streets or radial to curved streets." The proposed map would not be consistent with the regular lotting pattern on Maybell Avenue, where side lot lines are at 90-degree angles to the street. A consistent pattern of development, especially adjacent properties, is an important element in the creation of a desirable neighborhood. The resulting front yard setback would not be reflective of the existing houses on Driseoll Court and would disrupt the cul-de-sac pattern. In addition.the proposed parcel map does not comply with Housing Element, Policy 3 because the proposed lot configuration would result in the house on Lot 2 being set back farther from Maybell Avenue than other houses and angled toward Driscoll Court which is not consistent with R-1 neighborhood development patterns; The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed single-family lots would be 10,500 square feet each, which would exceed the 6,000-square-foot minimum lot size in the R-1 zone district by 4,500; The design of the new lot pattern and two new single-family homes, will not cause significant.environmental impacts; however, proposed Lot 2 would not be consistent with the development pattern in that the proposed lots will result in a narrow house with a garage at the front and a new driveway with access to Driscoll Court, which would appear awkward and out of character with Driseoll Court houses, inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Policy 3; The design of the new lot pattern and the proposed development will not result in serious public health problems, although it would be detrimental to the existing pattern of the neighborhood and would result in development of single-family homes that would detract from the adjacent cul-de-sac development and from the pattern along Maybell; and The design of the new lot pattern will not conflict with public easements for access through the use of the property in that the resulting lots would have fi:ontage on a public street for vehicular access and utility service. Attachment 2 2PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: Joseph M. Colonna DEPARTMENT: Planning December 11~ 1996 679 Maybeil Avenue: Application for a Preliminary Parcel Map to Subdivide a 21,000-Square-Foot Vacant Parcel into two 10,500- Square-Foot Single-Family Parcels in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 96-PM-2). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the preliminary parcel map based on the attached findings (Attachment 1). This recommendation is based on the fact that the proposed subdivision does not comply with Section 21.20.130 of the Palo Alto Subdivision Ordinance which states that "side lot lines as far as practicable, shall be at right angles to straight streets or radial to curved streets." Staff recommends that the applicant revise the application or submit a new application for an alternate subdivision design, where the proposed property line bisects the existing parcel at a 90 degree angle ’to the front property line. Such a subdivision would require exceptions for two 50-foot-wide lots where 60 feet is the minimum required in the R-1 zone district. The applicant requests approval of a preliminary parcel map to subdivide an existing 21,000-square-foot, vacant parcel into twO 10,500-square-foot, single-family pareels. The P:WCSR\679Maybell.sr Page 1 124)5-96 majority of the site’s street frontage is on Maybell Avenue with a small portion fronting on Driscoll Court. The applicant intends to sell the resulting lots without improvements, including utilities. Utilities would be installed as the individual homes are constructed and would be the responsibility of the individual home builders. No trees would be removed as a result of the subdivision and subsequent construction (see Attachment 2 - Subdivider’s Statement). The applicant proposes an angled property line which would result in both proposed lots having the minimum required lot width of 60 feet, measured at the 20-foot setback line. Proposed lot 2 fronts on a portion of Driscoll Court and is considered a cul-de-sac lot. This lot would be subject to a 20-foot setback from the property lines fronting on both Driscoll Court and Maybell Avenue. The resulting 10,500-square-foot lots would far exceed the 6,000-square-foot minimum lot size required in the R-1 zone district. Each lot would have an average depth of 210 feet, which would exceed the R-1 depth requirement of 100 feet. Each lot would be allowed 3,900 square feet of floor area (37%), and 3,675 square feet of lot coverage (35 %). Each lot would also exceed the minimum size for a second-living unit, which would be subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Site Information Information regarding the applicant, owner, assessor parcel number, Comprehensive Plan designation, zone district, existing land use, and parcel size is shown in Table 1 below. TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATIOn[ Applicant:James Rhodeos 415 N. California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (415) 324-9595 Owner: Assessor’s Parcel Number: Cheryl Ruth Goodwin 415 N. California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (415) 325-3452 137-27-030 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Zone District: Single-family Residential .R-1 P:WCSR\679Maybell.sr Page 2 12-05-96 Existing Land Use:Single-Family Residential Surrounding Land Uses: Proposed Net Lot Size: Single-Family Residential Lot 1:10,500 square feet Lot 2:10,500 square feet On May 29, 1996, Mr. Rhodeos submitted an application for a preliminary parcel map to subdivide an existing 21,000-square-foot parcel into two 10,500-square-foot single- family parcels. The application was revised on July 3, 1996 to increase the width of proposed lot 1 to 60 feet at the 20-foot front yard setback. On August 1, 1996, the Zoning Administrator, as the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s designee, held a public hearing on the application (Attachment 3 - 8/1/96 Minutes). Notice of the public hearing was sent to property owners and utility customers within 300 feet of the subject property. At the hearing, neighbors raised concerns regarding the parcel configuration, access, retention of existing, trees and installation of utilities. Several neighbors who own single-family homes on Driscoll Court presented the Zoning Administrator with five alternatives to the proposed parcel configuration (see Attachment 4 - Neighbors’ Proposed Alternatives). The neighbors contended that these alternatives are more compatible than the applicant’s proposal and more consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the R-1 zone district guidelines. Two of the alternatives (D & E) consisted of a flag lot configuration, and would not be allowed per the Design Section of the Subdivision Ordinance (Section 21~20). Of the remaining three alternatives, the neighbors requested the applicant revise his application to one which utilizes a typical cul-de-sac design (Alternative F), where the side property lines would radiate from the center of the Driscoll Court turnaround. The neighbors considered this design desirable because it "completed" the cul-de-sac, which currently is only partially developed. Because of the limited frontage on Driscoll Court, this alternative would require the applicant to acquire additional frontage from an adjacent parcel. This configuration would likely require an exception to the minimum lot width for one or both of the resulting parcels. The neighbors’ second requested alternative was a subdivision where the new side property line was oriented at a 90 degree angle to the front (Maybell Avenue) property P:\PCSR\679Maybell.sr Page 3 12@5-96 line (Alternative C), Their third requested alternative was a new side property line which angled in the opposite direction of the applicant’s proposal (Alternative B). The neighbors requested these designs because the house on resulting lot 2 would be oriented to Maybell Avenue, and not disrupt the development pattern of Driscoll Court. Either one of these alternatives would result in one or both resulting lots having less than 60 feet of width at the 20-foot setback, as required for R-1 zone district, therefore requiring an exception. The Zoning Administrator continued the hearing to allow the applicant time to review the proposed alternatives. On September 5, 1996, the Zoning Administrator reconvened the public hearing (see Attachment 6 - September 5, 1996 Zoning Administrator Minutes). The applicant and neighbors had not been able to reach an agreement on an acceptable revision to the proposed map. The applicant was given the opportunity to have the public hearing closed and request the Director of Planning and Community Environment to render a decision or to forward the application to the Planning Commission. The applicant requested to have the matter referred to the Planning Commission. The Director of Planning and Community Environment determined that because there were outstanding issues of major significance associated with the proposed subdivision, the application was deferred to the Planning Commission and. City Council in accordance with the provisions of Section 21.12.090(e) PAMC. Following the second Zoning Administrator hearing, the applicant revised the proposed subdivision, in accordance with staff’s recommendation, to create two 50-foot-wide lots. However, on October 28, 1996 the applicant again revised the project back to the original design with the angled side property line. This design is the subject of the current application. Staff and the applicant agree with the neighbors that the cul,de-sac (Alternative F) lot configuration is most desirable. Because that type of subdivision would require acquisition of a portion of the property located at 631 Driscoll Court to increase the Driscoll Court frontage, the applicant is continuing to work with that property owner to reach an agreement on a land swap. As of the date of the writing of this report, the applicant and adjacent proper~ owner have not reached an agreement. In the absence of an agreement, the applicant has chosen to continue with his original proposal, requiring no exceptions, which the Director .of Planning and Community Environment had determined should be forwarded to the Planning Commission. P:\PCSR\679Maybell.sr Page 4 12-05-96 The following Comprehensive Plan policies and programs apply to this application: Housing Element, Policy 1: "Maintain the general low-density character of existing single-family areas." The proposed single-family lots maintain the low- density character of the neighborhood because each lot would exceed the 6,000- square-foot minimum lot size in the R-1 zone district by 4,500. The lots would provide ample building area. Required setbacks and would assure that proper separation between homes would be maintained. Housing Element, Policy 3: "Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo Alto’s neighborhoods especially desirable." The applicant’s proposed subdivision design would not protect nor enhance the quality of the Driscoll Court neighborhood. The proposed lot configuration would likely result in the house on Lot 2 being setback farther from Maybell Avenue and slightly angled toward Driscoll Court. The resulting front yard setback would not be reflective of the existing houses on Driscoll Court and would disrupt the cul-de-sac pattern. It would also not be consistent with the lot pattern on Maybell Avenue, where side lot lines are at right angles to the front lot lines. A consistent pattern of development, especially among adjacent properties, is an important element in the creation of a desirable neighborhood. Modification of the subdivision design to either two 50-foot-wide lots or a cul-de-sac type of pattern would better preserve the existing neighborhood pattern. ISSUES AND ANALYfIS Lot ConfiguratJola Staff agrees with the applicant and neighbors that the cul-de-sac (Alternative F) type of lot configuration is the most desirable for purposes of complying with the neighborhood development pattern. However, because it necessitates acquisition of a portion of a neighboring lot, the City cannot require the cul-de-sac configuration as a condition of approval. The cul-de-sac design would not comply with the minimum lot width requirement at the 20-foot setback line but it would comply with the purposes of the side lot line requirements in the Design Section of the Subdivision Ordinance. AlthOugh the applicant’s proposal complies with all of the dimensional and size requirements of the R-1 zone district, the proposed lot line does not comply with the Design Section of the City’s Subdivision. Ordinance (see Attachment 8 - Section P:\PCSR\679MaybelI.sr Page 5 12-05-96 21.20.130 PAMC). Section 21.20.130 states that "side lot lines as far as practicable, shall be at right angles to straight streets or radial to curved streets," Staff recommends that the City deny the application based on the fact that the proposed design does not comply with this portion of the Subdivision Ordinance. The reasons Section 21.20.130 is important for assuring preservation of neighborhood compatibility in this case are as follows: 1) it would increase the width of the building envelope on front the portion of the lot 2, therefore accommodating more than a garage at the front setback; 2) it would result in the house on lot 2 having a more consistent front setback with the .existing development pattern in the neighborhood; 3) it would provide ample space for driveway access from Maybell Avenue, rather than Driscoll . Court; and 4) the proposed side lot line would be consistent with the lots fronting on Maybell Avenue, which have side lots lines at right angles to front lot lines. With the applicant’s proposed subdivision, lot 2 would be very narrow along its Maybell frontage. The point at which the lot would be 50 feet wide, measured parallel to the Maybell frontage, is over 100 feet into the lot. With the required side yard setbacks, this leaves a building envelope within that first 100 feet that is as narrow as 28 feet wide: The design of the proposed lots is more important to the preservation of the existing neighborhood pattern than the technical minimum width requirement of the R-1 zone district. In order to comply with Section 21.20.130 and the Comprehensive Plan, the application should reflect a lot line that bisects the existing parcel at a 90 degree angle to the front property line (Alternative C). This would create two 50-foot-wide lots that have frontage on Maybell Avenue. It would also allow a wider building envelope for lot 2. The staff recommended subdivision design would provide ample building area within required setbacks. And would result in a wider building envelope for lot 2 and greater consistency with the existing neighborhood development pattern. Both lots would be oriented to, and provide ample vehicular access from Maybell Avenue. Although the a revised subdivision design would require exceptions for reduced lot width, staff believes that the exception findings can be supported because of improved neighborhood compatibility and compliance with the design criteria of the Subdivision Ordinance. P:WCSR\679Maybell.sr Page 6 12-05-96 Driveway Access As identified above, the recommended lot configuration would provide ample street frontage for both lots to have vehicular access to Maybell Avenue. With the applicant’s proposal, there is a possibility that the developer of Lot 2 could provide a driveway opening from Driscoll Court, which would appear awkward and out of character with Driscoll Court houses. It would cause the occupant to make an almost 90 degree turn within the front yard to access required covered parking. It also would be located directly in front of the adjacent neighbor’s property, an unusual situation that usually only occurs with flag lot development. Tree Preservation The site currently contains 8 mature trees (6-inch or greater diameter), 4 of which are heritage oak trees, located within the north comer of the site and along the rear property line. Five of the trees are located within the required setbacks and would not be affected by construction. The remaining trees, two 24-inch redwoods and one 8- inch oak, are located within the allowable building area at the front of proposed Lot 1. There is ample room for the developer of pared 1 to construct a house and driveway without removing the redwoods or oak tree. The applicant has indicated that all existing trees would be retained and protected. A condition should be added to any subdivision approval for this property to require retention and protection of all eight mature trees. Public Participation Notice of the Planning Commission meeting and Zoning Administrator hearings was sent to property owners and utility customers within 300 feet of the subject site. The Planning Commission can recommend that the City Council do the following: 1.Deny the preliminary parcel map based on the attached findings; or 2.Approve the preliminary parcel map as proposed by the applicant. Findings are required to support whatever action is taken on the map. P:WCSR\679Maybell.sr Page 7 12-05-96 No fiscal impact will result from action on this application. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Article 19, Section 15315, minor land divisions. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL The Planning Commission’s recommendation on the preliminary parcel map will be forwarded to the City Council for final determination. The tentative date for that hearing is January 21, 1997. If the Council denies the project, the applicant can submit a new subdivision application, with an alternate design without prejudice. If Council approves the project, the applicant will be required to submit an application for approval of a parcel map. The parcel map will be reviewed for compliance with the preliminary parcel map approval by the Public Works Department and the Planning Division. Once approved, the parcel map will recorded at the Santa Clara County Recorders’ Office. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Attachment 6 Attachment 7 -Findings -Subdivider’s Statement -August 1, 1996 Zoning Administrator Minutes o Neighbors’ Proposed Alternatives -Letter from Neighbors dated 12/2/96 o September 5, 1996 Zoning Administrator Minutes - Section 21.20 PAMC Attachment 8 - Location Map Prelim~ry Parcel Map [Commission members only] James Rhodeos, 415 N. California Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cheryl Goodwin, Trustee of the Ruth E. Goodwin Trust, 415 N. California Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301 P:WCSR\679Maybell.sr Page 8 12-05-96 Mr. Klien, Miller, Morton, Caillat & Nevis, 50 W. San Franando St., #1300, San Jose CA 95113-2413 Prepared by:Joseph Colonna, Senior Planner Project Planner: Joseph Colonna Division/Department Head Approval: _~/’//~ ~/4/o,~,~ ~ Nancy Maddox Lytle, Chief Planning Official P:WCSR\679Maybell.sr Page 9 12-05-96 Attachment 1 PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP The proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs and the design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, in that the project would not be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance design requirement (PANIC Section 21.20.130) which states "side lot lines as far as practicable, shall be at fight angles to straight streets or radial to curved streets." The proposed map would not be consistent with the regular lotting pattern on Maybell Avenue, where side lot lines are at 90- degree angles to the street. A consistent pattern of development, especially adjacent properties, is an important element in the creation of a desirable neighborhood. The resulting front yard setback would not be refleetiveofthe existing houses on Driseoll Court and would disrupt the cul-de-sac pattern. In addition the proposed parcel map does not comply with Housing Element, Policy 3 because the proposed lot eortfiguration would result in the house on Lot 2 being setback farther from Maybell Avenue than other houses and angled toward Driscoll Court which is not consistent with R-1 neighborhood development patterns; o o The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed single-family 10ts would be 10,500 square feet each, which would exceed the 6,000-square- foot minimum lot size in the R-1 zone district by 4,500; The design of the new lot pattern and two new single-family homes will not cause significant environmental impacts, however proposed lot 2 would not be consistent with the development pattern in that the proposed lots will result in a narrow house with a garage at the front and a new driveway with access to Driscoll Court, which would appear awkward and out of character with Driseoll Court houses, inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Policy 3; The design of the new lot pattern and the proposed development will not result in serious public health problems, although it would be detrimental to the existing pattern of the neighborhood and would result in development of single-family homes that would detract from the adjacent cul-de-sac development and from the pattern along Maybell; and o The design of the new lot pattern will not conflict with public easements for access through the use of the property in that the resulting lots would have frontage on a public street for vehicular access and utility service. ’ Subdivider’ s Sta’tement Section 21.12.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code requires that a "Subdivider’s Statement" shall appear Upon~ or accompan),, tentative or preliminary parcel maps, and shall contain the following in£orm~tion: Address of Subject Property: 679 MaybellAvenue: Palo Alto, Ca 94306 (If ~ny oi~the items below are not applica~le~ so state.) Existing use(s) : NO improvements, Vacant land,. 20,908 sq. ft. lot. ~) Zon4 district (s): Proposed use (s): R-1 Single family res. (c) Improvementsand public utilities proposed and expected date of completion: No public utility improvements are proposed. (d)Provisions for sewerage and sewage disposal,, N/A (e)Public areas proposed: N/A (f)Tree planting proposed, including indication of trees to be removed or left in place:All existing trees to remain. Existing restrictive covenants, leases, rights-of-way,, licenses and encumberances affecting use of land ". (attach copies) : ; N o n e. Requested exceptions to any requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. CFbst exceptions relate to General Design requirements CChapter 21.21) and particularly to lot size, dimensions, location or configuration. Applications for exceptions shall state fully the ~rounds of the application and the facts relied upon by the petitioner. Exceptions shall be Kranted only upon making certain findings, including the four listed below.) Exceptions requested: NIA There are special circumstances or conditions affecting theproperty. (Describe) N/A (2)The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. (Explain). N/A The granting o.~ the exception will ~not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. (r:~plain) -N / A (4)The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals,-policies or spirit of the law. ~xplain) N/A j.Requested variances £rom any o£ the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. (Variances for-side yards and setbacks for existing buildings may be requested in conjunction with subdivisions to be reviewed by the PlanninS Commission and City Council°) Variances requested: N / A Reasons and Justification: N/A j. Manner in which compliance with applicable elements o£ the Comprehensive Plan, including housing policies, shall be attained {if relevant): N/A To the best of my knowledge, this application is in cohformance with the Comprehensive Plan as submitted or as indicated under (j) Planning Department 10/12/79 Signature of applicant t.i//~ames Rhodeos 05/21/96 679 Maybeil Avenue ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING August 1, 1996 ~,~,~ 96-PM-2 Ms. Grote: This is an application to subdivide an existing parcel into two 10,454-squareffoot single-family parcels. It is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Would the applicant come forward and make a presentation. James Rhodeos. 415 N. California Avenue. Palo Alto: I am representing the owners. This is hopefully just a standard subdivision of a 21,000-square-foot lot into two parcels. It is nothing more than that. And this is zoned R-l, single-family residential? Mr. Rhodeos: Yes, it is. Ms. ~ote: Are there others who wish to speak? Richard S. Merrill. 681 Driscoll Court, palo.Alt0.: My wife and I have owned and occupied the property at this address. We reviewed the documents in the planning department this morning, and we object to this subdivision. First of all, Driseoll Court, with the subdivision proposed, will not take the court into account. It will not use the access into the court. It will be from Maybell Avenue. My understanding, from talking with the planning department this morning, is that you need a 60-foot frontage with the setback in order to be able to have an address for a lot. The. reason I am going to make the following statement is that I was curious as to why we could not reverse these lots and have the broader one on this side and the narrower one here, which would push the house forward and possibly have a Driscoll Court address. We have never been approached as to our willingness to exchange or sell a piece of our property in order to make the cul-de-sac basically a complete cul-de-sac for access. I find now, in talking with your department, that in fact, in order to get the second address on Maybell Avenue, the owner has taken somewhat of a liberty in defining what the 60-foot plottage is. It is a loophole in the rule that allows them to take 40 feet of Maybell and 20 feet of Driscoll Court, even though they are not going to use Driseoll Court as a part of the address. As I said, we have never been approached about using Driseoll Court, either for selling or exchanging or anything as far as our property is concerned. We frankly do not like the layout as it currently exists. In my opinion, in looking at these drawings, it seems to me that you would have to put a two-story house at the back end of this lot as it currently exists, or something that is really long and narrow and would look-~elatively unattractive. I am surrounded by single-story houses, and I am absolutely not interested in a two-story house looking into my back yard, particularly if it has to be pushed up against the rear of the property. AAPCMin-3\679Mayb.za 11-04-96 Page 1 Ms. Grote: You were thinking that it would have to be back here? Mr: Merrill: That is certainly one option that they have available. It would either look into my back yard or the front of house would look into the back yard. Ms. ~ote: As far as the lot width is concerned, the definition of that would be street frontage. Mr. Colonna: They already have the street frontage. You stated that someone told you in Planning that they could not get an address. Mr. Men’ill:That was my understanding, Mr. Colonna: That is not the ease. If it is a legal conforming lot, they can get an address. If your concern is whether the access is from Maybell or from Driseoll, that does not factor into the making of an address. Another comment you made was in regard to selling off a piece of your property. It was my understanding that Driseoli Court is a public right-of-way and they would not need to do that. They have direct access, unless you are saying that some of your property actually goes down the side. Mr. Merrill: It ends fight here. Mr. Colonna: That is what they are showing, so this is actually part of their frontage on a public street. Mr. Men’ill: Except you would have to move the fire hydrant that sits in the middle, Mr. Colonna: Right, and I am not saying that they are necessarily requesting access, because there are no drawings that have come with this. This is just a subdivision map. ~:, This is how they are meeting their frontage requirement. Every lot needs to have 60 feet of street frontage, soit is this 37.6 feet plus this 25 feet which fronts on Driseoll Court, That is how they meet the minimum frontage requirement. h~C,d~.~a~: The reason why they are not doing it straight is because they would not have a conforming lot. It would actually be desirable for you if they made it straighter, (Discussion followed about the location of Mr. Merrill’s house) Ms. Grote: Also, two-story homes that meet the height requirements are allowed on most single- farniiy lots. ~: We are just applying for the subdivision. We are not applying for any building A:WCMin-3\679Mayb.za 11-04-96 Page 2 permits. understand. think he is anticipating that you will be applying for building permits. Mr. Rhodeos: They can build a two-story house, whatever the lot configuration is. ~: My point is, without being approached, I don’t believe that all of the options for the subdivision have been examined. In this particular ease, I object to this particular configuration. There are others that are possible. This feels like it is a relatively quick fix for getting rid of the property. I have lived there for nine years, and each year, we have depended upon the city to take care of the property. The owner does not take care of the property. Mr. Rhodeos: Yes, we do. We have it done. Mrs. Merrill: That is not true. The fire department has approached me and asked me specifically why I do not have a private contractor taking care of it. This has happened four years in a row, and I have replied that it is not my property. They said they cannot take care of it. Mr. Merrill: And the lot gets plowed, and the lot gets tended after we place calls to the city complaining about the height of the weeds and the fact that we feel that our house is at risk from fire danger. I am saying that it seems to me to have been put together very quickly to get rid of the property without consideration for the other options that are possible here. Linda Shepherd. 683 Driseoll Court. Palo Alto: I live two doors down from the proposed property split. I have lived on Driscoll Court for 15 years. During this time, this lot has been primarily neglected. It seems like most every year, the city has had to come out and cut down the overgrown weeds because it is a fire hazard. The neighbors also have taken it upon themselves to maintain this lot, i.e., mow down the lawn just to make it look nicer and not appear as a major eyesore. I am not opposed to that lot being subdivided. It makes perfect sense, but I am opposed to the current configuration because I don’t believe it takes into account the best usage of that lot. Having lived there for 15 years, I looked forward to the day when that lot would be subdivided to finish offthe court. This current configuration cuts offthe court. There are better alternatives. The Men, ills are approachable about looking at other alternatives. Each time, the owners have been contacted, it has never even been acknowledged that we have tried to talk to them about coming up with the best solution for that land. cannot speak to that. A:WCMin-3\679Mayb.za I 1-04-96 Page 3 ~: How do you perceive this as cutting offthe court? Is it because it does not have access from the court? ~[g~l: We would see the side of the house while we all face the court. It would not finish any circular nature of the court. Mr. Colonna: So are you saying that the closer a home is built on Maybell, the more of the side of the home you would see on the cul-de-sac? Ms. Davis: I am sort of the new kid on the block. This is a court that is a very nice area with children playing out there. You get a sense of the area being finished rather than broken up. Ms. Grote: I see you have brought some suggested plans. (Discussion about the plans) Warren Kirseh. 725 Ashby Drive. Palo Alto: I have lived in Palo Alto for 30 years, and I own a piece of property three doors down at 4161 Donald Drive. I did a couple of things. The top drawing is the current proposal, Drawing A, which is the one that most people are objecting to. It is a long piece of property with the potential for a long fence to be built and essentially wall off the court. The second drawing, Drawing B, flips that. The north lot would now be the non- standard lot with a 40-foot frontage. This would be more desirable, because the ftrst house would be farther forward from the neighbor’s standpoint, further towards the court. You could have a second house further in the back. So this would be more desirable, but not the most desirable. Drawing C is an equal subdivision. If you did something with a common driveway coming off Maybell Avenue with easements and rear garages, you could do something again more acceptable than the current proposal, but you would not necessarily have full frontage. Drawing D is a flag lot configuration. The neighbors understand that flag lots axe no longer permitted in Palo Alto, but from the neighborhood standpoint, this would again be a more desirable, more appealing eorffiguration than what is currently proposed. Drawing E is a wide access flag lot with five feet of frontage. It would be a wide access and narrow access flag lot. Again, you have a lot of property and you can do a lot with that. Drawing F is a diagram where the Merrills would be willing to give up the tail of the cul-de-sac, a piece of their property. They would still have sufficient access to their property, and the other two pieces of property could be developed coming off of the cul-de-sac so that the houses would face tb, e cul-de-sac. Maybell Avenue is a fairly busy street, a high traffic road, and the neighborhood feels this would be more desirable for future owners. They would more than cooperate to make this happen. It might take architectural review, etc. but it would be favorable for everyone. It would enhance the prope~ for the new owners, and it would enhance the value of the neighborhood. It becomes a win/win situation for everyone. A:WCMin-3\679Mayb.za 11-04-96 Page 4 ~: If these lots are sold and they are singly developed as single-family, there would be no architectural review. Mr. Kirseh: I understand that, but in this configuration where the two lots are much more standard looking for a typical cul-de-sac, they would end up with homes that would fit within the setbacks and daylight plane requirements that would obviously face out toward the cul-de-sac and complete it as a nice neighborhood rather than the potential of having a long driveway and a fence chopping off one side. That is what we really object to at this point. Mr. Kitsch: If you look at my property at the front edge of my house on this larger drawing, I have a lot of fear that with the development of this plan, someone could run a six-foot fence clear out to the street, well beyond the comer of my house. That would be very objectionable and would definitely cut up the cul-de-sac, decreasing the aesthetic value. Mr. Merrill: Particularly because even though the cul-de-sac may be there, it is not fronting that property, so there is no 16-foot setback for a fence. Mr. Colorma: There is a 16-foot setback for a six-foot-high fence, no matter where the property line is, if it abuts a street. ~: So there is noway it can go past the front of the house, but I would be unhappy with anything that came out beyond the front of my house. That would look so different from any of the other houses in the neighborhood. ~: Plus that is a very dangerous comer to have two driveways coming out. It is a almost like a blind comer where kids come around on their bikes. If they came out onto Maybell; you would not see them. It would be a potential for an accident, and the kids are tiding their bikes going to school. I walk my child, and that is absolutely a treacherous comer to try and teach him to cross the street alone, let alone having two more driveways coming out there. ~: Maybell Avenue has a double yellow line down it. It is a fairly high traf~e street. When they built the Walgreen’s down there, there was a lot of traffic. Mornings and evenings people take shortcuts through this part of town. Were there any comments made on visibility by the Transportation Department? No, there were no comments from the traftie engineer. Claudia Davis. 687Dri e IlC alo 1 : One of the things that really eompels me in looking at this from looking at property is how much more desirable this court is. I just moved from Palm Court which is a very busy street, and I have a young daughter. I have never had the experience of saying, come in when the street lights go on, because it is a safe street. It is a very A:WCMin-3\679Mayb.za 11-04-96 Page 5 open neighborhood, and they do play in that lot. What I am also struck by is how all the neighbors are trying for a solution so that it is a real win for you and a real win for us. It makes that a very desirable area. People coming in, instead of having their kids running out on Maybell, really would want access to this court. There are kids playing there, bicycles and stuff all the time. It is a lot of fun, so I just wanted to add that I am struck by the people wanting you to win, but not to lose in the process. I have no idea what it takes to make a subdivision, but from the physical layout, it just makes tremendous sense. So I encourage you to look seriously at that option and do what you can to make this a space where I feel kids will be much safer. It does seem to be a real high kid area. They are rezoning the schools now since there are so many kids in the area. I know that being on Maybell would be much more scary, as a parent. ~: Do you have a response to this? Mr. Rhode0s: I can appreciate all of the concerns and the time that has gone into this. We did not do this haphazardly. We researched it, and this was done according to the guidelines presented by the city. This was our best shot that we thought at the time. We never heard from you, to my knowledge. Mr. Goodwin died a year or so ago, and now we are dealing with this. If we had known, I am sure we would have contacted you. We did not, so this was our best effort at the subdivision according the city guidelines. I believe we complied with the regulations that they set forth. We can look at your ideas and see what we can do with them and go from there. Mr. Merdl~l: The only thing I can say is that my house has been where it is since 1981, and the front doorbell has never been out of order. Mr__: Rh0deos: I am sure it has worked, but I never heard one word. I represent the owner, and never heard any of this. Mr. Shepard: I personally called the owner and left messages, trying to get this thing worked out. Mr Rhodeos: I am sure you did, but he did not tell me. left messages suggesting that we cooperate on this. Mrs. Men’ill: I ran into Cheryl Goodwin on the lot. ]~r.~: I was also a potentially interested buyer of the resulting lots. From that perspective, as well as being a resident, I said you should talk to us. You said, well we already have it in at the city. Mr. Rhodeos_: Right. A:WCMin-3\679Mayb.za 11-04-96 Page 6 Mr. Shepard: I know that we did the development at Pena Court, and during that process from Day One, we were involved with the Barron Park Association and all of the surrounding neighbors in the development of the design process to make sure that what we did was acceptable and positive. In fact, we had multiple neighbors supporting the development at the City Council because they were not standard lots that resulted. We feel that it turned out to be something that was a benefit to the whole neighborhood. That was our effort to go out first. The first time I came before the Planning Commission, they suggested that I really needed to get the neighbors involved, that it was the best way to proceed forward, ~: Some of these options you have presented would result in lots that have exceptions, so it would be a different process. Mrs. Merrill: The least desirable action is the one that is being presented. It is the worst of the options. Even though the others would take exceptions, they are better than the proposed one. Ms. Grote: I can continue the hearing to a date Certain if you want to have time to ~ about this and work with the neighbors. Yes, let’s continue it. I will speak with the owner. ~: Is a month enough time? Or else two weeks. ~: We would be happy to work with you during that time, Mr. Rhodeos: I have one question. If we decidedthat yes, this is a great idea, and we can do it, we would have to look at the financing of it and how it is going to work. Timewise, what do you think this would take? Say we had a meeting in a month. Mr. Colonna: If it is conforming, we can get you back here at a zoning administrator hearing. It would not take any more time than that. If it is not conforming, it would have to go before the Planning Commission and City Council. So would a map that was approved here, but if the neighborhood appealed that map, it would also go forward to the Planning Commission and City Council. So there are economies of time there in trying to work with the neighborhood. ~: Going before the Planning Commission ~d City Council would, probably take about four months. .hJ,~l.9~lg: Obviously, the neighborhood has put a lot of effort into this, and if you come in with something they support, it would be to your advantage. h~B_]gko_~_~: We would love to do that. Time is an extreme issue. Money is an issue. This is an estate. Her dad died, so they are trying to settle the estate. Her family used to own King AAPCMin-3\679Mayb.za 11-04-96 Page 7 Arthur Court and other properties around, so there is a lot of family history there. We are not objecting to this, but time is an issue. She would like to get rid of it. We don’t want to spend thousands of dollars getting to this point. We will bemore than happy to look at this. Mr. Kirseh: One other point is that we did not see any utility improvement plans and that you were going to sell the lots as unimproved lots. Since you are not doing the improvements and would pass those improvements on to potential future buyers, that has a significant impact on the neighborhood in that you would have an electrical cut, a gas cut, water, sewer, storm drains, cable, telephone, street lighting, curb cuts, there could be ten permits times two ripping up Maybell Avenue, which is a fairly extensive street, if left to be done willy nilly over the next year or two. They would do those improvements at the time of development. Mr. Kirseh: On each lot. So it would be at least two times that it is ripped up. If the utilities were put in through Ddseoll Court, it would dpup part of the cul-de-sac instead of ripping up Maybell Avenue. We have not seen any of the utility improvement plans, anything at all. I can imagine how it will progress, and it will be an unmitigated chain of disasters, one after the other. I know how these things happen, and there will be nobody responsible and nobody will listen to the neighbors. We want the development to go forward, but we want it to go forward in an orderly fashion, minimizing the disruption, minimizing.the amount of ripping up of Maybell Avenue. We just lived through Walgreen’s being put in at the comer. We are still living through Walgreen’s. That was a disaster as far as blocking offMaybell, having trucks there for months. Also flag men. Mr. Kirsch: When we developed the court itself, we put in stub-outs for utilities to every lot. It was all done at one time off site. ~9.p.f!~: The same thing is required of all the school district improvements. Again, I know we are only talking about two lots, but it is the principle of the thing as well as the practicality of it. It would also be more economical to put all of the utility improvements in at once for the future buyers. ~: We are willing to make a tradeoff for Driseoll Court to be torn up once rather than Maybell at least once, maybe twice, in order to do that. So that is another consideration, I would rather do that than deal with disruption on Maybell. ]~l~tg_~L~: So you are asking that we take Plan F into strong consideration, and you would also like to see the utility improvements done at the same time. Exactly. A:~PCMin-3\679Mayb.za 11’04-96 Page 8 Ms. Davis: If you go for Plan F, I feel less pressure for the utility issue. So it is a little bit of a leverage to say, otherwise, I really want to get on to the issue of, okay, once you decide to do that, then I really want the least disruption possible. So they are kind of dominoes, but it is not a both or nothing issue. If it is Driscoll Court, then we know that is going to be tom up, and we do not have the issue of Maybell Avenue. But if it is not Ddseoll Court, I don’t really want Maybell tom up a couple of times. That is really where it is coming from. Mr. Shepard: I want to make one comment with respect to timeliness and financing. I do sympathize with that issue. I understand that you want to get things done for emotional reasons, taken care of as quickly as possible. We have been living with the lot as it is, a fire hazard, for fifteen years. We will have to deal with whatever is left over with the current configuration for the next fifteen or twenty years that we may live there. So I am sorry her father died, that is too bad, and I understand that she wants to get on with this, but we have been dealing with it for a long time and will have to deal with it for a long time afterwards. Frankly, financially, when she sells these two properties, she will be coming into a sizeable fortune in money. I am very clear on real estate, and she is probably looking at well in excess of three-quarters of a million dollars profit. It won’t show as profit because of the tax laws in this situation, so there is a financial incentive that says, free, at least do the job. ~ti~alp.dg~: Whatever money she gets, you do not know what the estate is. You have no knowledge of it, so that is not an issue of any relevance here. We are talking about a subdivision. We want to see this thing through and help as best we can. That is why this meeting is going on. Ms. Davis: And potentially, if you do subdivide that way, they may actually be worth more money. Mr. Merrill, this house on Lot F is going to be much bigger. It will be two stories. ~: Yes, but we looked at that. I also assume that it will be set back in the comer or toward the other property on the north side. (Discussion followed about how houses might face) ~: Would you want the next hearing set for one month? (Yes) Then I will continue this item to September 5th. It will be the first item on the agenda. A:~PCMin-3\679Mayb.za 11-04-96 Page 9 679 Maybell Avenue Subdivision index of Drawings Current Plan (South/Right Lot, Large Rear; North/Left Lot, Large Front) B=Reverse Diagonal Plan (South/Right Lot, Large Front; North/Left Lot, Large Rear) C=Rectangular Lot Plan (Both Lots have Access on Maybell Avenue) D=Narrow Access Flag Lot Plan (Rear Lot 15’ Access on Maybell; Front Lot Driscoll Court Access) E=Wide Access Flag Lot Plan (Rear Lot 35’ Access on Maybell; Front Lot Driscoll Court Access) Driscoll Court Access for Both Lots Plan (Cooperation with 681 Driscoll Court Owner on Merger and Re=Subdivision) 10,500.00 SO FT.8,195.84 SO FT. 210.0,~’ 100.00’68.,31’ 147,51’ 10,500.00 SQ FT. 1.00"= 40.00’ 10,500.00 SQ FT.8,195.84 SQ FT. 210.0C 100.00’ / 60.00’. 68.31’ !47.51’ I 80.00’ 10,500,0.0 SQ FT, 1.00"= 40.00’ 10,500.00 SQ FT.8,195.84 SQ FT. 210.01’ 100.00’68.31’ 10,500,00 SO FT, 1,00" = 40.00’ 15,550.00 SQ F-i-.8,195.84 SQ FT. 21 100.00’ 85.00’ 68.,31’ 7,650,00 SQ FT, 1,00" 40.00’ 15,200,00 SQ FT.8,195,84 SQ F-r, 210,0~ 100.00’68.51’ 147.51’ 7,800.00 SQ. FT. 1,00" = 40.00’ 12,500.00 SQ F[,8,995.85 SO R. 105.00 105,00’ 70.00’98.51’ --7,~0.00 SQ FT. 1.00"= 40.00’ Planning Commission Members & Staff oposed Snbdiv s o y Preservation of Driscoll Court The principal issue posed by the proposed subdivision of the above parcel is simple and straightforward: Is there a compelling reason for the City of Palo Alto to revisit and reverse the decision the City made 16 years ago to require that the properties on what is now Driscoll Court be developed as a court, when other property owners relied on that decision at substantial cost, and when there has been no suggestion that the original decision was a mistake? The question answers itseff. The arbitrary street number designation of the parcel at issue as "679 Maybdl Avenue" conceals the fundamental fact that the property is already in redlity part of an existing court, Driscoll Court: "679 Maybell" directly occupies one-fifth of the sidewalk of the court, a measure that understates its presence on the court because an even larger arc of this small cul-de-sacis within six or seven feet of the "Maybell" property. It follows that subdivision of the property as though it were not part of the court poses a threat to the character of the court and of the immediate neighborhood. A bit of history confirms the point. In 1978, the owners of the properties that are now built on Driscoll Court sought to develop these properties at the intersection of Maybell Avenue and Donald Drive in Palo Alto, and consulted with the Planning Commission regarding acceptable means of doing so. The Planning Commission and the City then required that the propera’es be developed as a court, consistent with the City’s commitment to orderly, safe, and pleasing development of this community. Consistent with this commitment, the City has since overseen the development of additional cul-de-sacs along the length of Maybell Avenue. On January 15, 1979, the City of Palo Alto City Council ratified the decision to create Driscoll Court, and all of the affected property owners were invited to participate in the development of the court. The owner of "679 Maybell" chose not to participate, and elected to maintain his property as a single, large pared when the City of Palo Alto was working with the oWners of the properties to plan a cohesive, attractive and safe neighborhood. But the fact that the owner declined to participate did not mean that he somehow reserved the right to develop the property in a way that would later destroy the character of the court .or go against the original intention of completing a court. The cul-du-sac was completed in the fall of 1980, and was constructed per city specifications and approvals. The sidewalk and street portion of the court-- re_presenting land valued at about $100,0(0)0-was donated to the City of Palo Alto by the former property owners upon completion of the court. ~scoll Court Property Owners Opposition to 679 Maybell Subdivision Page 2 Driscoll Court, as developed pursuant to the City’s requirements, was comprised of five lots with access to the cul-de-sac. Four lots ranged between 6,000 and 9,000 square feet, and one is more than 20,000 square feet.. The 20,000 square foot lot is the parcel at issue. Over the ensuing years, homes were built on each of these lots except the large parcel. The builders and current residents relied on the City’s decision to create and complete the cul-du-sac. All homes were designed ~d b~t with the intention that the configuration would contribute to the enjoyment of their homes and fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. These reasonable expectations are all now put at issue by the subdivision plan. One of the civic values that a court provides is a safe space for cars to back out and turn around in. The current proposal fails to utilize Driscoll Court for that purpose and encourages the construction of two new driveways near the dangerous intersection of Maybell Avenue and Donald Drive. Maybell is already a heavily traveled street, with cars and children on bicycles circumventing Arastradero Road to travel to and from Juana Bdones Elementary.School, JLS Junior High School and Gunn High School, and now with increasing car traffic heading for the new Walgreen’s at Maybell and El Camino. It would be unfortunate and potentially dangerous not to benefit from the safety of exiting and entering a driveway on a cul-de-sac rather than a dangerous intersection. Other values promoted by the original decision to require the creation of this court were diversifying the appearance and feel of Maybell Avenue, allowing greater visual and developmental depth consistent with appropriate street access, providing a safer immediate street environment for those on the Court, and presenting an aesthetically pleasing appearance to the broader neighborhood. All of these values would be threatened by allowing the development of the parcel at issue inconsistent with the court of which it is a part. If the parcel is divided into two Maybell-fronting, Maybell-driveway parcels, those properties, visually tom from their neighbors, would constantly be on view from the entire present court, and would present a bizarre and discordant look and feel. It is even possible that the developed subdivided propertieswconsistent with the proposed property lines---could include long hedges or fences along the property lines, again utterly destroying the pleasing appearance of.the court as a court. The current lot at 679 Maybdl is larger than the other lots on Driscoll Court. However, it is not at all unusual in such a diverse neighborhood as Barton Park, and could support a single residence. So it stands to reason it should not automatically be considered fodder for a quick subdivision. This type of lot and home-size diversity is a hallmark in the Barron Park area of Palo Alto.1 1 We note that an equally large parcel of about a half acre, presently on the market, is located at nearby Arnaranta Street; ~is is only one of a great many very large parcels in this community. Driseoll Court Property Owners Opposition to 679 Maybell Subdivision Page 3 The current subdivision proposal would completely change the look and feel of Driscoll Court, and would subvert the original intended purpose of the City of Palo Alto in creating the court 16 years ago. In addition, the current proposed subdivision would undoubtedly result in the loss of value and enjoyment of the homes of the existing residents of Driscoll Court and the surrounding neighborhood. The owners of the "679 Maybell" parcel may have been within their rights in refusing to participate in the parcel division planning that took place 16 years ago. But that cannot mean that they are belatedly at liberty to insist on a new plan that destroys the character of the existing Court. The neighbors on Driscoll Court still support some negotiated resolution of this problem. But if none can be arrived at, it would be unfair and unreasonable for the City essentially to bring up anew the decision to create this court when the other residents of the court, acting in reasonable reliance on that decision, developed the Court, donated land of substantial value to the City, built their homes, and moved into this community. The decision was made 16 years ago. It has proven to be a good one. It should not be subject to de facto reversal now. We the residents of Driscoll Court therefore encourage you to support the City of Palo Alto’s original decision to construct Driscoll Court, and to refuse the plan of the owners of "679 Maybell" to subdivide the parcel in a manner that destroys the character of.Driscoll Court and harms the attractive appearance of the entire neighborhood. _679 Maybell Avenu~e ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING September 5, 1996 96-PM-2 Ms. Grote: This is a continued item from August 1, 1996, an application to subdivide an existing parcel into two 10,454-square-foot single-family parcels. It is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. We heard this item about a month ago. Would you briefly summarize what has occurred between then and now? What we had started with was a dialogue between the neighbors and the applicant, looking at some other options for subdividing this parcel. If you have had any meetings with the neighbors, you might want to come forward. Pamela P~lge: Together with the neighbors on Driscoll Court, we did have a meeting at one of the neighbor’s homes on Driseoll Court, which I believe was on Tuesday night. We discussed the various options, I think what we got out of it was that Plan F is definitely their preferred plan for completing the cul-de-sac. We did ask that if we could not get that through, would any of the other plans be acceptable. What we got out of that was that if the city said it was okay, a flag lot with a driveway on the left side of the parcel would be acceptable to them as a second choice. Other pertinent points that came out in the meeting were that there is a land swap involved in order to make Plan F work. Another thing that came out was that the owner of Maybell would be giving up approximately 1,000 square feet in a land swap. The meeting, went well, and we are all trying to work towards an amenable solution. Claudia Davis. 687 Driseoll Court. Palo Alto: I am one of the newest neighbors, as I have just been there a couple of months. I wanted to give you a little information on some of the things we understood at the meeting, also. We were really glad that they contacted us. It was a little bit late, sort of the final hour, but at least, we did talk, and that was very helpful, One of the things that came up was the cost. We were quite interested in that, because we really felt that the flag lot may be an option down the road, but we really want to work towards Plan F. The reason is that it involves safety issues for the street and Maybell would not need to be torn up. We would absorb the cost that the city would have in tearing up Maybell, which is quite a well traveled street, particularly since they added Walgreen’s there. We really felt that from a safety point of view, having access off of Driseoll Court versus a very blind corner with access onto Maybell, two more driveways coming onto Maybell right at that corner which is quite blind as you come around it, we really believe that from a safety point of view and our own children involved and the neighborhood, because Juana Bdones School is just down the road, we really want to advocate for the court’s being completed. It really does make a much safer environment for the community in terms of traffic, and also from construction, and it does not seem to cost any more. We also think that there is a value added even to the people who own the land for selecting Option F because it is interesting.. A friend of mine talked to me last night, and he was &~ZB~vlinutes\679Mayb.min Page 1 11-04-96 contacted by a real estate agent to see ifhe was interested in purchasing this land. He was presented with the information that the neighborhood really would like this plan. He never said anything about flag lots, and they were promoting it and sent out this design to that realtor who had it in his hand. That really shocked me, because it is one of our people’s designs, and ithas gotten into the real estate community. When he asked the agent what did he think, the agent said, if you could get this aitemative, the value of the land would be much increased. You would have a much better deal. That shocked me, as there has nothing been from a public record point of view, and this is not their plan. It is in the hands of the realtors, and they are going out soliciting potential developers, based upon this plan as being the most financially viable, the other one being one that they also have into the city in terms of approval, the original one. I was very surprised about that when it turned out to be the place where I lived. So from a cost point of view which you also raised, they would be giving up 1,000 square feet. My understanding, from what we looked at in those plans, although we are not engineers, is that the land that is being traded offwould be way at the back of their property, and is about 800 square feet, or whatever the swap is, but you really get prime circle property. Under other circumstances, you would never be able to do this since you don’t own the land. You would be increasing the value of the land many times, at least that is the way the real estate agent is promoting it to one of the developers. So swapping off 800 square feet is really not the value, so the people who are willing to do that tradeoffreally took as conservative approach as they could to not even ask for anything in terms of that land, so I would really like to put that caveat in, as the value of that square footage is real different. What you get as a result of that swap is significant, at least, what the realtors were promoting to this developer. It just happened yesterday and is serendipitous. Another thing in terms of the property value is that for the aesthetics of the community, it is very much designed as a court. When I came to live here, aesthetically, having a long fence there would just not be pleasing, whereas there is a very viable second option. So from a safety point of view, from a cost point of view and value added to the people, and also avoiding disruption during the building process, they also can use the utilities which I understand have already been built, and they could be done much more easily on Driseoll Court than off of Maybell, so there are a lot of advantages to Plan F. The only issue I am not sure of is the time issue, and you all know more about that than Idoi I know that time is an issue for them. They would like it to be as soon as possible. I do know that in terms of even the appeal process, which I would be willing to do, and I don’t know about the rest of the folks, but I would be willing to talk to the Planning Commission and the City Council regarding it in terms of community improvement. That kind of a timeframe would be a longer timeframe than working this Option F through. Joan Oakley. 4178 King Arthur Court. Polo Alto: My property is adjacent to the east side of the parcel. No matter which plan you use, I am still there. I am a long-time resident of Palo Alto, 55 years. I used to go out to my grandfatherrs ranch with my parents and buy eggs and fruit on Arastradero. I bought my house on King Arthur Court in 1966, 30 years ago. I have made A:kZB~Minutes\679Mayb.min Page 2211-04-96 considerable effort to upgrade the property, to upgrade the home and maintain the value and the integrity of the neighborhood. So my concern lies primarily in the fact that my house is situated 21 feet from the fence. That 21 feet constitutes my patio where I entertain friends, enjoy my grandchildren and enjoy the lifestyle for which Palo Alto is famous. So my request is to have a minimum of the 20-foot setback set on the rear of that parcel. On one of your plans it is the rear, and on one of the plans that opens on Driseoll Court, it is not the rear, so that poses a grave problem for me to have a two-story house back close to my property. I think that on your new submission, one of the lots would open onto Driscoll Court, and if I understand the process correctly, that would then make that setback a side setback. Mr. Colonna: No, even in this case of Alternative F, that would be a rear setback. The line that is the most distant in this ease would be the rear. ~: Then what I am basically asking is that it be set into the deed that a minimum setback of 20 .feet be against my parcel, regardless of how the houses will be facing, no matter which design you use to subdivide the property. As a senior citizen, I will be needing my property value when I sell it to go into a health care facility. I have maintained my property very well, and do not want to lose it at this point. I have a written item for you, as well. Joe Curtzel. 3228 Kipling Street. Palo Alto: I have lived here since 1961. I am interested in purchasing the property and am interested in subdividing it in the following way. I was looking at the parcel map and I also visited three or four times. In the spirit of that current design, I was proposing to have a flag lot in the following way. I would be able to put the 20-foot setbacks in each direction. I am planning to build two single-story houses, preferably, however, I would not want to swap any land. I am going to appeal, based on my plan here. I have tried to adhere to all of the Palo Alto requirements. As you can see, the frontage is 65 feet plus a 15-foot driveway with a 20-foot radius, and another 60 feet from the road. Ms._MA_~_O~: Actually flag lots are prohibited by our subdivision ordinance, so you could not even consider this plan. Yes, I understood that, because another flag lot was considered for the left side. Ms. Grote: Wherever you put the flag, you could not do it. They are prohibited. Joe Kereso: I feel that with either the first or second plani you are paralyzing the current owner, because it is a very inefficient lot with the first plan. With the second plan designed by the neighbor, it is going to have 25 feet of frontage on Ddseoll Court for two lots, and that is not enou .gh, talking about safety. Secondly, there are all kinds of setbacks that would prohibit building an efficient house. Thirdly, it is 800 square feet of lost area, which is worth $40,000 at current land prices. So I respectfully submit this for consideration. A:~ZB~Minutes\679Mayb.min Page 3311-04-96 Mitchell Zimmerman, 675 Maybell, Palo Alto: What I would like to point out is that along the edge of this parcel that has to be subdivided, closest to ours are a group of very large old trees, including some fairly gigantic Palo Alto redwoods, a redwood grove. That contributes something to the whole feel of the neighborhood. I would be concerned about any rearrangement of this that would put pressure on them for driveways, etc. That would have an adverse effect. One of them is actually on the property line, and the group here are close to the edge. There would not be any way of putting a driveway through there without demolishing some trees that have probably been there for 80 years or so. Ms. Grote: Have you looked at Plan F? I gather that these trees would be less threatened by Plan F than they would be by this proposal here? These trees would then be in a rear yard or side yard area. Mr. Zimmerman: This is the first I have seen of this plan, but I think that this plan is probably more protective ofthe large trees. There are some trees that are more toward the center, but are really just giant shrubs, but the trees over here are probably closer to the zone where they might be cut down are very large trees. I suspect this arrangement would be more protective of them than this plan here. You have what amounts to two fairly narrow frontages largely on Maybell, and that puts a lot of pressure on driveways that would most likely damage the trees. They have been there a long, long time, and I feel they represent an important aspect of the feel of Maybell and Driseoll Court area. As regards the problem with the current owners and the people who would like to buy it, the question is, this is too large a parcel to make effective use of it without slicing it up in ftmny ways. It is a problem that was created originally when this whole area was subdivided into a- number of parcels. Presumably, it could have been subdivided in other ways by making slightly larger lots or a group of them that would have been of a reasonable size. I am not familiar with the history of these divisions, but in effect, perhaps what has happened is that somebody devises a method of dividing this up into a number of lots that makes sense in terms of sales for the way housing in the area was done at the time, and one of the consequences of that overall plan may have been, due to the shape of the street and everything else, they wound up with one very large parcel there. I am not sure that the fair thing should be, now that someone has come along who owns that one pared that was part of an overall plan and has inherited the pared, to divide it into two lots. If a reasonable plan that can satisfy these other needs cannot be arrived at, it should not be divided at all. That is the price of creating an overall subdivision, and I don’t feel that someone has the inherent right to subdivide it in any way that they can. ~: Are both of the applicants aware of Plan F, and are you also in support of pursuing Plan F? ~: I spoke with the engineer yesterday, taking the same map. Using Plan F, we have done this map. Our question is, would this meet the city’s requirements? AAZBWlinutes\679Mayb.min Page 4411-04-96 Ms. Grote: Yes, that was the next point. I believe you are going to need several exceptions to this. It would become a parcel map with exceptions. That would mean that it goes through the Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval. That would mean two additional public hearings and also a set of exception findings that are in the subdivision ordinance. You would certainly have opportunity to comment there, as would the neighbors in support of it. So the decision, in effect, would be deferred to the Planning Commission and City Council. I would not make the decision. We would go with staff recommendations. What kind of a timeframe would this be? Ms. Grote: At this point, it would probably be mid- to late November to get it onto their agenda. And then it would be about a month later for the City Council. Mr. Rhodeos: Could you offer any opinion, just looking at this, as to whether it is close to approval? Ms. Grote: I believe Mr. Colorma has made some calculations. Mr. Colonna: Yes, I have made a few calculations, and there are exceptions. The exceptions are for width at the 20-foot setback. Sixty feet are required. Certainly the Alternative F proposal, being subdivided in a typical cul-de-sac way where you have property lines that are radial to the center of Driseoll Court, complies more with the design section of the ordinance than does the original proposal which was rather angled toward the side property line. So you are violating, in one sense, but you are coming closer in terms of design than with the. other one. Peter Klein: I am with the proponents. There is also no indication that Plan F can actually be logistically put together. Plan F, as submitted by the neighbors, shows that there is an increase of about 800 square feet on the neighbor’s pared. There was no indication that they want to pay compensation for that. So we have no concept as to whether the parties can get together to do that deal, even if it were acceptable to the planning authorities. That is opposed to the current plan where they endeavor to keep it within the city’s requirements. Ms. Grot~e: So are you indicating that there are some unresolved issues here, and you are not prepared to say yes, you would support this as the project proponent, should it go forward to Planning Commission and City Council? ¯ Mr. Klein: That is correct. I cannot say that at this point. ~: Is there a response to that? " ~. 687 Ddseoll Court: You were here when I spoke to that issue in terms of the amount of land that would be changed versus frontage on Driseoll Court, which is more A:~ZB~Minutes\679Mayb.min 5 I’age 5 11-04-96 desirable, we believe. The only validation I have for that, Peter, is that a fi’iend of mine got a phone call yesterday from a realtor, and reported to me last night, who said, I have an interest in a piece of land that you might be interested in developing, since he is a developer. It turned out that this piece of land and the realtor had Plan F in her hands, as a proposal. Her take on it was that if you could work with the neighbors and subdivide that, you would get much more for that land than the way the original proposal was. Peter, that tells me that there are some market data to support that hypothesis which says if you take it into that subdivision as a realtor, which also you did not care to comment on which really shocked me, that that piece of paper is in realtors’ hands being promoted to other realtors and calling developers to develop that piece of land. I didn’t know that that could happen, and I am not a lawyer. You are. That really does not make a lot of sense to me. That does give me some market data that say, that assumption is pretty accurate and that you would not be able to even make that subdivision unless the Merrills agreed to give up that front part of the court. It would not even been an option to you, which perhaps, as the realtor explained to this developer, it is very unknown that there is any relationship to me or understanding this particular piece of property, is actually advocating for that pie shape as being more valuable. That is very confusing to me. Maybe you guys can straighten that one out. Mr. Klein: I can straighten it out. He said that she said that they Said; What I have indicated to the zoning administrator is that there is no deal. There is going to be an increase in the square footage of the neighboring property in that proposal and a decrease in our proposal. There is no agreement on that land swap, and I respectfully disagree with the hearsay that you are presenting. That is where it is. My point is that there is just no agreement at this point. Ms. Davis: Can you explain why that is being promoted by realtors? Ms. Grote: I think he probably cannot explain that at this point. There are two choices here. One is that I can continue this for another month if you want to try and work out an agreement. Or I can refer it to the Planning Commission and you can try and work out an agreement prior to its going to the Planning Commission. I will leave it up to you to think about that, and someone else wishes to speak. Joe Kereso: At this point, I am the only interested party willing to purchase that property. Everyone has a great deal of interest in this, but I am the only one who is putting money on the table, so far. I respectfully request to have my plan considered. I am going to buy the property, and I am not going to alter any other property, anybody’s land swap, regardless of what kind of a good deal I am going to get. I just want to purchase that piece of property. Thank you very much. ~.d~!2~[~,..~: I have a question. If it is referred to the Planning Commission, is there an oppoi’tunity to modify the proposal so that when it goes to the Planning Commission and there is a consensus, or will it have to go back to Square 1 ? A:~ZBkMinutes\679Mayb.min Page 6611-04-96 Ms. Grote: You would need to have that proposal modified fairly quickly so that we can prepare a staff report and analysis to get it to the Planning Commission by mid November. We do need to route it around to various in-house departments, such as Public Works and Utilities, for their comments. That modification would have to be made fairly quickly in order to get it to a November hearing. Mr. Rhodeos: And am I hearing that the two alternatives are either continuance or referral to the Planning Commission and there is not going to be a decision by you on this? Ms. Grote: Yes, that is correct. I don’t think there is enough consensus for me to make a decision on this. The other option is that ifI were to close the public hearing today and issue a decision, someone would probably appeal that decision. Either the neighbors would appeal it or you, as the property owners, would appeal it. That probably puts you into the early part of 1997. Mr. Rhodeos: We feel it makes the most sense to have it go before the Planning Commission. Ms. Grote: I will then close the public h earing and refer this to the Planning Commission. ~ZB~vlinutes\679Mayb.min Page 7711-04-96 ¯ SUBDMSIONS AND ~ DMSI ~:~ :~ OF LAND materials or equipment to them forthe imp~ve- mere or the performance of the r~luixed act.; (c) An amount to be determined by the city engineer to ~uarantee and warranty the work for a period of one year following the completion and acceptance of the work agains~ any defective work or labor done, or defective materials furnished; (d) As a part of the obligation guaranteed by the security and in addition to. the face amount of the security, there shall be included costs and rea- sortable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by the city in success- fully enforcing-the obligations secured. (Ord. 3157 §1 (part), 1979) 21.16;240 Final map ~ Approval. by city council, submitted to city clerk. At the council’s fu~ regul~ meeting following its receipt of the final map or within ten days of the filing of the final map, whichever is later, the city council shall consider such map and any of- fers of dedication. The city council may reject any or all offers of dedication. If the city council de-. termines that the map meets the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and this title, it shall ap- prove the map and certify such approval on ~e map. It shall transmit the map to the city clerk. The city council shall not disapprove a final map when the failure of tbe map is the result ofa tex.h- nical and inadvertent error which, in the opinion of the city council does not materially affect the validity Of the map; provided that, to the extent possible, the map shall be corrected prior to mcordation. (Ord. 3157 §1 (pan), 1979) 21.16.250 Final and parcel maps n Ap- proval and recor ,d!ing, effect. No final or parcel map shaU have .any effect until, approved under this rifle. No tide to any property des~ibed in any offer of dedication shall be conveyed until the map has been recorded in the office ofthe county recorder. (Ord. 3157 §I (P rO, 1979) 21.20.0 l 0 21.16.260 Coordinated efforts of city and county. If a subdivision is partly in the city and partly in the county, the county surveyor and the city engineer shall enter into an ag~ent by and with the consent of their respective governing bodies providing that either shaiI perform the duties pre- scribed for the city engineer in this chapter, or pn3viding for an apportionment between them of such duries. When by such agreement all such duties devolve upon either the city engineer or the county surveyor, such officer shall perform said duties. After performance thereof, such officer shall cerdfy to the pefformanc~ of said duties on the map. When by such agreement the duties are apportioned between the county surveyor and the city engineer, each officer shall, after the per- formance thereof, make certification on said map, covering the duties performed by each. (Ord. 3157 §1 @an), 1979). 21.16.270 Reversion to acreage. A mvemion to acreage shall be accomplished in conformance with Chapter 6 of the Subdivision Map Act. A parcel map may be filed for the pur- pose of reverting to acreage land previously sub- divided and consisting of four or less contiguous patois under one ownership. In the event a reversion to acreage is accomplished by means of a parcel map, the di~ctor of planning shall be the advisory agency and shall be empowered to perform all funaions of the l~gisl~ve body under ¯ said Chap~:r 6. All mal~ filed for the purpose of ~verfing land to ~creage shall be conspicuously so designated under the rifle ~ Purpose of this Map is a Reversion to Acreage." (Ord. 3157 §I (pan), 1979) CHAPTER 21.20 DESIGN 21,20,010 Generally, The provisions of this ~r shall govern the design of all subdivisions. The provisions of this 2121 21.20.020 ~ ¯ chapter shall be incorporated in any subdivision approval unless th~ city council, or director of planning in-the case of a preliminary parcel map, finds that due to the particular civ.-~unstances ~ design criteria are not necessary or ~ alternative designs are pr~ferable; provided, that any modifi- cations to the lot size, dimensions, location or configuration standards shall only be made upon request for and approval of exceptions to said standard. Design of an subdivisions shaU indud’e such facilities for the handicapped as may b¢ re- quired by federal, state or local law. (Ord. 3157 §I (part), 1979) 21.20.020 Conformance to master plan and local law. with the Palo Alto compreI~nsive plan. Subdi~ visions shall also conform with any sl~ific plato Subdivisions shall also conform with all other provisions of law, including but not limited subdivision or of improvements shall conform in and ~ be subject to the approval of the ci~ engineer. Any subdivision may be approved sub- as may be necessary to insure ~e public health, safety, welfare and convenience. (Ord. 3157 §1 (p~), 197~) 21.20.030 Alleys. When any lots are proposed for commendal or industrial usage, alleys at least twenty feet in width may be required at the rear the~of with adequate ingress ~nd egress for mack traffic. (Oral. 3157 §! (part), 1979) .. _ 21.20.040 Boundaries of subdivision. Where possible, the exterior boundaries of all subdivisions shall be to the centefline of all smuts and highways adjacen~ to s~id subdivisio~t unless such street or highway is not within the city limits; in such a case, the exterior bo .undary of the subdivision will coincide with the city limits. The subdivider shall be required to dedicate to the city all property within the city which is not owned by another public agency between the centerline and the proposed right-of-way line of such street or highway as may be established by official plan lines of the city or established by the compre- hensive plan or established by. any master plan of steers and highways or any specific plan. Any property between the ceraerline and the proposed right-of-way line with another public jurisdiction shall be dedicated to that jurisdiction. Such prop- eny shall be improved or the furl cost of making pennanem improvements to the property shall be deposited with the city as wescTibed in this chap- ter. (Ore. 3157 §1 (part), 1979) 21.20.050 Divided lots. No lot shall be divided by a city boundary line. (Ord. 3157 §1 (part), 1979) 21.20.060 Drainage. All lots shall be graded to drain to a public steer; but the city engineer may ~ or allow altem~ve drainage ~ as may be ~.asonably ~ to avoid excessive grading or grading which results in a significant beight diffmw~al at ~ny property line. (Ord. 3157 §1 (part), 1979) 21.20.070 Easements. Public utility, sanitary sewer, and drainage easements ahall be provided in such locations and to such widths as maybe required bythe dire~r of utilities m~d ~ity engineer. (Ord. 3157 §1 (part), 19W) 21.20.080 Interior lots with double frontage. ~I. (O~h 31$7 §1 (part), "1979) 21.20.090 .Land r~.r~d ~or public The city council may, ~s a condition of ap- proval of any tentative map, require the sub- divider to reserve ~reas of real property for parks, recreational facilities, fire stations, libraries, or other public uses if such n~ervation would imple- mere the Palo Alto comprehensive plan or any 2122 SUBDMSIONS AND OTHER DMSI(OF ~21.20.170 adopr~.d specific plan. Such reservadons shall be pursuant to Section.66479 et seq. of the Govern- ment Code. (Oral. 31S7 §1 (pan), 1979) 21.20.100 Lots. The size and shape of lots sha!1 conform with any zoning reguladons effective in the area of ~ proposed subdivisions and as shown on the zon- ing map. In addition, residential lots on curved or cul-de-sac sl~e~s shall have a minimum width a~ the building setback ~ of six~ feet, a mL, dmum average depth of one hundred f~t, and a mini- mum area of six thousand square fee~; provided, tha~ this requirement shall not be deemed to reduce any more res~ve requirement contained in ~ zoning regulations. (Ord. 3157 §1 (pan), 1979) 21.20.110 Nonaccess and planting strips. When a rear or side lot line of a lot borders on any street, the fight of ingress or egress may be prohibited w such lot across such ~ or side lot line. Dedicadfion of such access rights shall be made either on the map or by separam insmm~ent satisfactory to the city attorney. When the rear or side lot line of any lot borders any freeway, state highway, expressway, or major thoroughfare, a planting strip approved by the city engineer may be required adjacent to such freeway, highway, expressway, or major tbomughfam. (Ord. 3157 §I 1979) 21.20.120 Service roads and off-street parking. When lots proposed for commercial usage front on any expres .swaY, arterial or collector street, a service mad to provide adequate ingress and e~ress, or in lieu ~ereof adjacent areas for public off-su~et paddn~ purposes may be re. quired. When any lot proposed for residential ~ fron~ on any freeway, s~m highway, express- way, or arterial, an improved service road may be required ~ ~e fmr~ of such loL In addition, ade- quate OffoSU~et parking ar~s for all lo~s propu~d for commercial use shall b¢ required. (Orfl. 3157 §I (p~), 1779) 21.20.130 Side lot lines. The side lot lines of all lots, as. far as prac- ticable, shall be a~ right angles to straight streets or radial [o curved sUeets. (Ord. 3157 §1 (part), 1979) 21.20.140 Street names. Street names, whether for public or private streets, require approval by the city council No street name shall be duplicated. No street name sig~ or bther identification shall be erected show- ing any name other than that approved by the city council. (Ord. 3157 §I .(part), 1979) 21.20.150 Street name and traffic-con. trol signs. ~ All sueet names shall be clearly shown upon signs approved by the city engineer. The city engineer shall require traffic-control dgnal sys- tems, signs, and markings adequate to secure the objectives of public safety and the comprehensive plan. The design and installation of such systems, ¯ signs and markings shall be subject to the ap- proval of the city engineer. (Ord. 3157§I (part), 197~) 21.20.160 Streets and highways Conformance to master plan. and alignment to any maser plan Of proved by the city council. (Ord. 3157 ~I (pan), 1979) 21.20.170 Conformance to council pro. eeedings~ ........ The street design shall coRfo~ to any pro- ceedings affecting the subdivision which may have been initiated by the tit7 otmcil on its own motion or approved by the city ~uncil upon initiation by any other legally constituted bodies of the city, county, or state. If a Imrcel of land to be subdivided includes a portion of the right-of- way to be aCzlui~l for a freeway or expressway 2123 21.20.180 PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE and the city council determines the boundaries of the righbof-way to be acquired, such right-of- way shall be shown on the tentative and final or parcel maps. (Ord, 3157 §I (pan), 1979) 21.20.180 Access~ strips. Reserve s~ips conm3lling the access to public ways or which will not be taxable for spe~al pmvements, shall be appmvedonly if such strips. are necessary for the prote~on of the public wel- fare or of substantial, property rights, or beth. The control and disposal of the land ~mprising such strips shall be placed within the juriadi~on of the city under conditions deemed sufficient, by the city attorney and approved by the city council or dis- tot of planning in the case of a preliminary parcel map. (Ord. 3157 §1 (part), 1979) 21.20.190 Klignment. As far as practicable, the streets shall be in alignment with existing adjacent streets by con- flmadous of the centerlines thereof and by adjust- merits by curves. (Ord. 3157 §1 (part), 1979) 21.20.200 Centerlines. Street ~r~rlines shall ~ one another at an angle as near to a right angle as lmu:tieable by tangents not less than seventy-five feet in length. (Ord. 3157 §1 (j~rt), 1979) 21.20.210 Grades. No f~eway, expressway, arterial or colle~or steer shall have a grade of more than seven per- cent. No other street shall have a grade of more than ~ percent. (Oal. 3157 §1 (l~rt), 1979) 21.20.220 Inter~eetion ~er rounding. Whenever any street inteneas any o~r meet, the property lines at each block comer thus formed shall be rounded with a curve having a radius of not less than ten feet. The city engineer may require a greater curve radius if steers in- tersect at other than right angles. This section shall not apply at any huersection where there are no building setback requirements. (Oral, 3157 §1 ~,t), 1779) 21.20.230 Turnarounds. Ali dead-end streets ~ have a turnaround with a minimum radius of forty feet, except that where necessary to give access to or to permit a satisfactory future subdivision of adjoining land, streets may extend to the boundary of the property and the resul~ng deadend st~ets may be approved without a turnaround. (Ord. 3157 §1 (part), 1979) . 21.20.240 Widths. (a) Sueets shown in any master street plan or affected by proceedings initiated or approved by the city council shall have widths as required by such plan or proceedings. (b) All other ~ shall have right-of-way of the following widths, except where the city council determines that-the topography or the small number of lots served and the probable future U’affic develol~nent a~ such as to justi~ a narrowed width. Increased widths may be re- property, or where probable traffic conditions (1) Major anerials: eighty-six feet to one ~fee~ (2) Collector streets;local streets, or cub (3) Cul-de-sac streets three hund~ fifty (4). Private streets: Such right-of-way ~s would be t~lui~ for a omparable public su~t, unless subdivider can demonstrate to the satis- faction of ~e city council or director of planning to or l on of p osedorofdev opment which ~r such right-of-way ~ for or detrimental t~ the public health, safety or wel- fare. (Ord. 3345 §36, 1982: Oral. 3157 §1 (part), 1979) 2124 ""--SUBDMSIONS AND OTHER DrvIsIOi.~-OF LAND 21.20.301 21.20.250 Walkways. Walkways through long blocks where neces- sary to provide adequate public access to schools, parks, or other areas may be required. The design and locations of such walkways shall be approved by the city council, or the direcwr of planning in the case of a preliminary parcel map. (Ord. 3157 §1 @an), 1979) 21.20.260 Watercourses. A ~ht-of-way for storm drainage purposes shall be required and shall conform substantially With the lines of any natural watercourse or chan- nel, stream, or creek that traverses the subdivi- sion. If a parcel of land to be subdivided includes a portion of the right-of-way to be acquired for flood control or drainage purposes and the city council determines the boundaries of the right-of- way to be acquired, such fight-of-way shall be shown on the tentative and final and parcel maps and shall either be dedi~t~i or Withheld from the subdivision. (Old. 3157 §1 (part), 1979) 21.20.270 Local transit facilities. If the subdivision as shown on the tentative map has a potential for two hundred dwelling units or more ff developed to the maximum den- sity, or contains one hundr~ acres or more, and wansit services are or Within a reasonable lime will be made available to such subdivision, local transit facilities, such as bus turn-outs, benches, shel~ers, landing pads, or similar iu:ms which di- rectly benefit the residents of such subdivision maybe l~luired. (Old. 3157 §1 (part), 1979) 21.20.280 Bicycle paths. If the subdivision as shown on the tentative lions and improvements as are specified in this chapter or in Chapters 21.24 and 21.28. (Ord. 3157 §I (part), 1979) 21.20.300 Preliminary parcel map -- Additional ~equirements. In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, the standards contained in this section shall be applicable to any subdivision for which a preliminary parcel map is required and is ap- proved by the director of planning. All lots ere- areal by such division ~_all have frontage, equal to the minimum required by this title, upon a street dedicated as a public sU~t. (Old. 3850 §4, 1989: Old. 3340 §18, 1982: Old. 3157 §1 (pan), 1979) 21.20.301 Flag lots. (a) The director of planning may approve, pursuant to a preliminary parcel map, not more than one flag lot, as defined in Title 18 of this Code, under the following conditions: (I) The flag lot shall be used only for single family t~idential use; (2) The flag lot shall meet all of the re- quirements of the zone district within which it is located and, in addition, shall have an area which exceeds the lot area requirement of the zone district by not less than twenty percent exclusive of any portion of.the lot used for access to a public sueet; and (3) Access from the flag lot to a public street shall not be over an easement but over land under the same ownership as the flag lot. Such access shall have a minimum width of tilden feet and shall have a paved way not less than ten feet in width. map thereof contains two hundred or more par-(b)eels, and the subdivider is required to dedicate o/" offer to dedicate real property for roadways, the subdivision ~ also contort bicyc~ paths for the use: and safe~y of ~ msidm~s of the subdivision. (Ord. 3157 §I (pan), 1979) 21.20.290 Required dedlcatlons~’ In connection with the design of ~y sub~ division, the subdivider shall make such dedica- Notwithstanding the foregoing, the cre- ation of flag lots, as defined in Title 18 of this code, shall be prohibited in the R-1 single-family residence district, .and no exceptions shall be granu~ therefor, provided, however, that flag lots validly existing in the R-1 district ~s of the effec- tive date of ~id prohibition shall, nonetheless, be recognized as legal lots for purposes of this Tide 21 only. Development of such existing flag lots shall be subject to all applicable provisions of 2125 21,20.310 Title 18 of tiffs Code as of the date of any such proposed develot~ent. (Ord. 3850 §2, 1989) 21.20.310 Solar requirements. All major subdivisions shall provide, to the ex- tent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the sulxfivision. (Oral. 3157 §1 (part), 1979) 21.20.320 Flood hazard regulations. For the purpose of carrying out the intent of Chapter 16.52 of this code, all subdivisions shall: (a) Be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage; (b) Have public uli~lies and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems Ioca~ (c) Have adequate drainage provided to re- duee exposure to flood damage; and (03 Base flood elevation data shall be pro- vided for subdivision proposals and other pro- posed developments which contain at least F~y lots or five acres (whichever is less). (On/. 3158 §2, 1979) CHAPTER 21,24 DEDICATIONS 21.24.010 Required dedications. The subdivider shatl dedicate or offer to dedi- ca~ to th~ cit~ or o~r appropri~ public ~ upon the final or Imroel map any an~ an rights-of. way and easements necessary, for the layout. maintenance and operation of all public improvements required or permitted under this title or by ~c n~luirem, ent of the subdivision approval. Dedications shall also be made permitting or resUicting use of certain pmpew! or fights as t~iuired by this title. All easeme~s and fights-of-way shall be the Width specified in this title or the specific approval, and shali be of sufficient size to meet the requirements of the purpose for which they am dedicated. Required dedications shall include, but not be limited m: (a) Easements for public utility, sanitary sewer and drainage purposes, and for the over- head pole lines and anchom required under this title, or as may be required by the director of util- (b) The improved planting strips required under this title; (c) The improved service maxis and/or the improved parking areas required by Section 21.20.110; (03 The installed street name signs and traf- tic-control signals system, signs, and markings (e) The rights-of-way for public sur.ets and alleys approved under this title. Fee title to all public street rights-of-way shall be conveyed to the city by separate deed to be recorded with the (f) The rights-of-way for freeways, or exo pressways required to be shown on the tentative map under Section 21.20.160, unless the sub- divider withholds from the subdivision all the areas included in such right-of-way; (g) The rights-of-way for storm drainage re- holds from tim sulxlivision all the area included in .th) Bicycle paths required or shown on the (i) Transit facilities mquired or shown on the (13 Dedication of access rights as required (O~ 3157 §1 (pa~). 1979) 21.24.020 Dedication of improvements. Whenever any dedication for public impmveo ments is ~pfired under this chapter, such dedica~ flon stroll inclu~ no~ only such right-of-way and easement as is ~ for said improvements, but also any suc~h improvements constructed, .installedor~ by the subdivider. (Ord. 3157 § 1 (part), 1979) 2126 JUANA PF- BR IONES SCHOOL Applica1;ion for a preliminary parcel map 1;o eub~livi~le a 21,000 eq ~ vacan1; parcel in1;o 1;wo 10,500 sq fl; single family parcels tn 1;he R-1 zone ~lis1;ri~’r, DONALD DRIVE OOULOMBE DR. ** :HERRY OAKS LL (’~31 Graphic Attachment to Staff Report Date: December 11,1996 File #: 96-PM-2 Scale: 1 inch = 200 FT Norl;h Attachment 3 Alternative Findings for Approval 679 Maybell Avenue, 96-PM-2 P~F~J]~ARY PARCEL MAP The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, in that the project complies with Housing Element, Policies 1 and 3 because the lots would provide ample building area and, as conditioned, the Architectural Review Board would review the design and orientation of the future .homes, whether developed singly or in common, to assure that the homes will comply with the adjacent development pattern and be consistent with the low-density character of the neighborhood, which makes Palo Alto neighborhoods especially desirable. In addition, the proposed lots are consistent with the lot width, depth and size requirements and to the greatest extent practicable, without requiting exceptions. to the minimum width requirement, the proposed side lot line complies with Subdivision Ordinance design requirement (PAMC Section 21.20.130) which states "side lot lines, as far as practicable, shall be at right angles to straight streets or radial to curved streets"; o t o The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed single-family lots would be 10,500 square feet each, which would exceed the 6,000-square-foot minimum lot sizein the R-1 zone district by 4,500; The design of the new lot pattern and new single-family homes will not cause significant environmental impacts, in that the proposed lots have ample street frontage for vehicular access and utilities from a public street; The design of the new lot pattern and the proposed development will not result in serious public health problems, in that the resulting single-family homes, through design review, would conform to the existing development pattern in the surrounding single-family neighborhood; and The design of the new lot pattern will not conflict with public easements for access through the use of the property in that the resulting lots would have frontage on a public street for vehicular access and utility service. Alternative Conditions of Approval 679 Maybell Avenue, 96-PM-2 Attachment 4 PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF A PARCEL MAP The applicant shall, arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, and Planning Departments after approval of this map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. The purpose of the meeting is to review all conditions of approval and to discuss the standards for design of all off-site improvements, including the street improvements and all required utilities. Improvement plans reflecting the required off-site improvements and utilities shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to submittal of a final map. The improvement plans shall include detailed drawings for all public improvements. Improvement plans shall include the location of street trees and automatic irrigation system, location of all required utilities, and extension of curb, gutter and sidewalk for the full length ofthe parcel’s Maybell Avenue frontage. The improvement plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. The subdivider shall install all electric utilities in accordance with Palo Alto Standards, including underground utilities, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department. Each residence shall have individual electrical service. All electrical plans shall be approved by the Light and Power Division before the parcel map is approved. Each parcel have separate water,, gas and sewer services, The cost of installation shall be paid by the subdivider. 5.All work done within the City fight-of-way will require a Street Work Permit from the Public Works Department. PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE PARCEL MAP The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Palo Alto. The agreement shall be recorded with the approved pared map at the office of the Santa Clara County Recorder and shall include the following provisions: a)The improvement plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right-of-way including meters, sewer eleanouts and any other required utilities. These improvements shall be installed by the subdivider, at the subdivider’s expense and shall be guaranteed by bond or other form of guarantee acceptable to the City Attorney. b) c) Two street trees, one per lot, shall be installed by the applicant. The location and species shall be determined by the City Arborist. Newly planted street trees shall be irrigated and maintained by the property owner. These improvements shall be installed by the subdivider, at the subdivider’s expense and shall be guaranteed by bond or other form of guarantee acceptable to the City Attorney. The subdivider shall submit improvement plans for the design of the frontage improvements, including extension of curb, gutter and sidewalk for the full length of the parcel’s Maybell Avenue frontage. These improvements shall be installed by the subdivider, at the subdivider’s expense and shall be guaranteed by bond or other form of guarantee acceptable to the City Attorney. All public improvements shall be constructed by a licensed contractor and shall conform to the City’s standard specifications. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF PARCEL MAP 7.The final map shall be filed with the Planning Division within four years of the approval of the tentative subdivision map. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUDDING PERM1TS Building Permits for the new residences to be constructed in this subdivision, whether developed singly or in common, shall be subject to review by the Architectural Review Board in compliance with Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.48, including but not limited to the standards for review set forth in Section 16.48.120. ONGOING 9.All existing mature trees on both lots, as identified on the tentative map dated July 3, 1996, shall be retained. Excerpt from Minutes of the Palo Alto Planning Commission December 11, 1996 Attachment 5 679 MAYBELL AVENUE: Application for a preliminary parcel map to subdivide a vacant 21,000-square-foot parcel into two 10,500-square- foot single-family parcels. Environmental Assessment: Project categorically exempt from the provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). File Nos. 96-PM-2. Zone District (Commissioner Schink is not present for this item, due to a conflict of interest) Chairperson Cassel: Are there any staff comments? Ms. Lytle: Joe Colonna, senior planner for the division, is the project manager for this application. He will make a brief staff presentation. ]~p,19.II~: The preliminary parcel map before you tonight was forwarded by the Director of Planning and Community Environment for review and recommendation to the City Council. The application is to subdivide an existing, vacant, single-family pared into two 10,500-square-foot single-family parcels. Each of the resulting parcels would comply with the overall size, width and depth requirements of the R-1 zone district. Staff is recommending that the proposed side property line does not comply with a requirement of the zoning section of the city’s subdivision ordinance. The issue before you tonight relates to the proposed subdivision’s compliance with city codes and the findings for approval of a preliminary parcel map. Issues related to prospective owners or the future design of the resulting homes and their potential impacts on adjoining properties, except as they relate to the design of the lot pattern, are not germane to your recommendation. Chairperson Cassel: Are there any questions of staff?. Commissioner Beecham: In the original subdivision of Ddscoll Court when these parcels did not participate in that subdivision, did action at that time place any legal constraint on how these two parcels could be subdivided? ~.9.~.1~: No, it did not. ~: When a developer requests a subdivision that requires a street for development, the street is either a private street, which I believe we do not recognize, or a public street. That is not considered a donation to the city but rather, a piece of business that has to be done in order to maintain that street. In other words, there is a piece of property and it has to be developed and it needs a street to be developed. The street is developed as part of the project, and usually meets city requirements. It is dedicated to the city, and the city maintains it. That is not usually considered as a donation to the city. It is part of the business that has to be there in order to subdivide the property, does it not? ~: Yes, the general minimum requirement for subdividing land is to have appropriate access dedication in order to provide proper streets for the created lots. So it is a typical dedication, and it is not a donation at all. It is a requirement of subdivision ordinances and the map act to have adequate access. Commissioner Beecham: In the packet that we have in front of us tonight from the residents on Ddseoll Court and other locations nearby, they have some comments and suggestions. One of them, for example, is a single-story restriction for these parcels. Is there a legal mechanism by which we can do that under this process? Ms. Cauble: In response to Commissioner Beeeham’s question, any condition of a subdivision map needs to be related either to some environment impact or a condition necessary in order to make the findings required to approve a pared map. Based on the information in the staff report at this point, I have not seen anything that would create a basis to justify such a condition in this particular case. Commissioner Beecham: I would assume that that extrapolates also to the suggestion for a 20- foot height limit, for example. ~: Yes, that is the same situation. ~dnagr$:mffd~d: If there are no other questions from the commission, I will now open the public hearing. Peter A. Kline. 550 Marion Avenue. Palo Alto: I am the attorney for the applicant, Mr. James Rhodeos, the actual proponent of the application. He is also present for teeimieal questions. The proposal before the Planning Commission tonight is basically a simple, two-lot subdivision. The applicant designed the proposal to meet the city’s requirements for a subdivision. The only requirement that it does not meet is a design guideline which, by its terms, is only going to apply if it is practicable, which is the language of the statute. That has to do with the dividing lines being at fight angles to the street. The proposed subdivision provides that the demising line between the two lots is going to be skewed at an angle so that the frontage requirements of the code are met. We believe that this is just a minor variation of a condition which is only to be applied where practicable. In all other instances, the application meets.the city’s guidelines. The staff’s alternafe reeornmendation, on the other hand, requires an exception if that were going to proceed. 2 There is in your packet a letter from the neighbors on Ddscoll Court relative to incorporating this project into Ddscoll Court. We do not have a great objection to doing this, but in order to do it, it is necessary to effect some kind of lot line division or lot line adjush~nent or acquisition of property from the neighboring parcel owners, the Merrills. We have not been able to come to agreement with the Men’ills or even close to it. We have made proposals to them, and there has not been a response. What we would like to do is to ask the Planning Commission to proceed with approval of this application, which.we think is consistent with the neighborhood, consistent with the city’s requirements, not a variation of any requirement that the city has ever placed on development within its boundaries. We will continue to talk with the Driseoll Court residents, and if we can come to an agreement which suits the needs of both sides, then we will come back and ask to modify our proposal accordingly. At this point, we cannot proceed in that manner because there is just no ability to do so. Thank you. Commissioner Beeeharn: I have some questions on the other options here, Options B, C, D, etc. Is it appropriate for the applicant or someone else to raise issues on those on how they work? Chalrp_ erson Cassel: Did you want to ask the applicant about those? Commissioner Beecham: I am not sure that the applicant can best respond to some of the advantages or disadvantages of the other options that are in our packet tonight. We have Options A through F. ~: We will attempt to respond. Commissioner Beecham: First, there are Options A and B, which is basically the diagonal line going to the left or to the fight.. ~: We believe that if Option B is adopted, it will again require exceptions. It does not meet the frontage requirements on the lot that is to the left in the drawing. Commissioner Beech--:’ On Option D, the access to the rear lot is by what means? Mr. Kline: You understand that these are not our alternatives. _Commissioner Beecham: That is why I wondered whom I should be talking to about them. Mr. Kline: We believe that the Driseoll Court people may want to respond¯ Thatoption is a flag lot, which is not acceptable to the city. ¯i er : Then I will hold my questions. Commissioner Sehmidt: I wondered if the owner had done any schematic planning on how houses might fit on the proposed two lots. I believe it is stated that it is intended that they would be sold as lots, so I wondered if you had looked at the house shape. Jim Rhodeos. 415 North California Avenue. Palo Alto: No, I represent the owner and am the applicant. At the time those were drawn, there were just property lines taken into account, butno overlay was done as to how a dwelling would sit on those lots. Joan Oakley, 4178 King Arthur Court. Palo Alto.: I have lived at this address for 31 years. My lot backs upto the whole back of the pared. I have been in Palo Alto for 55 years. My goal is to ask you and plead with you that you establish a 20-foot setback to run with the deeds on the properties whichever way you eortfigure them. My house is 21 feet from my fence, and that is a patio on which I entertain people, enjoy my grandchildren, have my barbecues, enjoy life in Palo Alto, and I would feel that my property value would be greatly jeopardized by having probably a large house closer than 20 feet to the lot line. Chairperson Cassel: Is your house directly to the rear of this property? Ms. Oakley: Yes. It is slightly at an angle, but the closest part is 21 feet, and that is the part that contains my patio. Chairperson Cassel: We will respond to that question when we return to staff questions. Greg Shephard. 683 Ddseoll Court. Palo Alto: One of the questions that just came up was in regard to a lot overlay and where a potential lot might sit. That is a large part of the issue that has to do with what we are concerned with as neighbors. The proposal here provides two very narrow lots with approximately 40 feet of frontage on Maybell and also 60 feet of frontage. We are concerned about the property placement. Obviously, anyone building a house there would try to build it on the widest part of the lot to get a reasonable shape of a house. In the drawing I am projecting, I am showing a 16-foot setback offthe side street, which is Ddseoll Court, and a 20- foot setback. This forces the frontage of that property for a house to be 20 feet wide at the Maybell end. Basically, in order to place a house, you would have a driveway approximately 50 feet in length to get it back far enough to where you could physically place a house. On the lot farthest away .from Ddseoll Court, obviously .you would again be building a house on the widest section again. Therefore, the house would be pushed to the far end, perhaps losing the redwood and oak trees in the very front as being in the most reasonable building pad for a property. This would likely.cause a fence to be constructed between the two parcels as being proposed, creating the visual view from Ddseoll Court of a driveway and a fence. We find that to be an objectionable vista, because it destroys the whole feel and look of a cul-de-sac as created 15 years ago. In the proposal that we had engendered to the applicant, we had recommended that a property swap be made between themselves and the Merrills at 681 Driseoll Court, and realign the properties such that you would end up with two nice building pads with a comer facing either Maybell or Ddseoll and the other property being able to face on Ddseoll Court, giving nice areas 4 ¯ for properties being built and completing the cul-de-sac in such a way as to make an attractive neighborhood rather than something that would look like a large after-thought. This is what we brought to their attention. I wanted to clarify those issues for you. Thank you. Richard S. Merrill. 681 Driscoll Court. Palo Alto: I specifically wanted to acknowledge the fact that I would have to be involved in a lot line adjustment for the cul-de-sac plan to be utilized. We have made it dear since the cul-de-sac residents came to us and began to talk with us that we were in favor of doing this. Let me make it perfectly clear that we have never come out and said that we were unwilling to do this. Mr. Kline is correct in that we have not yet reached an agreement. Part of the problem is that from our perspective, we have not been presented with any kind of a proposal that we can essentially consider to be concrete. The first correspondence came to us through our attorney on the 15th of November, and I would submit this drawing to you. It is essentially copies of the originally equally divided parcel overlaid with diagonal lines representing Plan F of the cul-de- sac with few, if any, readable dimensions, other, than hand written footage. We did not consider this to be either very dear or usable with which to begin a negotiation. We subsequently asked our attorney to ask for an engineering drawing that had specific square footages of what was going to be transferred to them and the exchanged square footage to us. At this point in time, we received through our attorney on December 6th a second set of drawings, essentially the same drawing, with darker lines drawn through the diagonals, as you can see here. It was a little cleaner copy, but still hand written in terms of jotting in the distances. I received this on December 10th, and there is a second drawing here which is suitable for me to go out and actually measure what the proposal might look out. However, there are no contract documents or anything that I would consider to be a formal offer. I want to make that perfectly dear. Two things: we have never received an offer; we are more than interested in negotiating. We want the cul-de-sac completed, and we are in full agreement with the other residents. If all else fails, let’s make it one lot. Thank you. Chairperson Cassel: Have you made an offer to them? It is your proposal, ~: I have not considered this to be my plan. Warren Kirseh. 725 Ashby Drive. Palo Alto: I own the property at 4161Donald Drive, three doors down from the property in question. I appeared at both of the zoning administrator hearings, and I was asked by the neighbors to draft this document, which is some conditions and comments on the proposed subdivision, Let me see if I can frame what our concerns really are, The subdivision is the first step in a process for building additional housing in that neighborhood. We do not see this first step as occurring smoothly. What we see is an effort by a developer to get in there, subdivide the property, do a minimum amount of work, get the money and run, We have to live with the neighborhood for the next 20, 30 years, Now is the time, no matter how you decide that the property should be subdivided, to decide how the houses are going to be built there and how the neighborhood is going to be affected down the road. So as a group, the residents of Ddscoll Court and the residents of Donald Drive and the residents on Maybell Avenue and the residents on King Arthur Court have put together a set of thoughts about minimizing the impact for the neighborhood and at the same, allowing the developers to subdivide the property. The first thing we were concerned about was the lack of utilities and the lack of any improvements on the property. This is going to be left to the downstream builders of howes. With cable TV, all the things that could be put into the property, they could be ripping open Maybell Avenue up to 18 times over the course of two years, cawing serious impact to the neighborhood and to traffic. We would like to see a plan or some mechanism where that amount of ripping up of Maybell Avenue is minimized, perhaps to one or two events. A second thing is that you can build some pretty ugly houses. Pale Alto has seen a lot of ugly houses built lately on narrow lots. The monster houses that are two stories high fit within the envelope and yet, when you look at them, you say, boy, that is really ugly. It detracts from Pale Alto. It detracts from the neighborhood. We would like to see a condition put on the subdivided lots that the developer has t° go through an architectural review process. The City of Pale Alto has an architectural reviewprocess which it requires for larger subdivisions. We do not feel it is an undue burden to put on the potential future developer so that we get houses that fit with the neighborhood. The single-story restriction, when you have a 10,000-square-foot lot with 35% coverage, you can build a 3,700-square-foot howe in a single story. To putup a wall of two- story houses around the cul-de-sac, again, the architectural appeal, the look, we feel would degrade the neighborhood. The 20-foot height restriction -- we suggested that for the same reason. Again, if you put up 30,foot tall peaks with gables facing onto Maybell Avenue, you are going to create a very ugly frontage. One of the things that is scarce in that neighborhood, when you look at the map, is off-street parking. With garages and fire hydrants and things like that which front on Maybell Avenue, the neighborhood will suddenly lose five on-street parking spaces. With new residents moving in and with them having guests and additional people, we think it is only fair that some of that off- street parking be provided by the developers of the parcels and on-site parking for their guests. So we would like to see some provision made for parking, not for residents of the neighborhood to park on this property, but for guests visiting those new homes to have a place to park, rather than having to park in the cul-de-sac, blocking driveways and all of the other kinds of things that we expect to occur, . ¯Rear garages would be nice. If they could share the driveways, we could have less traffic on Maybell Avenue and less of a concrete slab look on that portion of Maybell Avenue. A fencing plan -- we are very concerned about how the fences will look on the property. We would like to see a fencing plan. Preservation of the trees I believe Joe addressed successfully.. There is a preference for a vehicle accdss from Driscoll Court for at least one of the houses. Thank you. Chairnerson Casse~l: I have a question, Do you have a two-story howe or a one-story howe? 6 ~: I live in a two-story house but the parcel that I own on Donald Drive is a single- story house. Peter Vilkin. 673 Maybell Avenue. Pale Alto_: I live on a flag lot which is next door to the left- hand parcel in the drawing. I would like to reiterate what Mr. Shephard said. My concern and the concern of my neighbor in front of me, who is also adjacent to that left-hand parcel, (you can see me in the back I am the Oklahoma-shaped property), we are concerned that if the developer does what he wants to do with two adjacent, long, narrow lots, that there will be a house built way in the back. I am under a lot of restrictions, being on a flag lot. If I ever wanted to build anything more, I would have a 16-foot height limit back there, the reason being that people do not want a house overlooking their back yard, I think that is what might happen if they do what they want to do. So that is our concern. ~ I have to disagree with my neighbor who spoke right before me. He has a two-story house and wants to limit the height of other people’s new homes, now that he has his. It is okay for him but not for other people. I have to disagree with him about all of the restrictions that he wants placed on building. There is no shortage of parking at this time on Maybell Avenue or in that court, either. Thank you very much. Commissioner Beecham: Did you say you have a 16-foot height limit on your house? ~: Yes, on a flag lot, there is a 16-foot height limit if you build a new home. It may be 17 feet. Claudia Davis and Kat_ia. 687 Driseoll Court~Mto: Katja is representing the children of the court. We live in the one on the very end there facing 679 Driscoll Court. We are some of the newest people on the court, having come in June. We thought we came to live on a court, not a hook. We assumed it would be finished and not have a little bit of a court and then sort of a fence there, or not be finished and having the things coming off from Maybell. One of the thingswe have noticed is that this is a wonderful place for children to live. There are so many children in the neighborhood, and that is one of the reasons that attracted us to it. The kids play a lot there, as it is a very safe area. The traffic that is there is really into Maybell Avenue to the Juana Briones School.. It really concerns us very much that there are going to be two driveways potentially that will come off of Maybell rather than the court, where you back out very safely. You have to go slowly, and you do not have that danger of coming into Maybell Avenue. It also is a very friendly, wonderful area to live in, and very open. That was one of the things that really attracted us to that area. Katja wishes to add a few words. ~: One of the reasons why we moved was that at our old house, there were not that many kids. ~: We like to live in this neighborhood where it really does attract those families, I am concerned about the safety, and I am also very concerned abouit the perception of the neighborhood. I also want to say that what I have really been impressed with by the people in the court is the willingness to work and look at a plan. Mrs. Cassel, you asked the question as to whether there was a proposal that was presented by Mr. Merrill. In fact, the entire neighborhood invited the people who were asking for that division into their homes. The Men’ills invited them to their home, and the three people who are here came to the house, and we presented what we thought would be another addition for the, and even more desirable as being willing to give up private property. So I was absolutely amazed that people were willing to do that in this day and age. I am actually quite disappointed the way it is unfolding, because there has been a tremendous amount of work done by the residents to try and suggest and work with the plan. My proposal, at this point, is really because of the discouragement and really not getting any real response that has been cooperative from the group, is to say, why isn’t it just one lot? Why are we even subdividing it, because when you go back to the original plans, and so many lots in Palo Alto are not any bigger than this and are not subdivided, so I would really question why it is subdivided at all. So that is basically where I have come out of this in a very discouraged kind of way. So I would encourage people to work much closer together in terms of trying to put a proposal together that works for everybody. Thank you very much for your attention. Kat_ia Davis: Thanks for listening. I really appreciate it. Chairperson Cassel: We will now have the applicant return for a five-minute rebuttal. ~: Thank you. As I said earlier, this application was first filed in May. This application is not being filed by a subdivider or a developer in the sense of someone who makes a living doing this. Jack Goodwin acquired the property some 50 years ago. He passed away two years ago, and his children, one of whom is disabled, are attempting to sell this property for a fair and reasonable price for their comfort and support. They have fashioned their application in accordance with the city’s requirements, and they hope that the city will approve it and that this commission will recommend approval. I believe that I need to defend one set Of allegations relative to how the applicant has dealt with the neighbors relative to the proposal to extend the cul-de-sac and include this property as part of that. I believe that Mr. Merrill stated that the first that he heard anything of any interest was approximately November 15 when he gota letter from his attorney. I want to read a letter dated November 11 that I received from Mr. Merrill, saying, "Dear Mr. Kline, we have received your letters of October 30 and November 8, as well as your telephone message of Friday, November 8." There were no responses. We have made every effort and will continue to make every effort to work with them. We can lead the horse to water, but we are not sure we can make him drink. We would like to have the city approve this application. If you can come up with something that is better suited to the neighborhood and the neighbors, we will certainly pursue that. Chairuerson Cassel: Seeing no other speakers, I will return this item to the Planning Commission. Are there further questions of staff?. -- r "s: My question has to do with architectural review when there is a subdivision. As I recall, the existing Comprehensive Plan says that if there are two or more adjacent dwellings being developed at the same time, they are subject to architectural review. Does that apply in this case, or is there a way to make this apply if there are technical ways to escape it? I know that sometimes, that can happen. Two houses are developed simultaneously, but they are done in different names as a way to possibly avoid architectural review. ]~L.Y~: Let me give you a planner’s policy answer, and then we will have the city attorney overlay her recommendation~ as well. It is my opinion that you could condition an ARB review of an approval of this map that is before you tonight based on the fact that it does not comply with the design criterion in the subdivision ordinance which is allowing them to skew the lot line. It creates a much narrower frontage for that one property. I do not know if you could justify it for the second lot, but you could justify it for the narrow one, in my opinion, because the concern there would be that you would get nothing but garage in the front on the design of that. Basedon the way it is oriented, it is a legitimate conclusion in that design review would take care of that concern about noncompliance with the section of the code that we have cited. i "r " : Is that a design review of the subdivision or of the structures to be placed thereon? The structures to be placed on them. ~: If I could add to that from a legal perspective, this issue comes up on occasion, ~and a concern of our office, from a legal perspective, is that the ARB ordinance is very specific¯ The policy decision was made in the ordinance that for subdivisions of fewer than three, there is no design review, just as there is no design review for any individual in that neighborhood who scrapes their house and builds a new one, at least at this point in time. Nancy’s comments certainly are the kind of reasoning that would need to go into creating a rationale for design review, but certainly there would need to be some sort of exceptional circumstances if you were to recommend to council that they impose such a condition. We would need to evaluate that and determine whether that is a basis on which to override, on a single case basis, the policy decision in the ordinance adopted by council: ¯ " ’ : As I look at these lot lines and try to figure out what might work or what is the best option, I find myself wanting more drawings and layouts. Regarding the existing parcels on the court, do you know the average lot frontage? Along with that, I am wondering what is a staff-recommended miniraurn frontage that works on a small court? ~X,_C, oJlm~: The property lines for the frontages on the cul-de-sac lots are as follows: #681 frontage is 62.83 feet; for #683, the frontage.is 28.62 feet; #685 frontage is 34.21 feet; #687 has a 9 lot of frontage. Commissioner Beecham: staffs opinion? Does a frontage as small as 28 or 30 feet work adequately well, in h~K~_oJ~l~: It depends upon the angle at which the property lines go back. Typically, cul-de- sacs are going to get down to smaller frontages at the front property line, but as they angle back, they get wider. Typically you want them to be 60 feet at the 20-foot setback. That is the requirement for cul-de-sac lots. Chairperson Cassel: Setbacks are normally 20 feet? We had someone asking us about being sure that there is a 20-foot setback for any construction. I believe that is standard. ~L..C,D.tg.~: That is correct. In the ease of any of the proposals that you have seen tonight, that property line that abuts her property would be considered a rear property line and would be subject to a 20-foot setback. Chalraerson Cassel: In order not to have a 20-foot setback, it would require a variance which would have to be publicly noticed. So it could be presumed that this would have a 20-foot setback. That is correct. Commissioner Sehmidt: I want to clarify that not all of the property lines have a 20-foot setback. It is the front and rear lines. Sides are sometimes six feet, for example. ~_~_gJgItlla: Right, in this ease, the R-1 district is 20 feet in the from, 20 in the rear, and six feet on each side. _Commissioner Sehmidt: Again for clarification, if the lots are linear lots that front onto Maybell Avenue, what world the setback be at the Driseoll Court frontage? ]~d;~;l~lila: I can project that for you. It is a little strange. The green line identifies the setback. You have a front property line that turns a comer, and that is typical for cul-de-sac lots that are at the end of the cul-de-sac when getting back to the straight street. But that is not tree for one that faces a street, typieally~ Usually, those end eu-de-sae lots have a curved line. This one just happens to have a right angle in it. That is why you get this odd-shaped front setback line. Chairp_ erso~: That curved line wo~ be there whether they used the recommendation that staff has made or whether they use the request that the applicant has made. That is eorreet, And it is there today. 10 ~: With the staff recommendation, you would simply have more room at the straight portion of the line at the front. Commissioner Byrd.: What is the rationale for the staff recommendation to ask the applicant to come back with a map that puts the line in at a right angle? We have seen some interesting proposals from the neighbors tonight for different configurations. I am wondering why staff most favors the two rectangular lots resulting from the subdivision. ~: The recommendation that staff has made, first of all, does not involve any other property owner. We do not have the right to recommend that someone go out and acquire property or to divide property that is clearly subdividable. We have a piece here that has sufficient area for two lots, so we would not recommend the one that is being negotiated between the parties, as we heard.tonight regarding those negotiations. We wish them well if they can handle that on their own. Therecommendation for the flag lot is not a possibility, because our code prevents flag lots altogether. That is no longer a legal option in Palo Alto for single-family residential. The recommendation that we have made is to deny this project or for the applicant, hopefully before that happens, to request a continuance to modify the plan to include an exception so that the two parcel lines will relate to Maybell Avenue, rather than half relating to Driscoll Court for Parcel #2 and half relating to Maybell Avenue. We feel it is better for that property to clearly relate one way or the other, since we have no authority to insist that it be a cul-de-sac lot. That is Option #1 that you have heard presented from everyone. We do think that it is very legitimate, based on the code section that requires that the lot lines, in fact, be perpendicular to street frontage to make that finding that they should comply with it. Commissioner Byrd: So Nancy, are you presuming that under that configuration, the southern lot, the lot that would result closest to 681 .Dfiscoll Court, would orient toward Maybell and not toward the court? Commissioner B_vrd: That does not really solve the neighbors’ interest in rounding out and making whole the frontage on the court. ~L_.Y~: That is correct. ~: I would like to follow up on that question. One thing we need to keep in mind here is that this is a map application, not a use permit or design review or a PC zone, where we, as a city, have much more flexibility in directingchanges to a project. Nancy explained the policy reasons why staff made the recommendation, but underlying that is the fact that where we are looking at a map, what we need to look at is, does it conform to our Comprehensive Plan? Does it conform to the zoning ordinance? Does it Conform to the subdivision ordinance? Does it 11 create significant environmental impacts? Are there adequate utilities and services? The issue of whether one design might be better than another, unless it falls under one of these categories, really is irrelevant from a legal perspective. So the staff, in looking at various options that might improve the project, seized on the issue that is really on the table here. Does it, as designed, meet the code, or doesn’t it? Staffhas offered a rationale that it does not, plus a suggestion as to a way that it could. That does not mean that there are no other designs that might be equally good or better, but we do not have the flexibility that we do with a use permit, where the standard is simply what is in the general health, safety and welfare of the community. We have a lot of flexibility there to tell an applicant that they need to completely redesign their project to meet our standards. Chairperson Cassel: Debbie, for clarification, it is my understanding that we do not have any power to force anyone to sell any property or to buy any property. That is not an issue that is before us that we can deal with. ~: Correct. The only time you have the opportunity to do that with a subdivision is when a project requires public improvements that need to be off site. For example, if you had a 100-unit subdivision that needed the street to be widened to serve it, you could require an applicant to acquire the off-site property. If you impose that kind of condition, and they do not acquire it, the city has to go out and condemn it, and the developer can be made to pay for it. That is a very limited situation which obviously is not applicable here. _Commissioner Oiakian: Debbie, is there anything tonight that precludes the Planning Commission from continuing this item? ~: I do not know what kind of time line we are in. I think we are very close. Under the map act, you need to move pretty quickly on an application. (Ms. Cauble cheeks with staff to ascertain where they are in the permit streamlining act time limits and map act streamlining.) ~: This issue has already been before the zoning administrator twice, and continued. ~[~: If the commission does not agree with the staffreeommendation, we prefer to hear your rationale for whatever decision you want to make tonight, then try and draft some findings at the break to support your decision, or else accept or modify staff’s reeornmendation, over the possibility of a continuance. Chairuerson ~: Then let us proceed with our comments. ~: ~: I would like to move the staff recommendation, and express the personal opinion that I hope that the negotiations between the parties continue and that some resolution can be worked out in that negotiation. 12 ~: By Commissioner Ojakian. C~: I see that it makes good sense to round out the frontage on the court. That is going to take a deal that is not within our power to cause to happen. In the meantime, the rationale underlying the staff recommendation makes sense. I suggest that we approve it and hope that the parties continue to talk. Commissioner Beecham: Frankly, I think this is a pretty screwed up situation, as I am sure you all agree. You have a historic situation where the court was designed as a court. A large parcel did not participate at that time. The decisions made at that time did not force them to commit, nor did it place any liability that they must comply in the future. So as Owen said, and from what I hear from staff, there is no way that we can force them to agree to participate in that basic design. On the other hand, as I look at the drawings inthe packets we have before us, clearly Option F (Ddscoll Court access for both lot plans, cooperation with 681 Ddscoll Court owner on merger) does seem superior from almost every point of view, if this can be made to happen. Staff has also explained that there is little that the city has in its arsenal to force that to happen, one way or the other. From the applicant’s point of view, I do not knowwhat the rationale is on your decisionmaking on how to maximize, I presume, the saleableness of these or the speed with which you go forward. I would certainly like to see it work out so that you could work on Option #F. If there is anything I know of that would help cause that to happen, I would do it. At this point, I do not. As I look at the geometries, I do not see any way, as things are laid out now, to have a driveway off the court for one of the parcels and make things work¯ There simply is not enough frontage on the court belonging to the parcel for that to happen. So reluctantly, I do not see any option that I have except to go along with the staff recommendation for two 50-foot parcels both fronting on Maybell Avenue, although that certainly is not how I would like to see this go forward in the future. I would certainly urge everyone involved to try to work out Option 7 before this goes to the City Council. i "t: I want to compliment the neighbors for suggesting alternative proposals. We still have the result of a relatively screwed up situation, as Commissioner ~ Beecham noted. I would also agree that clearly, the suggested Plan F would work best for the cul-de-sac, and probably for the neighborhood. I also will support the staff recommendation because if there were no trading of land or buying or selling of land, two rectangular lots would be the appropriate solution. As we look at the neighborhood lot map that has been up several times, this neighborhood is clearly a neighborhood of a wide variety of sizes and shapes of lots. There is a wide variety of sizes and shapes of houses, as well, so I think that linear lots would also be appropriate in this area. The angled linear lots would more likely develop houses that would not fit very well, whereas there are many plain, 50-foot-wide lots in Palo Alto, and it looks like there are several up Maybell Avenue also. I want to ask for one pointof clarification from staff regarding a lot line between the adjacent neighbors, the Merrills and the proposed two-lot division. Were there were to be the cul-de-sac Option F, is it required that that lot line be straight? Could the lot line bend or be at two different 13 angles if an exact area swap were a problem? Instead of the proposed Option F with cul-de-sac completed showing a straight line dividing the Merrills’ property from one of the two new lots, that does not have to be a straight line, does it? Actually, it is another one of these design criteria that the line must be a straight line. Commissioner Sehmidt: Even though there are irregularly shaped lots in Palo Alto, that would have to be a straight line? ~: Right. The design criterion similar to the one we are talking here tonight as our grounds for the staff recommendation calls for having the lines be straight rather than gerrymandering around improvements and things of that nature. Commissioner Eakin$: With a couple of additions, twould like to support Commissioner Byrd’s motion and the staff recommendation. One additional question I have relates to an exception. Are the oak trees protected by our tree ordinance? ~k~a:~!~: The reason why we are trying to determine that now is that if the recommendation were for approval, then all of the trees would be retained, so it would not really be an issue as to whether or not they were going to remove them. The applicant, in the subdivision statement, stated that they would retain all existing mature trees. ~: The 24-inch oak, if it is a quereus agrifolia or a quereus lobata, would be subject to the ordinance, had this application been applied for after the effective date. Because it was applied for prior to the effective date, none of these trees are subject to the ordinance, except for the moratorium that is in effect now on removal of those trees, Commissioner Eakins: What I want to suggest is a condition on the subdivision (and ask the maker and seconder of the motion if they will accept this) requiring ARB design review with the following findings: The resulting lots will be of such exceptional nature, that is, being so deep and narrow -- Commissioner O_iaki~ln: Could I stop you for halfa second? I believe whatwe are doing is denying the subdivision, so to add a condition -- Chairuerson Cassel: This is not a subdivision at this point. If we deny it, they must come back in with an application. ~: Commissioner Eakins could comment on this. If the council is to approve this map, if any of the commissioners have conditions; notwithstanding your recommendation of denial, if you want to say, "If you decide to approve it, we suggest these conditions," you should feel free to pass that along. It would be moved forward in the staff report. 14 Commissioner Eakins: The finding is that the resulting lots will be of such an exceptional nature, that is, being so deep and narrow, that any structures would have to be designed very carefully to fit in with the neighbors, especially with respect to orientation to the street and to neighbors’ windows, side and back yards. That is what I would like to include in my support of denying the application and supporting the staff recommendation. Chairperson Cassel: I think we should approve the applicant’s request. The reason is that I do not find this line to be that irregular. The comer is going to be crazy anyway, and it will allow a wider space on each lot to build a house. We would not be dealing with two very narrow lots. We will, indeed, be able to save the trees, which is a condition in that circumstance. I would recommend that we condition it to complete the sidewalk across those two lots. That will give it a feel of connecting into the court. This is the edge of the Barron Park area. The rest of the street has the Barron Park requirements. This sidewalk stops right in the middle of one of those lots, and I would have preferred to see it go down and stop in a more logical fashion, if it is going to have to stop. So I will vote against the motion, and would like to have some of you think about that. :I feel that it gives us more options in terms of the shapes of the houses that would go in there. Commissioner Beecham; I have also been wondering about the current configuration as proposed by the applicant, and what might be done with it. A question for staff is, according to the blueprint that we have, there is a 25-foot frontage, more or less, on Driscoll Court. Is that adequate for a driveway? 1~:.~:~1~: A single-family driveway needs to have at least ten feet of clearance and eight feet of paving, so it could. Commissioner Beecham: Since it is at the comer, is that an issue? ]~r~tl~3~: .Yes, the staff report identifies that access would be rather strange, having to make a right-hand turn into any garage that would be built, but I do not see any physical impediment to doing that. Commissioner Beecharla! Does staffknow of any traffic or safety issues in that situation? don,t believe any were identified in the routing to the transportation dep~ent. Commissioner Beecham: In going alongwith what Phyllis was saying, I think the diagonal line is probably going to permit more flexibility in house design than a 50-foot frontage and a straight line going to the back. If you havetwo very large lots, 50 feet wide, .and you try to build a house that.is proportional to the size of the lot, you are going to have a very unusual house. They are going to both struggle to take up the entire width from buildable side to buildable side, That is something we know of, time after time, that does not work well in any neighborhood, no matter how big it is. If you are constrained to go from side to side, it is a very uninviting presence. I 15 think that by having a diagonal line, you certainly are going to have one house that is up at the front. I suspect, however, that on the fight-hand parcel, if the driveway comes off the court, that howe is probably going to be set some distance back on the parcel, and you would have a better variety of appearance coming into here than if you have two houses close up to the front on a very narrow lot, relative to what could be built there. So based on Phyllis’ comments, and I think more about this, and based on some conditions that we could make, I am beginning to feel more favorable on the drawings as applied, although I would still much prefer Option F. But if we are coming down to the applicant’s option versus Option C, "Rectangular lot plan with both lots having access on Maybell Avenue," I think the applicant’s option is going to give a better appearance in the neighborhood. Commissioner Schmidt: Speaking as an architect, I would again support the staff recommendation. If we were to just be working with this 100-foot wide lot, I believe that two 50-foot wide lots would result in better design. There are numerous lots in Palo Alto that are 50 feet wide, as I said before, and some of them are 200+ feet deep. There are numerous attractive houses built on those lots. Angled lots are, in my opinion, more likely to result in busier looking houses where the design tries to capture every square foot as the angle increases. So I feel that staff has made the appropriate recommendation to not encourage the angled lots, especially the angled lot with the odd access onto Dfiscoll Court. Commissioner Beecham: To respond, I agree that there are lots of lots where they are somewhat long and narrow. Traditionally, I believe those lots have homes are not built to the maximum FAR. We should fully plan on whatever goes up here, that whoever builds .whatever kind of house is going to get every square foot possible. When you do that on a 50-foot wide lot that is 200 feet deep, you are going to have a problem. I agree that there are very nice houses on deep, newer lots, but I don’t think we are going to get that here with this configuration today. So that is my concern. Given what is going to wind up going up here, you are going to have a howe that is maxed out on a narrow lot, and that will be unattractive versus what might happen on a diagonal set of lots. !~hairp_ erson Cassel: Also, this is a highly varied neighborhood with lots of different designs, lots of different heights. MOTION PASSE~: Chaimerson Casse~ll: Is there any further discussion on this motion, which is to support the staff recommendation to deny the application? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 4-2, with Commissioner Sehink not participating, and Chairperson Cassel and Commissioner Beecham voting no. This item is tentatively scheduled for the City Council on January 13th. Thank you very much. ... end of excerpt ... 16 Septerr~er 5, 1996 Attachment 6 Palo Alto Planning Department Palo Alto Gity Hall 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, GA 94301 Attn: Lisa Grote RE: 679 Maybell Ave., Palo Alto - Item number 96-PM-2 Dear Lisa: I am writing about the proposals set forth for the subdivision of the parcel on Maybell Ave. This parcel abuts the entire back line of my property located at 4178 King Arflmr Gourt (property of Oakley as shown on your parcel map). I am a very long time Palo Alto resident having moved here with my parents 55 years ago. For the part 30 years I have been the sole owner of 4178 King Arthur Gt. having purchased it in February 1966. During this period I have been diligent in maintaining the property and upgrading the house to enhance the neighborhood and retain the property value. My present concern ls~ssure that a 20’ foot setback be established from my back property line to any dwellings which might be built on the proposed parcels. This 20’ setback would be in effect whether the parcels are fronting on Driscoll Court or on Maybell Ave. My home was built just 21’ from the back lot line. This area is a charming patio which is used for entertaining friends, playing with grandchildren and enjoying the outdoor lifestyle for which Palo Alto is famous. As I am now a senior citizen, it is important that the value of my property remains uncompromised as in the near future I may be needing the funds from the sale of this property to buy into a retirement/healthcare community. The possibility of a 6’ side setback which would allow anyone in the new dwelling dear visual access to my backyard would greatly decrease my property value which I have worked so hard to maintain for 30 years. I fervently request that a setback of at least 20’ from my back property line be established and recorded with the deed of the 679 Maybell parcel subdivision. Sincerely, Joan Oaldey VIA FACSCIMII~: 329-2154 Zoning Administrator Planning Division City Of PaIo Alto Civic Center 250 Haxnilton Avenue Palo Alto, Ca MITCHELL ZIMMBRMAN 675 Mayb~ll Avenue PALO ALTO, CM.II~RNIA 943O6 work: (415) S$$-7~25 August I, 1996 Attachment 7 679 Maybell Avenue (96-PM-2) Aagust 1,1996 Public Hearing To Planning Commission/Zoning Administrator: I am the owner, with my wife, of the parcel adjoining the above parcel (at 675 Maybell, Palo Alto), and I am generally familiar with the sub-division of the parcel that is proposed by the Applicant James Rhodeos. Although I believe there are potential problems, including the possible, lack of su£fident street frontage for one of the parcels, my principal concern is the preservation of several very old and very large trees on the parcel. These trees (specificatly including a large redwood cluster and several large oaks) include, several trees with diameters well over a ~oot wide, such that it would be in~urious to the character and ecology of the neighborhood for them to be removedl It is my understanding that the Applicant has indicated that these trees are not to be ~emoved or injured, and that that represents a binding commitment. On that basis, we do not oppose the sub-division of the property. However, we believe it is appropriate for this obligation to be expressly made a condition of the subdivision of the parcel If further information is required concerning this, I will be glad to provide ¯ ~rther information, at a subsequent hearing if necessary. Yours truly, Mitchell 72mmerman 1-96 2:Ii PM