The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-07-14 City Council (6)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE : July 14, 1997 CMR:326:97 SUBJECT:679 MAYBELL AVENUE AND 681 DRISCOLL COURT: APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 21,000-SQUARE-FOOT VACANT PARCEL AND AN 8,200-SQUARE-FOOT PARCEL WITH AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME INTO THREE SINGLE FAMILY PARCELS OF 8,250, 12,669, AND 8,280 SQUARE FEET, WITH EXCEPTIONS FOR MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IN THE R-1 ZONE DISTRICT (FILE NOS. 97-PM-1, 97-EIA-5) REOUEST The applicant requests approval of a preliminary parcel map to subdivide, with exceptions for minimum lot width, an existing 21,000-square-foot, vacant parcel and an 8,200-square- foot parcel with an existing single family home into three single family parcels of 8,250, 12,669, and 8,280 square feet, respectively. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary parcel map with exceptions, based on the attached fmdings (Attachment 1). This recommendation is based on a revised site plan that has been agreed upon by all affected parties in the neighborhood. The subdivision requires exceptions on all three parcels for a 45- foot, a 42-foot, and a 37-foot wide lot, respectively, where 60 feet is the minimum required in the R-1 zone district.- This approval is subject to the attached conditions (Attachment 3 - Conditions), including a staff recommended condition to require the subdivider to install improvements in the public right-of-way. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The following Comprehensive Plan policies and programs apply to this application: CMR:326:97 Page 1 of 5 Housing Element. Policy 1. "Maintain the general low-density character of existing single-family areas."’ Tlae 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. 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 Pal. Alto’s neighborhoods especially desirable." The applicant’s proposed subdivision design would protect and enhance the quality of the Driscoll Court neighborhood. The resulting front yard setback would be reflective of the existing houses on Driscoll Court and would preserve the cul-de-sac pattern. It would also 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. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The majority of the vacant site’s street frontage is on Maybell Avenue with a small portion fronting on Driscoll Court. The applicant intends to sell the two new 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 4 - Subdivider’s Statement). The applicant proposes to divide the vacant property with an angled property line which would result in both proposed lots having less than the minimum required lot width of 60 feet, measured at the 20-foot setback line. Proposed lot 1 would have a 44.69 foot width and proposed lot 2 would have a width of 41.58 feet. The proposed lot split involves a newly configured lot line with the neighboring parcel at 681 Driscoll Court (lot 3) resulting in a reduction of’the width of this parcel from about 46 feet to about 37. feet. This reconfigured parcel also requires an exception for lot width. 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 Driscoll Court. The resulting 8,250 (lot 1), 12,669 (lot 2) and 8,280 (lot 3) square-foot lots would far exceed .the 6,000-square-foot minimum lot size required in the R-1 zone district. Proposed lot 1 would have an average depth of 126 feet, lot 2 would have an average depth of 155 feet, and lot 3 would have an average depth of 179 feet. All three lots would meet the R-1 depth requirement of 100 feet. Proposed lot 1 would be allowed 3,225 square feet of floor area (39 percent), and 2,887 square feet of lot coverage (35 percent). Proposed lot 2 would be allowed 4,650 square feet of floor area (37 percent), and 4,434 square feet of lot coverage (35 percent). Each lot would also exceed the minimum CMR:326:97 Page 2 of 5 size for a second-living unit, which would be subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Lot 3 has an existing single family home located on the parcel. On June 11, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 (Commissioners Beecham, Byrd and Shink absent) to approve staft’s recommendation to approve the preliminary parcel map with exceptions, based on the attached findings (Attachment 1). A more detailed discussion of the project history and the issues related to the Commission’s action is contained in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated June 11, 1997 (Attachment 2). Minutes of the June 11, 1997 Commission meeting are attached (Attachment 5). Planning Commission Comments Commissioners approved of the reconfigured parcel map and expressed appreciation of the applicant for following the recommendations of the adjacent neighbors. The applicant offered to dedicate the right-of-way for public improvements along the street frontage but requested that the cost of improvements to the curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Maybell Avenue frontage be placed on the future home builders and not on the current subdivider. Staff recommends that the subdivider be responsible for both the right-of-way dedication and the public improvements, as stated in the conditions of approval (Attachment 3). The rationale for this approach relates to the existing sidewalk improvements which wrap around Driscoll Court but stop approximately 20 feet into the Maybell frontage, leaving about 80 feet unimproved along the street side property line of Parcel 1. Staff believes that it would be more equitable to spread the cost of the sidewalk improvements between the two ¯ proposed lots (parcels 1 and 2) prior to recording the final parcel map, rather than place the entire burden on the builder of the home on parcel 1, which is the only parcel that would abut the sidewalk improvements after the subdivision had been recorded. The improvements benefit both parcels by providing pedestrian access and drainage to both sites. Therefore, staff recommends that the conditions requiring the subdivider to improve the sidewalk be retained. The Commission recommended approval of the preliminary parcel map as recommended by staff. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may: o ° Approve the preliminary parcel map as proposed by the applicant, based on the attached findings of approval (Attachment 1) and conditions (Attachment 3), Modify the preliminary parcel map and approve, based on the attached findings (Attachment 1) and Conditions (Attachment 3), or Deny the preliminary parcel map. CMR:326:97 Page 3 of 5 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 The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Article 19, Section 15315, minor land divisions. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL 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 be recorded at the Santa Clara County Recorders’ Office. ATTACHMENTS Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Preliminary 1 - Recommended Findings for Approval 2 - Subdivider’s Statement 3 - Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 28, 1997 (w/o attachments) 4 - Location Map 5 - Neighbors’ Proposed Alternative F 6 - Section 21.20.PAMC 7 - Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - June 11, 1997 8 - Conditions of Approval Parcel Map (Council Members only) PREPARED BY: Chandler Lee, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Director of Planning and Community Environment y Manager CMR:326:97 Page 4 of 5 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 Peter Klein, Miller, Morton, Caillat & Nevis, 50 W. San Femando St., #1300, San Jose CA 95113-2413 Sandra and Richard Merrill, Driscoll Court, ,Palo Alto, CA 94306 CMR:326:97 Page 5 of 5 Recommended Findings for Approval Attachment 1 FINDINGS FOR PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP o The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs and the design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, in that the project would 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 right angles to straight streets or radial to curved streets." The proposed map would be consistent with the regular lotting pattem on Maybell Avenue, where side lot lines are at 90- degree angles to the street. A consistent pattern of development, especially adjacent properties, is art important element in the creation of a desirable neighborhood. The resulting front yard setback would be reflective of the existing houses on Driseoll Court and would preserve the cul-de-sac pattern; the project would be consistent with Housing Element, Policy 1 (Maintain the general low-density character of existing single-family areas) in that 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:I zone district, and the project would be consistent with Housing Element, Policy 3 (Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo Alto’s neighborhoods especially desirable) in that the applicant’s proposed subdivision design would protect and enhance the quality of the Driscoll Court neighborhood; The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed single-family lots would be 8,250, 12,699 and 8,280 square feet, respectively, all of which would exceed the 6,000-square-foot minimum lot size in the R-1 zone district; The design of the new lot pattern and two new single-family homes will not cause significant environmental impacts; all three lots would be consistent with the development pattern in that the proposed lots will result in driveways with adequate access to Driscoll Court, which would be in character with Driscoll Court houses, and consistent 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, would not be detrimental to the existing pattern of the neighborhood and would result in development of single-family homes that would be consistent with the adjacent cul-de-sac development and with the pattern along Maybell Avenue; and The design of the new lot pattem 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. FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION TO MINIMUM WIDTH REQUIREMENTS There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property, because the site is adjacent to an existing improved cul-de-sac, Driscoll Court, and the cul-de-sac configuration requires side lot lines radiating from the street and creates lot widths less than the required 60 feet. The exception for minimum width is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner, in that the applicant has applied for the exception in order to create lots which are consistent with the neighborhood pattern and yield single-family homes that are consistent with the size and scale of existing single- family homes in the neighborhood. A three-lot subdivision would result in net lot sizes of 8,250, 12,699 and 8,280 square feet, respectively with allowable floor area of 3,225 square feet for lot 1 and 4,650 square feet for lot 2, which is in scale with existing homes in the neighborhood. Lot 3 has an existing single family home on the property. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated, in that the design of the parcel map provides adequate and safe access to Driscoll Court and the proposed street frontage for each lot would supply adequate access for vehicles and utilities to the future single-family homes. o The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law, in that the proposed subdivision would comply with the density requirement set forth in the Single-Family land use designation, and would provide lots of ample size and shape to construct two homes consistent with the existing neighborhood development pattern. Additionally, with the condition prohibiting removal of existing trees on-site, the project will provide better tree protection than the existing parcel without such a condition. (S: \plan\pladiv\pesr~aayb1679. fnd) Subdivider’ s Statement Attachment 2 Section 21.12.050 of the Palo A!to ~imicipal,Code requires that a "Subdivider’s Statement" shall appear upon, or accompany, tentative or preliminary parcel maps, and shall contain the following .information: #i - 679 Maybell Ave., Palo Alto, Ca 94306 Address of S~bject Property: #2 - 681 Driscoll Ct., Palo Alto, Ca 943"06 (If iny oi@the items below are not applica]~ie, so state.) (a)Existing t~se(s): #I - 21,000 sq. ft. vacant ’lot with no imDrovements. #2 - A 8,200 sq. ft. lot with a developed single family residence. Zon~ district (s): R-I for both. ~b). Proposed ~se (s): #I- developed R-I. #2 - is developed R-I. (c) Improvements and public utilities proposed and expected date of completion: #l - no public uti.li~y improvements are proposed. #2 - is a fully developed singl~ family residence. (d)Provisions for sewerage and sewage disposal,~ #i - none #2 - existing (e)Public areas proposed: none (f) Tree planting proposed, including indication of trees to be removed or left in place: #s i and 2 - No tree planting is proposedL,A~ e~isting trees, sevenoaks and two redwoods, to remain. (g)Proposed street and outdoor lighting:All existing~ none proposed. (h) Existing rCstrictive covenants, leases, rights-of-way, licenses and encumberances affecting use of land’(attach copies): #s I and 2 ~ none exist. (i) Requested exceptions to mny requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. (Most exceptions relate to General Design requirements [Chapter 21.21) mnd particularly to .lo~t size, dimensions, location or configuration. Applications for exceptions shall state fully the grounds of the gpplicatl-~n and the-facts relied upon by the petitioner. P~xceptions shall be granted only upon making certain findings, including the four listed~elow.) Excepfions requested: We are seeking the same exception for three differenti land parcels, two from the subdivision of 679 Maybell Ave. and one from the lot line adjustment between 679 Maybell Ave. and 681 Driscoll Ct. .The exception’~ .requested is the sixty foot lot width at the twenty foot,setback line. ,(I) There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the propertY. (Describe) The location of the existing lot line between 679 Maybell Ave. and 681Driscoll Ct. The position of t~he Maybell Ave. parcel in relationship to the Driscoll Ct. development and the desired configuration of the proposed subdivision are all special conditions that affect the properties in this application. (2)The exception is necessary for the preservation mud enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. ~xplain) This exception allows us to continue forward with a plan all parties have embPaced. This~plan is the one most preferred out of three. Our fi~t application, which was not approved, required no exceptions. The remaining two both require exceptions but hold the best chance of endorsement. The application presented to you is the most desirable to all parties. (3)The granting o£ the exception will not be detriment’al to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. (Explain) The design and configuration of this proposed subdivision is the one promoted and preferred by the Driscoll C~. homeowners association and is also the one supported by the owner of 679 Maybell Ave. This design is also in keeping with the other properties in the area insofar as size, shape.and front yard lot width at the twenty foot setback line. The granting of this exception lends itself to a win win situation for all parties involved. (4)The ~Tanting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies or spirit of the law. [~mcplain) The granting of this exception wi~l finish the contour of the Driscoll Ct. cul-de-sac and complete the pattern of the original subdivision, and in doing so will not violate the requirements, goals, policies or spirit of any developmental regulation or zoning law. Requested variances from any of the requirements o£ the Zoning Ordinance. (Variances for-side yards ~nd setbacks for existing buildingsm~y be requested in conjunction with SUbdivisions to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council.) Variances requested: None ~< Reasons and Justification: The structure located at 681Driscoll Ct. presently falls within the setback an~..daylight plane.regulations and will continue to satisfy thos’e same regulations after the subdivision is complete. j. ~knner in which compliance with applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including housing policies, shall be attained iif relevant): To the best o£ my knowledge, this applicatio’n is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan as submitted or as indicated under (j) abo/ye. / -~.J~mes N. Rhodeos Planning Department 10/12/79 _.. T. Merrill or Richard S. Merrill Attachment 3 PLANNING COMMISSION TO: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:Chandler Lee DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA DATE: June 11, 1997 SUBJECT: ¯679 Maybell Avenue and 681 Driscoll Court: Application for a Preliminary Parcel Map to Subdivide a 21,000-Square-Foot Vacant Parcel and an 8,200 square foot parcel with an existing single family home into three Single Family parcels of 8,250, 12,669, and 8,280 square feet, with exceptions for minimum lot width in the R-1 Zone District (File Nos. 97-PM-1, 97-EIA-5). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission.recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary parcel map with exceptions, based on the attached fmdings (Attachment 1). This recommendation is based on a revised site plan that has been agreed upon by all affected parties in the neighborhood. The subdivision requires exceptions on all three parcels for a 45-foot, a 42-foot, and a 37 foot-wide lot, respectively, where 60 feet is the minimum required in the R-1 zone district. This approval is subject to the attached conditions (Attachment 2 - Conditions). BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION Project Description The applicant requests approval of a preliminary parcel map to subdivide an existing 21,000-square-foot, vacant parcel and an 8,200 square foot parcel with an existing single family home into three single family parcels of 8,250, 12,669, and 8,280 square feet, respectively. The majority of the vacant site’s street frontage is on Maybell Avenue with a small portion fronting on Driscoll Court. The applicant intends to sell the two new lots without improvements, including utilities. Utilities would be installed as the individual S :\PLAN\PLADIV\PCSRkMaybI679.PC Page 1 6-11-97 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 Attacthnent 3 - Subdivider’s Statement). The applicant proposes to divide the vacant property with an angled property line which would result in both proposed lots having less thart the minimum required lot width of 60 feet, measured at the 20-foot setback line. Proposed lot 1 would have a 44.69 foot width and proposed lot 2 would have a width of 41.58 feet. The proposed lot split involves a newly configured lot line with the neighboring parcel at 681 Driscoll Court (lot 3) resulting in a reduction of the width of this parcel from about 46 feet to about 37 feet. This reconfigured parcel also requires an exception for lot width, 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 Driscoll Court. The resulting 8,250 (lot 1), 12,669 (lot 2) and 8,280 (lot 3) square-foot lots would far exceed the 6,000-square- foot minimum lot size required in the R-1 zone district. Proposed lot 1 would have an average depth of 126 feet, lot 2 would have an average depth of 155 feet, and lot 3 would have an average depth of 179 feet. All three lots would meet the R-1 depth requirement of 100 feet. Proposed lot 1 would be allowed 3,225 square feet of floor area (39%), and 2,887 square feet of lot coverage (35 %). Proposed lot 2 would be allowed 4,650 square feet of floor area (37 %), and 4,434 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. Lot 3 has an existing single family home located on the parcel. 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: Owner: James Rhodeos 415 N. California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (415) 324-9595 Cheryl Ruth Goodwin 415 N. California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (415) 325-8452 S :\PLAN\PLADIV\PCSR\MaybI679.PC Page 2 6-11-97 Sandra and Richard Merrill 681 Driscoll Court Palo Alto, CA 94306 (415) 494-7275 Assessor’s Parcel Number: Comprehensive Plan Designation: Zone District: 137-27-030 and 128 Single-family Residential R-1 Existing Land Use:Single-Family Residential Surrounding Land Uses: Proposed Net Lot Size: Project History. Single-Family Residential Lot 1:8,250 square feet Lot 2:12,669 square feet Lot 3:8,280 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 were 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). S:\PLAN\PLADIV\PCSRLMayb1679.PC Page 3 6-11-97 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 req~uire an exception to the minimum lot width for all 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 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 referred 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. On December 11, 1996, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the angled property line proposal and on January 13, 1997, the City Council denied the application. S :\PLAN\PLADIV\PCSR\MaybI679.PC Page 4 6-11-97 The applicant has since revised the proposal to conform with the neighbors’ request for a parcel split in the cul-de-sac configuration. This design is the subject of the current application. Staff and the applicant agree with the neighbors that the cul-de-sac (Alternative F; see Attachment 5) lot configuration is most desirable. Because that type of subdivision would require acquisition of a portion of the property located at 681 Driscoll Court to increase the Driscoll Court frontage, the applicant has worked with that property owner to reach an agreement on a land swap. The applicant and adjacent property owner have now reached an agreement and proposed a lot split that is in conformance with neighbors’ proposal. Both properties are included in the preliminary parcel map which is the subject of this application. 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. 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 protect and enhance the quality of the Driscoll Court neighborhood. The resulting front yard setback would be reflective of the existing houses on Driscoll Court and would preserve the cul-de-sac pattern. It would also 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. ALY I Lot Confi~ Staff agrees with the applicant and neighbors that the cul-de-sac type of lot configuration is the most desirable for purposes of complying with the neighborhood S:\PLAN\PLADIV\PCSR\Mayb1679.PC Page 5 6-11-97 development pattern. The cul-de-sac design would not comply with the minimum lot width requirement at the 20-foot setback line. However, the design would comply with the purposes of the side lot line requirements in the Design Section of the Subdivision Ordinance (Section 21.20.130). 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. Except for lot width, the applicant’s proposal complies with all of the dimensional and size requirements of the R-1 zone district. The proposed lot line now complies with the Design Section of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance (see Attachment 8 - Section 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 approve the application based on the fact that the proposed design complies 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 the front 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 front setback more consistent with the existing development pattern in the neighborhood; 3) it would provide ample space for driveway access from 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. The current proposal provides ample building area within the building envelope, results in a wider building envelope for lot 2 and greater consistency with the existing neighborhood development pattern. Lot Width The proposed parcel map does not comply with the minimum lot width requirement, of 60 feet at the 20-foot setback line. Proposed lot 1. would have a 44.69 foot Width, proposed lot 2 would have a width of 41.58 feet, and the reconfigured lot at 681 Driscoll Court (lot 3) would have a width of 37 feet. The proposed width on each lot would be adequate to construct a driveway onto the street and leave sufficient room for a front yard that meets front yard setback requirements. Although the widths are less than that normally required, the widths are consistent with adjacent lots on Driscoll Court. The two adjacent lots on Driscoll Court have lot widths of 42 feet (683 Driscoll) and 54 feet (685 Driscoll). S:\PLAN\PLADW\PCSR\MaybI679.PC Page 6 6-11-97 Driveway Access As identified above, the recommended lot configuration would provide ample street frontage for both of the new lots to have vehicular access to Driscoll Court. With the applicant’s proposal, the developer could provide driveway openings from Driscoll Court, which would be in character with Driscoll Court houses. Tree Preservation The site currently contains 8 mature trees (6-inches 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 parcel 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 has been added to the subdivision approval for this property to require retention and protection of all eight mature trees. Public Participation Notice of the Planning Commission meeting was sent to property owners and utility customers within 300 feet of the subject site. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission can recommend that the City Council do the following: Approve the preliminary parcel map as proposed by the applicant based on the attached findings, or 2. Deny the preliminary parcel map. Findings are required to support whatever action is taken on the map. FISCAL IMPACT_ S:\PLAN\PLADIV\PCSR\MaybI679. PC Page 7 6-11-97 No fiscal impact will result from action on this application. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project is exempt from the provisions o~’the Califomia 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 f’mal determination. The tentative date for that hearing is July 7, 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 applicant must record the parcel map at the Santa Clara County-Recorders’ Office. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS Attachment 1 - Draft Findings for Approval Attachment 2 - Conditions Attachment 3 - Subdivider’s Statement Attachment 4 - Location Map Attachment 5 - Neighbors’ Proposed Alternative F Attachment 6 - Section 21.20 PAMC Preliminary Parcel Map [Commission members only] COURTESY COPIES: 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 Peter Klein, Miller, Morton, Caillat & Nevis, 50 W. San Fernando St., #1300, San Jose CA 95113-2413 Sandra and Richard Merrill, Driscoll Court, Palo Alto, CA 94306 S:\PLAN\PLADIV\PCSR’dVlaybI679.PC Page 8 6-11-97 Prepared by: Chandler Lee, Contract Planner Project Planner: Chandler Lee Division/Department Head Approval: .’~.! ~ S~~ "~ Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator S :\PLAN\PLADIV\PCSR\MaybI679.PC Page 9 6-11-97 PF JUANA BR IONES SCHOOL Project;: 679 Maybell Avenue Applicat;ion for a preliminary parcel map t;o eubdivide an exiet;ine 21,000 eel ft; vacant; parcel int;o t;wo ein~]le family reeHent, ial. parcele of approx. &250 & 12,669 eeluare feet;. Attachment 4 OOULOMBE DR. ;HERRY OAKS DONALD 4/o8 4114 DRIV~- 4.127 4\~o ISC( Attachment F ~05.00’ 7,700.00 SO ~. >. / !47,51’ I !.00" : 40.00’ SUBDIN’ISIONS AND OTHER DIVISIONS OF L.~N’D 21.20.010 materials or equipment to them for the improve- mere or the performance of the required act; (c) An amount to be determined by the city engineer to guarantee and warranty the work for a period of one year following the completion and acceptance of the work aga~ns~ any defective work or labor done, or defective mamriais fumiste.d; (d) As a pan of the obligation guaranteed by’ the security and in addition to the face amount of the sean’ity, there shall be included co~s and tea- sortable expenses and fees, including reasonable arfomeys’ fees, incm’red by the city in success- fully enforcing the obligations secured. (Ord. 3157 §l (pm), 1979) 21.16.240 Final map -- Approval by city council, submitted to city clerk. At the councirs first regular meeting following its receipt of the ~ map or within ten days of the filing of the final map, whichever is later, the city council shaft comider such map and any of- fers of dedication. The dry coum’il may reject any or all offers of dedication. If the city council termines that the map mee~ the requiremems of the Subdivision Map Act and this title, it shall al>- prove the map and certfy such approval on the map. It shall ~it the map to the city clerk. The city council shall not disapprove a final map when the failure of the map is the result of a tech- 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 e~r~ possible, the map shall be corrected prior to recordafion. (Oral. 3157 §1 (part), 1979) 21.16.250 Final and parcel maps n Ap- proval and recording, effect. No final or parcel map shall have any effect until approved under this title. No fide to any property described in any offer of dedication ~ be conveyed until the map h~ been recorded in the office of the county recorder. (Ord. 3157 §I (part), 1979) Attachment 6 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 imo an agreement by and wi~h the consent of their respective governing bodies providing that either sh~ perform the duties pre- scribed for the city engineer in this chapter, or providing for an apportionment between them of such dudes. When by such agreement all such duties devolve upon either the city engineer or the county surveyor, such officer shall perform said duties. Af-~r performance thereof, such officer shall .certify to the performance of said dudes on the map. When by such agreement the duties an: apportioned between the county surveyor and the city engineer, each officer sha11, after the per- formance thereof, make certification on said map, coveting the duties performed by each. 3157 §1 @art), 1979). 21.16.270 Reversion to acreage. A reversion to acreage shall be accomplished in conformance with Chapter 6 of the Subdivision Map Act. A parr.el map may be filed for the pur- pose of reverting to acreage land previously divided and consisting of four or le~s contiguous paf~ls under one ownership. In the event a reversion m acreage is accomplished by means of a parcel map, the dixector of plarming shall be the advisory agency and shall be empowered to perform all functions of the legislative body under said Chapter 6. All maps filed for the purpose of reverting land to acreage shall be conspicuously so designated under the title "The Pux~se of this Map is a Reversion to Acreage." (Oral. 3157 §I (pro), 1979) CHAPTER 21.20 DESIGN 21.20.010 Generally. The provisions of this chapter shall govern the design of all subdivisions. The provisions of this 2121 21.20.020 PALO ALTO NII!NICIPAL CODE chapter shall be incorporated in any subdivision approval unless the city council, or direv"wr of planning in the case of a preliminary par~l map, finds that due w the particular ci~ces ~ design crkeria are not necessary or fl’~ almmafive desig~ are preferable; provided, that any modifi- cations Io the lot size, dimensions, location or coafigan~on standards shall only be mad~ upon request for and approval of exceptions w said standards. Design of all subdivisions shall if~lude such facilities for ~he handicapped as may be ~- quir~d by fe, deml, sta~ or local law. (Ord. 31:57 §I (pan), 1979) 21.20.020 Conformance to master plan and local law. with the Palo Alto comprehensive plan. Subdi- visions shall also conform with any ~c plan. Subdivisions shall also conform with all other provisions of law, including but not limited to, zoning, safety and bea~ codes. The design of the subdivision or of improvements shall conform in and shall be subjea to the approval of the city engineer. Any subdivision may be approved sub- as may be necessary to insure the public health, safety, w~Ifam and convenience. (Oral. 3157 §I (pro), 1979) 21.20.030 Alleys. When any lots an~ proposed, for comm~ or industrial usage, alleys at le, a~ twenty feet in width may be required at the rear tbemof with adequat~ ingress and eg~ss for m~ck (Ord. 3157 §I (pan), 1979) : 21.20.040 Boundaries of subdivision. Wber~ possible, the ex~rior boundaries of ~I subdivisions shall be w ~ cen~rlin~ of ~ll su~s and highways adjacent to said subdivision unless such street or highway is not within the city limit; in such a case, fl~ exterior boundary of~ subdivision will coincide with zhe city limks. The subdivider shall be required ~ de.dicam to ~h~ city all property wi~n the city which is not owned by another public, agency between the centerline and the proposed right-of-way line of such sweet or highway as may be established by official plan lines of the city or es~blished by the compre- hensive plan or established by any masmr plan of st~e~s and highways or any specific plan. Any property between the cer~rline and ~he proposed right-of-way line with another public jurisdiction shall be dedicamd to that jurisdiction. Such prop- eny shall be improved or the full cost of making permanent improvements w the property shall be de1~osiw, d wi~ the city as prescribed in this chap- mr. (Oral. 3157 §I (pan), 1979) 21.20.050 Divided lots. No lot shall be divided by a city boundary line. (Oral. 3157 §I (parO, 1979) 21.20.060 Drainage. All lots shall be graded to drain to a public street; trot the city engineer may rexluire or allow almmafive draimge panerns as may be reasonably necessary W avoid excessive g~ding or ~ding which results in a significant height differential at any property line. (Onl. 3157 §1 (pan), 1979) 21.20.070 Easements. Public utility, sanitary sewer, and drainage easemems ~I be provided in such locations and to such widths as may be required by the ~r of utilities and city engineer. (Oral. 3157 §1 (pan), 19w) 21.20.080 Interior lots with double frontage. inmrior lots having double frm~ge ~ not be approved. (Oral. 3157 §1 (pan), 1979) 21.20.090 Land reserved for public use. The city council may, as a condition of ap- proval of any tentative map, re~ire the sub- divider to reserve afros of real property for parks, recreational facilities, fire slafions, libraries, or other public uses if such reservation would imple- ment the Palo Alto comprehensive plan or any 2127. SUBDIVISIONS AND OTHER DI’%qSIONS OF I_A.N"D 2 1.20.170 adopted specific plan. Such reservations shall be pursuant to Section 66479 et seq. of the Govern° ment Code. (Ord. 3157 §I (,part), 1979) 21.20.100 Lots. The size and shape of lots shall con.form with any zoning regulations effective in the area of the proposed subdivisions and as shown on the zon: ing map. In addition, residential lots on curved or cul-de-sac streets shall have a minimum width at the building setback line of sixty f~et, a minimum average depth of one hundred feet, and a mini- mum area of six thousand square feet; provided, that this requirement shall not be deemed to reduce any more restrictive requirement contained in the zoning regulations. (Ord. 3157 § I (part), 1979) 21.20.110 Nonaccess and planting strips. When a rear or side lot line of a lot borders on any su-ect, the right of ingress or eg~ss may be prohibited ~ such lot across such war or side lot line. Dedication of such access fights shall be made either on the map or by separate insu’umem sa~factoty m the city a~omey. When the rear or side lot line of any lot borders any fr~way, stat~ highway, expressway, or major thoroughfare, a planting su’ip approved by the city en#necr may be requi~ adjacent to such fr~way, highway, e~pressway, or major thoroughfare. (Ord. 3157 §1 (pro), 1~79) 21.20.120 Service roads and off-street parking. When lots proposed for commercial usage front.on any expressway, ~efia.l or collector street, a service mad to provide adequate ingrr.~s and egress or in lieu thereof adjacent areas for public off-street parking purposes may be quired. When ~ny lot proposed for residential use f~nts on any freeway, state highway, express- way, or arterial, an improved service road may be required at the front of such lot. In addition, ade- quart: off-street parldng areas for all lots proposed for commercial use shall be required. (Ord. 3157 §l (p~), 1979) 21.20.130 Side lot lines. The side lot lines of all lots, as far as prac- ticable, shall be at right angles to straight streets or radial to curved smeets. (Ord. 3157 §1 (part), 1979) 21.20.140 Street names. Street names, whether for public or private steers, require approval by the city council. No street name shall be duplicated. No sn’eet name signs orother identification shall be era’ted show- ing any name other ~ that approved by the city council. (Ord. 3157 §1 (part), 1979) 21.20.150 Street name and traffic-con. trol signs. All strut names shall be clearly shown upon signs approved by the city engineer. The city engineer shall require traffic-conn’ol signal sys- tems, signs, and rnaridngs adequate to secure ~ objectives of public safety and tlx comprehensive plan. The design and installation of such sysmms, signs and markings shall be subject to the ap- proval of the city engin~r. (Ord. 3157 §I (part), 1979) 21.20.160 Streets and highways m Conformance to master plan. and alignment to any master plan of streets ap- proved by the dry council. (0~. 3157 §I (part), 1979) 21.20.170 Conformance to council pro- ceedings. The street design shall conform to any pro- ceedings affecting the subdivision which may have been inidate~l by the city council on its own motion or approved by the city council upon initiation by any other legally constituted bodies of the city, county, or state. If a parcel of land to be subdivided includes a portion of the right-of- way to be acquired for a freeway or expressway 2123 21.20.180 PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE and the city council determines the boundaries of the right-of-way to be acquired, such right-of- way shall be shown on the tentative and final or parcel maps. (Ord. 3157 § l (,part), 1979) 21.20.180 Access strips. Reserve s~ips conm311ing the a~cess w public ways or which will not be taxable for special im- provements, shall be approved only if such s~ips a~ r~cessary for the pmteedon of the public wel- fare or of substantial property rights, or both. The conm31 and disposal of the land comprising such s~’i~ shall be placed within the jurisdiedon of the city under conditions deemed sufficient by the city al~mey and approved by the city council or direc~ mr of planning in the case of a preliminary parcel map. (Ord. 3157 §1 @art), 1979) 21.20.190 Alignment. As far as praedcable, the streets shall be in alignment with existing adjacent streets by con- tinuadens of the eentedines thereof and by adjust- merits by curves. (Oral. 3157 §1 (part), 1979) 21.20.200 Centerlines. Su’eet cen~rlines shall in~x~-t one another at an angle as near to a right angle as pra~cable by tangents not.less than seventy-five feet in length. (Ord. 3157 §1 (part), 1979) 21.20.210 Grades. No freeway, expressway, a~fial or colle~3r street shall have a grade of more than seven per- cent. No other sneer shal/, have a grade of more tl~n fifteen per~.nt. (OnL 3157 §1 (parO, 1979) 21.20.220 Interaectlon corner rounding. Whenever any sm~ iraerseets any other street, the property lines at each block comer thus formed shall be rounded with a curve having a radius of not less than te~ feet. The city engineer may ~ a greater curve radius ff streets in- tersect at other than right angles. This section shall not apply a~ any intersection where ther~ are no building sethack t~quirements. (Ord. 3157 §l (pro), 1979) 21.20.230 Turnarounds. All dead-end streets sha.L[ 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, strvets may extend to the boundary of the property and the re.~ting deadend su~ts may be approved without a turnaround. (Oral. 3157 §1 (part), 1979) 21.20.240 Widths. (a) Streets shown in any master steer plan or affected by proceedings initiated or approved by the city council shall have widths as requiw.d by such plan or pn~.ee.dings. (b) All other streets shall have right-of-way of the following widths, except where the city council determines that the topography or the small numberof lots served and the probable futare traffic development an: such as to just~ a narrowed width. Increased widths may be re- quired where streets are to serve nonresidential property, or where probable waffle conditions (I) Major anerials: eighty-six feet to one ~ feet; (2) Colleetor streets,’local sm~ets, or cul- de-sac streets longer than ~e hundr~ fifty feet: t3) Cul-de-sac streets three hundred fiftyfeet or le~s in length: fiey fee~ (4). Private meets: Such right-of-way as would be requhc, d for a comparable public sm~et, unless subdivider can demonstrate to the satis- faction of the city council or director of planning relating to the nature or location of the proposed street or the nature of the proposed develolanent which render such right-of-way unnecessary for or detrimental to the public health, safety or wel- fare. (Ord. 3345 §36, 1982: Oral. 3157 §1 (part), 1979) 2124 SLrBDI’V’ISIONS AND OTI-IER DIVISIONS OF LA~NI)21.20.30 21.20.250 Walkways. Walkways through long blocks where neces- sary to provide adequate public access to school~, parks, or other areas may be required. The design and locations of such walkways shatl be approved by the city council, or the di~cmr of planning in the case ofa preIimina~ parcel map. (Ord. 31.5.7 91 (pan), 1979) 21.20.260 Watercourses. A right-of-way for storm drainage purposes shall be required and shall conform substantially with ~he liras of any natural watercourse or chan- nel, stream, or cre~k that traverses the subdivi- stork If a pa~:el 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 detemaines the boundaries of the right-of- way to be acquired, such right-of-way shatl be shown on the tentative and final and parcel maps and shall either be dedicated or withheld f’mm subdivision. (Ord. 3157 91 @an), 1979) 21.20.270 Local transit fadlities. If the subdivision as shown on the tentative map has a potential for two hundred dwelling units of more if developed to the maximum den- sity, or contains one hundred acres or more, and transit services are or within a re.asonable time will be made available to such subdivision, local transit fadlifies, such as bus turn-outs, benches, sl~It~rs, landing pads, or similar items which rectly benefit the r~sidents of such subdivision may be required. (Orfl. 3157 §I (paR), 1979) 21.20.280 Bicycle paths. If the subdivision as shown on the tentative map thereof contains two hundred or more par- eel.s, and the subdivider is nxluircd to dedicate o/" offer to dedicate real property for roadways, the subdivision shall also contain bicycle paths for the . use and safety Of the ~sider~ of the subdivision. (Ord. 3157 91 (pan), 1979) 21.20.290 Required dedications. In connection with the design of any sub- division, the subdivider shall make such dedica- tions and improvements as are specified in this chapter or in Chapters 21.24 and 21.28. (Ord. 3157 §! (pan), 1979) 21.20.300 Preliminary parcel map- Additional requirements. 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- ated by such division shall have frontage, equal to the minimum required by this tide, upon a street dedicafed as a public street. (Ord. 3850 94, 1989: Oral. 3340 918, 1982: Oral. 3157 91 (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 xv, sidemial use; (2) The flag lot el’roll 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 wed for access to a public strut; and (3) Access from the flag lot to a public sur.et ~ not be over an easement but over land under the same owr~rship as the flag lot. Such ~ shall have a mtt~aum width of fifteen feet m~! shall have a paved way not less than ten feet in width. (b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the ere- ation of flag lots, as defined in Title 18 of this code, ~ be prohibited in the Rol single-family residence district, and no exceptions shall be ~ranted therefor, provided, however, that flag lots validly existing in the R-1 district as of the effec- tive date of said prohibition .~dl, nonetheless, be recognized as legal lots for purposes of this Title 21 only. Development of such existing flag lots shall be subject to all applicable provisions of 2125 :21.20.310 PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE Title 18 ofthis Code as of the date of any such proposed development. (Ord. 3850 §2, 1989) 21.20.310 Solar requirements. All major subdivisions shall provide, to the ex- tent feasible, for furore passive or natural hearing or cooling oppommifies in the subdivision. (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 utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water sy~ms loc, aw, d and co~ to ~ flood damage; (c) Have adequate drainage provided to duce exposure to flood damage; and (d) Base flood elevation data shall be pro- vialed for subdivision proposals and other posed developments which contain at least fiflT lots or five acres (whichever is less). (Ord. 3158 §2, 1979) CHAPTER 21~4 DEDICATIONS 21.24.010 Required dedication~. The subdivider shall dedi~te or offer to dedi- cate to the city or other appropriate pubic aS~tcy upon the tirol or ~ map auy ~d all rigi~of- way and easements nece~ary for the layout. maintenance and op~raflon of all public improvements required or lx:rmitted under this title or by specific x~luir~men~ of the ~Iivision approval. Dedications sh~II ~Iso be made pertaining or re, rioting use of certain property or fights as X~lUired by this rifle. All easemert~ ~ fights-of-way shall be the width specified in this tire or the specific approval and shall be of sufficient size to meet the requirements of the purpose for which they are dedicated. Required dedications shall include, b~ not be limi~e,d w: (a) Easements for public utility, sanitary sewer and drainage purposes, and for the over- head pole lines and anchors required .under this tide, or as may be required by the director of util- ities; (b) The improved planting s~ips required under this rifle; (c) The improved service roads and/or the improved parking areas required by Section 21.20.1 I0; (d) The installed street name signs and traf- tic-control signals system, signs, and markings (e) The tights-of-way for public su~ts and alleys approved under this rifle. Fee title to all public street rights-of-way shall be conveyed to tirol or par~ map; (0 The tights-of-way for freeways, or ex- pressways ~ to be shown on the temarive map under Section 21.20.160, unless the sub- divider withholds from the sulxiivision all the ar~s ir~uded in such right-of-way; (g) The fights-of-way for storm drainage re- quim:l under this title, unless the sulxfivider .with- holds from th~ subdivision all the area included in (h) Bi~/cie paths required or shown on the u~ive or pe.ltmim~ par.el map; (i) Transit facilities ~Itfi~l or shown on the tentative or l~finfimry paxuel map; (D Dedication of access rights as required under this title. (Ore. 3157 §I (part), 1979) 21.24.020 Dedication of improvements. Whenever any dedication for public improve- ments is nu~aired under this chapter, such dedica- tion ~ include) not only such fight-of-way end easement as is required for said improvements, but also any such improvements constructed, installed or emaed by the subdivider. (Oral. 3157 §1 @art), 1979) 2126 Attachment 7 The Planning Commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, June 11, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers with Chairperson Cassel presiding. ROLL CALL Present:Commissioners Bialson, Cassel, Ojakian, Schink and Schmidt Commissioners Beecham and Byrd Staff Present:Debra Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attorney Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Paul Jensen, contract Planner Chandler Lee, Contract Planner Marvin Overway, Chief Transportation Official Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment Carl Stoffel, Transportation Department ~,~. COMMUNICATIONS ’ . Chairp_L~r,s~on Cassel: The first item on our agenda is Oral Communications. At this time, any member o~ public may speak to any item that is not on the agenda. Seeing no one, we will proceed ~e first agenda item. APPROVAL OF MI~UTES 1.APPROVAL OFM~ES OF MAY14,!997. ]~LQ.TJ_Q~: Commissioner Schink: "I~ve approval of the minutes of May 14, 1997. ~: By Commissi~nerBialson’ ~ ’ MOTION PASSES: Chain Cassel: All thos~ favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with. Commissioners Beeeham~yrd absent. 2. APPROVAL OF IvI_INUT.ES. OF MAy 21, 1 ~97.~ . Chairperson Cassel: Since Commissioner Ojakian and myself were n~resent for this meeting’ we d° n°t have a q~u777 t_°night t~ v°te °n thi~ meeting’ ~ MOTION: Commissioner Sc~~eration of the~nutes of May 21 st until our next meeting. ’ ~ A:[ PCMins6 [pc0611.reg Page 3 06-11-97 ~y Commissioner Bialson. MOTION P~’~KES: Chairperson Cassel: All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of~ommissioners Beecham and Byrd absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS ~ ’ C_hairoerson Cassel: Ken, would you introduc~le at_the_~ staff table? Mr. Schreiber: P~auble, Senior As~City Attorney, Chandler Lee, a contract plums 3 and 5, Lisa~ is our zoning administrator, and P~t for Item 4, the~a Hotel site. Later tonight, Carl St~an~ Departm’~r~ll ,,also be joining us. - 679 MAYBELL/681 DRISCOLL: Application for a preliminary parcel map to subdivide a 21,000-square-foot vacant parcel and an 8,200- square-foot parcel with an existing single-family home into three single- family parcels of 8,250, 12,669 and 8,280 square feet with exceptions for minimum lot width in the R-1 zone district. Environmental Assessment: A negative declaration has been prepared. File Nos. 97-PM-1, 97-EIA-5. Are there any staff comments? Mr. Lee: Yes, my name is Chandler Lee and I am the project planner for this particular project. The Planning Commission reviewed a previous application for this pared several months ago. At that time, the commission did recommend denial, because the configuration was not in keeping with that of the neighboring lots. The application before you this evening is a brand new subdivision. It conforms with the recommendations that staff had issued to the applicant several months ago. It has been reviewed by the neighbors in the vicinity of the project, and they have agreed to the lot eoiafiguration that you see in the application. The three single-family resulting parcels conform with all of the requirements of the subdivision of the zoning ordinance with the exception of lot width. The application before you includes exceptions for minimum lot width on each of the three parcels. Staff is recommending approval of this application with the conditions and findings attached to the staff report. Chairperson Cassel:. I will now open the public hearing. Peter A. Kline. 550 Marion Avenue, Palo Alto: I am here on behalf of James Rhodeos, the proponent, who is also present. After negotiations, we have put together a plan with the neighbors which we think is something that both the Planning Commission and the City Council and the proponent and the neighbors feel is the best development design for the A: I PCMins61 pc0611 .reg Page 4 06-11-97 community and for the Maybell lot. Our one request is that relative to the proposed conditions that are placed relative to the conditions regarding the sidewalk and utility improvements which the proponent is requesting, that those conditions be made conditions for the buyers of the sites rather than map conditions. Other than that, we concur with the recommendations of the staff. Commissioner Qiakian: I have a question for Mr. Kline. In Condition #27, which goes through the days of construction, the hours in the a.m. and p.m., are you planning on doing any construction on Sundays? Mr.. Kline: It is the proponent’s intention to sell the lots and not to proceed with construction. Chairperson Cassel: However, whoever buys the lots may wish to do some construction on Sundays, and this would preclude them from doing anything on Sundays if you took that out. Commissioner Ojakian: Of course, this is residential property, and if I remember correctly, Debbie, on Sundays, construction is not allowed. Ms. Cauble: The difference between commercial and residential is that the hours are constricted. Sunday construction is not prohibited, which is the reason why it is an issue of debate before the City Council. I can pull the ordinance to confirm, but I believe this standard Condition #27 is reciting essentially what the rules of the ordinance are, which is eight to eight, Monday through Friday, nine to eight on Saturday, and ten to six on Sunday. On residential property, the 8 o’clock stop time moves back to six. So the only way we can get a Sunday construction ban would be to do it ona case-by-case basis. Commissioner Oiakian: So are your intentions to build on Sundays? ~: To the extent that the city allows it, yes. Chairperson Cassel: Seeing no other speakers, I will now close the public hearing and return this item to the commission. Are there any questions of staff by commissioners? Commissioner Schink: M3) question relates to the technical way in which you measure the lot width which then requires an exception. Before you describe that, I wanted to share a thought. In other cities I have worked in, oftentimes, lot widths are measured at the middle of the lot, or there is an average width. I gather that in our city, we do not have that situation, and that is why we are ending up with exceptions. Ms. Grote: That is correct. We measure the lot width at the setback line. So that is 20 feet back in this instance. It is that area parallel to the front property line at the setback line. A:] PCMins6Jpc0611.reg Page 5 06-11-97 Chairperson Cassel: Seeing no other questions for staff, would someone like to begin the discussion? Commissioner Schmidt: I am happy to see this coming back to us with a proposal that is agreed to by all parties. When it came through before, there were a number of alternatives discussed, and this one seemed like it would be desirable for the creation of a complete cul- de-sac. We and the City Council denied what was proposed before, but I am happy to see that the property owner has worked with the neighborhood to come up with a proposal that works for everyone. I am also happy to see that staff concurs, in fact, has stated in the staff report that "The design of the proposed lots is more important to preservation of the existing neighborhood pattern than the technical minimum width required by the R-1 zone," which is the spirit of the law versus the exact interpretation. So I would be in support of what is proposed. ]~_.~_Q~: I therefore move the staffreeommendation. SECOND: By Commissioner Ojakian. Chairperson Cassel: Is there any further discussion on this motion? Commissioner Sehink: I would like to make the point that in many newer communities where there are more cul-de-sac lots, it has been my experience that the standard way you would measure a lot in those communities would not come up with a circumstance where this item would require an exception. Most communities have a formula for cul-de-sac lots which takes an average, and it does not create this kind of exceptional circumstance. This is just a situation where we do not see a lot of cul-de-sac lots in Palo Alto, so our ordinance does not have quite as much flexibility. This is a very typical standard lot that you would see in most communities, so I will be happy to support it. !Ehairp_ erson Cassel: Vic, do you wish to speak to your second? Commissioner Oiakian: No. Kathy has done a great job of sort of highlighting the main points on this issue, and I concur with everything she said. It’s nice to see applicants and neighbors work together and come up with something that is amenable to everybody. So I am happy to vote on this. MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel: Is there any further discussion on this motion to support the staff recommendation? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Beecham and Byrd absent. Thank you for coming in and for a concise report. A:I PCMins61 pc0611 .reg Page 6 06-i 1-97 Attachment 8 CONDITIONS 679 Maybell Avenue File Nos. 97-PM-1 CONDITIONS FOR PARCEL MAP PRIOR TO FILING A PARCEL MAP The subdivider shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Planning Arborist, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of this map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a parcel or f’mal map. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City’s jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works and Utility Department. o The subdivider shall work with the Utilities Department to determine all utility design and capacity requirements including water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and cable facilities. All new construction shall have underground utility, telephone and cable service. The project shall be limited to single service laterals for each lot for sewer, water and gas. Each parcel shall have separate electrical service. All utility plans shall be approved by the Utilities Department before the Parcel map is recorded. PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION 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 f’mal map at the office of the Santa Clara County Recorder and shall include the following agreements: b) The subdivider shall be responsible for installing required off-site improvements, including utilities, (e.g., conditions 12 and 13) to the satisfaction of the Utilities, Public Works, and Planning Departments. These improvements shall be guaranteed by bond or other form of guarantee acceptable to the City Attorney. The subdivider shall grant the necessary public utility easements to the City for the location and maintenance of required utilities. The required easements shall be shown on the face of the Parcel map. S: [ PLAN [ PLADIV I PCSR I MAYBL679.Con Page 1 06-11-97 c)The subdivider shall preserve all existing trees on site and shall include all trees in the f’mal landscape plans. The final parcel map shall be f’fled with the Planning Division within four years of the approval of the preliminary parcel map. o A street dedication is required as follows: Subdivider shall dedicate a ten (10) foot wide strip along the northwesterly side of parcels 1 and 2 (681 Maybell Avenue). The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the f’mal parcel map to guarantee the completion of the work specified in condition(s) 6, 12, and 13. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning and Public Works Departments. The subdivider shall submit to Public Works Engineering one (1) permanent mylar with reproducible set of "as built" drawings for the work in the City right-of-way. The subdivider shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert at (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 10.The subdivider shall submit a storm water pollution protection plan to be included in the improvement plan submittal. 11. The subdivider shall use the Barron Park standards for rolled curb and gutter. 12.The subdivider shall install a curb ramp for the disabled at the comer of Maybell Avenue and Driscoll Court. 13.The subdivider shall extend public curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements along the northerly boundary of proposed Lot 1 on Maybell Avenue. The improvements shall meet the City’s standard requirements and shall be to the City’s satisfaction. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS 14.The builder shall submit a completed. WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H., and sewer in G.P.D.). S: [ PLAN I PLADIV [ PCSR[ MAYBL679.Con Page 2 06-11-97 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. The builder shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer cleanouts, and any other required utilities. The builder must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. The builder shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing water and sewer mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes the design and all the cost associated with the construction for the installation/upgrade of the water and sewer mains and/or services. The apprOved relocation of service, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person requesting the relocation. Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water, gas services and meters and sewer lateral connection. The existing water, gas and wastewater connections may remain serving a parcel within the projection of the property lines. New service connections are required. All trees to be retained, as shown on the approved tree inventory or landscape plan shall be protected during construction. The following tree protection measures shall be approved by the City Arborist and included in construction/demolition contracts and be implemented during demolition and construction activities unless otherwise approved. The following tree protection measures shall apply: PAMC Sec. 8-04- 070. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the City Arborist. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10- foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the trees. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until f’mal inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works Department’s standard specification detail #505). bo No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. S: t PLAN I PLAD1W" I PCSR I MAYBL679.Con Page 3 06-11-97 do The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 21. 22. 23.’ 24. The builder shall submit a f’mal grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered. The builder must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division if excavation exceeds 100 cubic yards. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. Building Permits for the new residences to be constructed in this subdivision, only if developed 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. PRIOR TO FINAL OF ~ BUILDING PERMIT 25.The builder shall install all electric utilities in accordance with Palo Alto Standards, including underground utilities and street lights, 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 final map is approved. 26. 27. 28. The builder is responsible for all on-site work to be done in compliance with City service requirements. The City shall provide electrical service points to the property line. An electrical service connection fee of $1,120 per lot is required. The builder shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way. The builder shall obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk during construction. S: t PLAN [ PLADIV I PCSRIMAYBL679.Con Page 4 06-11-97 29.A detailed site-specific soil report must be submitted which includes information on water-table and basement construction issues. DURING CONSTRUCTION 30.To reduce dust levels exposed earth surfaces shall be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the ~contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense. 31.All non-residential construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and that construction times be limited as follows: 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM Saturday 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday. For construction on residential property, the ending time shall be 6:00 p.m. Monday - Saturday. 32.The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. 33.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 34.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with .the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. 35.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. S: [ PLAN I PLADIV I PCSR [ MAYBL679.Con Page 5 06-11-97 PRIOR TO FINALIZATION 36.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be f’mished prior to this sign-off. 37.Each parcel shall have its own driveway opening and individual utilities (water, gas, and sewer, respectively.) ONGOING 38.Driveways serving each parcel shall be limited in width to 10 feet at the front property line to provide adequate area for the planting and maintenance of required street trees. (S: \plan\pladiv\mayb1679. cnd) S: I PLAN I PLADIV I PCSR I MAYBL679.Con Page 6 06-11-97