HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 147-07City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
4
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FEBRUARY 20, 2007 CMR: 147:07
705 & 711 COWPER STREET: APPROVAL OF A PARCEL MAP WITH
EXCEPTIONS TO SUBDIVIDE A FORMERLY MERGED PARCEL AND
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed Parcel Map with exceptions for
705 and 711 Cowper Street to subdivide a single 16,507 square foot parcel into two parcels, one
at 7,503 square feet and one at 9,004 square feet and including exceptions for lot width and lot
area, based upon the findings and conditions contained within the Record of Land Use Action
(Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
At the public hearing held on November 6, 2006, the City Council voted to accept staff and the
Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendation to approve a Preliminary Parcel
Map with Exceptions. Prior to the City Council meeting, staff received no written comments
from the public.
The City Council minutes for this hearing have been provided as Attachment B.
DISCUSSION
Planning and Public Works Engineering have reviewed the Parcel Map with Exceptions and
have determined that it is consistent with the Preliminary Parcel Map and Record of Land
Use Action. According to the State Subdivision Map Act, the City Council must therefore
approve the Final Map.
As per the conditions of approval for the Preliminary Parcel Map, the applicant applied for a
Architectural Review and a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for the removal of an
uncovered walkway above the first floor that connected the two residential structures, and
retention of specific existing building features that would become noncomplying with the RM-30
site development regulations at the time the property is subdivided. The Director of Planning
CMR: XXX:07 Page 1 of 2
and Community Environment approved the Architectural Review and DEE on December 19,
2006. The decision became effective on January 2, 2007.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY SON
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
A.Record of Land Use Action of Tentative Map Approval
B.City Council Meeting Minutes from November 6, 2006
C.Parcel Map with Exceptions (Council Members Only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Steve Pierce, Project Applicant
John and Peggy Woodworth, Property Owner
CMR: X?~X:07 Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT A
APPROVAL NO. 2006-13
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE ACTION FOR 705 AND 711 COWPER STREET:
PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP WITH EXCEPTIONS 06PLN-102
(STEVE PIERCE, APPLICANT)
At its meeting on November 6, ~2006, the City Council of the
City of Palo Alto approved the Preliminary Parcel Map with
Exceptions to subdivide one parcel (approx. 16,507 square feet) and
create two multiple-family RM-30 lots, each containing a Category 3
historic multi-family residential structure and accessory parking
facilities, making the following findings, determination and
declarations:
SECTION I.Background. The City Council of the City
of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A: Proposed by Steve Pierce on behalf of John Woodworth,
this project involves the subdivision of one parcel (approx. 16,507
square feet) and the creation of two multiple-family RM-30 lots,
each containing a Category 3 historic multi-family residential
structure and accessory parking facilities. The lot containing the
home at 705 Cowper Street would be 7,503 square feet and the lot
containing 711 Cowper Street would be 9,004 square feet. Each lot
would contain two dwelling units. This density complies with the
permitted density on the newly created lots that would be allowed
in. the RM-30 district.
B. This subdivision would reinstate a property line that
was removed when the original lots were merged in 1987.. The
purpose of the 1987 merger was to create a single lot that
would allow a lodging use and parking facilities on one large
lot. Lodging is a permitted use within the RM-30 district. The
merger eliminated the condition whereby portions of the
parking facility and lodging use (including vehicular and
pedestrian circulation) would cross a property line. The owner
of the lot has indicated that the existing Lodging use is to
cease operations. The owners have thus applied to return the
lot to its historic configuration.
c. As a result of ~reinstating the property line at
its historic location, the lots that would be created would
not be consistent with specific lot design requirements as
required in the RM-30 district. Exceptions to lot design would
be required to allow a lot area of 7,503 square feet at 705 Cowper
Street where 8,500 square feet would normally be the minimum lot
area, and site widths of 50-feet for 705 Cowper Street and 60-feet
for 711 Cowper Street, where a 75-foot lot width would normally be
required. The approval findings for granting these exceptions are
contained in Section 3.
D. The Preliminary Parcel Map plan set includes
information on the existing parcel and onsite conditions. These
drawings are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the
City’s Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain all information
and notations required to be shown on a Preliminary Parcel Map (per
PAMC Sections 21.12), and as conform to the design requirements
concerning the creation of lots, walkways, and similar features
(PAMC 21.20). Because the request is to create two Preliminary
Parcel with exceptions, this ~request cannot be processed
administratively through the Director and requires review by the
Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council approval
(PAMC 21.08.010) .
SECTION 2.Environmental Review.The California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lists a minor land division of
property in an urbanized area into four or fewer Preliminary
Parcels as exempt from CEQA if the subdivision is in conformance
with all zoning regulations. The project is not exempt from CEQA
because the subdivision,would ~create two lots not in compliance
with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. An Environmental
Impact Assessment and a Negative Declaration were prepared for the
project.
SECTION 3.Conditional Exception Findings.
Exceptions shall be granted only upon finding that the approval
will secure substantially the objectives of the regulations or
requirements to which the exceptions are requested, shall protect
the public health, safety, convenience, and the general welfare and
~shall be consistent with and implement the policies and objectives
of the Comprehensive Plan. Any approval of exceptions may be made
upon such conditions as are deemed necessary to secure such
compliance. Exceptions shall be granted only upon making the
following specific findings:
A. There are special circumstances or conditions
affecting the property. The existing site was created as a result
of a merger between two smaller lots, each of which contained a
Category 3 historic structure. The purpose of the 1987 merger was
to create a single lot that would allow a lodging use and parking
facilities on one large lot. Lodging is a permitted use within the
RM-30 district. The merger eliminated the condition whereby
portions of the parking facili[y and lodging use (including
vehicular and pedestrian circulation) would cross a property line.
The owner of the lot has indicated that the existing Lodging use is
to cease operations. The owners have thus applied to return the lot
to its historic configuration. Re-subdividing the lots to their
historic configuration would require conditional exceptions.
B. The exception is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. By
ceasing the lodging use, the property owner would return the use to
residential use. As each site would contain accessory parking
buildings and have access~from a public street, there would be no
requirements for automobile or pedestrian circulation over a shared
property line. The exception would allow the property owner to re-
subdivide the property to its historic configuration.
C. 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. The exception would
allow the .property owner to re-subdivide the property to its
historic configuration. The owners have not applied to demolish the
existing structures. By re-establishing the lot line, the existing
buildings would also re-establish specific non-complying site
development requirements with regard to setbacks, daylight plane,
and floor area. The demolition of the structures would result in
the loss of these legal, non-complying building features. Any new
construction would be required to comply with existing site
development regulations.
D. The granting of the exception will not violate the
requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law. The
subdivision would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and
the Subdivision Map Act. By re-establishing, the lot line, the
existing buildings would also re-establish specific non-complying
site development requirements with regard to setbacks, daylight
plane, and floor area. As conditioned, prior to the submittal of
the Preliminary Parcel Map, a Design Enhancement Exception shall be
secured for the non-complying features re-established as a result
of the subdivision.
SECTION 4.Preliminary Parcel.Map Findings.
A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Preliminary
Parcel Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California
Government Code Section 66474):
i. That the proposed map is~ not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section
65451 :
3
The site does not lie within a specific plan area and
would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed
subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans:
The project would be consistent with the Subdivision
Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.20) and the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
map designation of Multiple-Family Residential. The project would
be consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies:
Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by
encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the
neighborhood and adjacent structures. The proposed project would
recreate two parcels with the lot area, lot width and lot depth
that existed prior to the 1987 lot merger. This lot configuration
is more compatible with the historic pattern df lots in the
immediate neighborhood than the existing 16,507 square foot lot.
In addition, as these structures are Category 3 buildings, they are
not protected from demolition as described in the City of Palo Alto
Historic Preservation Ordinance. The existing lot may be under
redevelopment pressure to demolish the structures and create
multiple-family housing. The granting of the subdivision would
reduce redevelopment pressure, in that it is less likely that the
structures would be demolished due to the more restrictive zoning
requirements that would apply to new structures.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type
of development :
The subdivision and exception would allow the property
owner to re-subdivide the property to its historic Configuration,
which is consistent with the lot pattern of the neighborhood. No
further development is currently proposed.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the
proposed density of development :
The Proposed density for each of the subdivided lots
would be consistent with the regulations of the RM-30 district.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage
or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat:
The subdivision of the Preliminary Parcel.will not
cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their
habitat, as no habitat for endangered, rare, threatened, or other
sensitive species is present on site.
4
6. That the design of the subdi vi si on or type of
improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems:
The Preliminary Parcel Map will not cause serious
public health problems, as the environmental concerns have been
reviewed in the Environmental Assessment that was prepared for the
project, and mitigation measures and conditions of approval have
been approved to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of
improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public
at large, for access through or use of, property within the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may
approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or
for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This
subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements
established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no
authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that
the public at large has acquired easements for access through or
use of property within the proposed subdivision.
The design the subdivision will not ~conflict with
easements on or off the site, as all easements will be maintained
and any adjustments or new easements shall only be allowed or
established by the conditions of approval.
SECTION 4.Approval of Preliminary Parcel Map with
Exceptions. Preliminary Parcel Map with exceptions approval is
granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code (~PAMC")
Sections 21.13 and 21.20 and the California Government Code section
66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of this
Record.
SECTION 5.Parcel Map Approval.
The Parcel Map submitted for review and approval by the
City Council of the City of Palo Alto shall be in substantial
conformance with the Preliminary ParcelMap prepared by Lea & Sung
Engineers, Inc. titled "Tentative Preliminary Parcel Map",
consisting of one page, dated and received June 29, 2006, except as
modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6.
A copy of this Preliminary Parcel Map is on file in the
Department of Planning and Community Environment, Current Planning
Division.
Within two years of the approval date of the Preliminary
~Parcel Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part
5
thereof to be surveyed, and a Preliminary Parcel Map, as .specified
in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Tentative
Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and
submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]) .
SECTION 6.Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
i. Prior to the submittal of the Parcel Map, the applicant
shall apply for Architectural Review for the removal of the open
walkway that currently connects the two residential buildings and a
Design Enhancement Exception for those portions of the buildings
that would not be consistent with the site development regulations
for setbacks, daylight plane and floor area as a result of the re-
establishment of the lot line.
2. A Preliminary Parcel Map, in conformance with the
approved Preliminary Parcel Map, all requirements Of the
Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer, shall be filed with the Planning Division and
the Public Works Engineering Division within two years of the
Preliminary Parcel Map approval date (PAMC 21.13.020[c]) .
Planning Division Arborist
3. Prior to submittal of any discretionary permit
application or building permit application (grading, building,
etc.) the following tree protection information shall be satisfied:
a. Site Plan Requirements. Extend the Type II street
tree fencing to enclose the entire planter strip and from sidewalk
to the outer branch dripline. The Site Plans shall denote Type II
fencing around Street Trees and Type I fencing
.around Protected/Designated trees as bold dashed lines enclosing
the Tree Protection Zone (per the approved Tree Protection Report)
as shown on Detail #503, Sheet T-I, and the City Tree Technical
Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans.
b. The approved plans submitted for building permit
shall include the following information: Sheet T-I Tree
Protection-it’s Part of the Plan ((http://www.city.palo-
alto.ca.us/arb/planning forms.html), complete the Tree Disclosure
Statement and Inspection(s) #1-6 shall be checked.
c. Tree Preservation Report (PTR) . The most current
version of the TPR by the Project Arborist, dated June 20, 2006
shall be printed on Sheet T-I and/or T-2 in its entirety. A
prominent note shall be applied to the site plan stating, "All
measures identified in the Tree Protection Report on Sheet T-I and
the approved plans shall be implemented, including inspections and
required watering of trees. "
d. Prior to submittal of any building permit, the
applicant’s Project Arborist shall review the entire plan set.
Corrections shall be modified as necessary for consistency with the
approved tree preservation report. The arborist shall provide a
letter of acceptance of the plans, specifying the date of the
plans, to accompany the submittal.
Department of Utilities- Water, Gas, Wastewater
4. Each Preliminary Parcel shall have its own water
service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the
plans. Neither public nor private water, gas, and sewer lines can
not cross the new property line to provide service across one lot
for the other.
5. All existing water and wastewater services that will
not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities
procedures.
6. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence
of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. ~
7. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and
upgrading the existing utility services as necessary to handle
anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs
associated with the design and construction for the
installation/upgrade of the utility services.
8. Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located below
the next upstream sewer main manhole cover shall be protected by an
approved backwater valve per California Plumbing Code 710.0. The
upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall be shown on the
plans.
9. For building upgrades, the applicant shall submit a
completed water-gas-wastewater, service connection application -
load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must
provideall the information requested for utility service demands
(water in fixture units and g.p.m~, gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in
fixture units).
7
I0. For building upgrades, the applicant 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 mains, sewer
cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities.
Ii. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS,
PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense (for
upgrades ~that exceed 50% of the value of the existing building).
12. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and
connection fees associated with the installation of the new utility
service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The
approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other
facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity
requesting the relocation.
13. All utility installations shall be in accordance with
the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water,gas &
wastewater.
Department of Utilities~ Electrical
14. After re-establishing the lot line for the above two
properties, each property owner will have one electric service
(i.e. one electric service per Preliminary Parcel) as per City’s
Rules & Regulations. If larger electric services are required by
the new owners in the future, the City may have to upgrade its
existing substructure and distribution system. This work will be
done at property owner’s expense.
15. Any new service may require the granting of a public
utility easement (P.U.E.) for the purpose of locating a Padmount
transformer and all related substructure.
16. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of
plans must be included with all building permit applications
involving electrical work.The load sheet must be included with
the preliminary submittal.
SECTION 7.Term of.Approval.
Preliminary Parcel Map. All conditions of approval of the
Preliminary Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a
Preliminary Parcel Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]) .
Unless. a Preliminary Parcel Map is filed, and all
conditions of approval are fulfilled within a two-year period from
the date of Preliminary Parcel Map approval, or such extension as
may be granted, the Preliminary Parcel Map shall expire and all
proceedings shall terminate. Thereafter, no Preliminary Parcel Map
shall be filed without first processing a Preliminary Parcel Map
(PAMC Section 21.16.010[d]) .
PASSED: 9-0
AYES:Barton, Beecham, Drekmeier, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Morton,
Cordell, Klein, Mossar
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTENTIONS:None
ATT~T:~ ~
City Clerk
APPROVED AS FORM:
/DireCtor o~/Planning and
Community Environment
Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans prepared by Lea & Sung Engineers, Inc titled ~Tentative
Preliminary Parcel Map, consisting of one page, dated and received
June 29, 2006.
9
ATTACHMENT B
Special Meeting
November 6, 2006
Joint Meeting with Historic Resources Board Regarding Issues Related to the
HRB .....................................................................................................3
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m ...........................................3
1.Impact of the Aging Baby Boom Population on Palo Alto Social and
Community Services ..............................................................................4
ORAL COM MUNICATIONS .................................................................................4
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ...................................................................................5
Resolution 8661 entitled "The Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizes the
City Manager to Sign and File a Financial Assistance Application and Execute
a Loan Agreement for a State Revolving Fund Loan in an Amount not to
Exceed Nineteen Million Dollars from the State Water Resources Control
Board on Behalf of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant for the
Design and Construction of the Mountain View/Moffett Area Reclaimed Water
Pipeline Project". ...................................................................................6
Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation to Approve Ultra-Clean Local
Distributed Generation Incentive Program Guidelines ..................................6
J Finance Committee Recommendation to Approve City Auditor’s Fiscal Year
2006-07 Work Plan ................................................................................6
Approval of a Contract with C-Way Custodian Services in a Total not to
Exceed Amount of $488,451 per Year to Provide Custodial Services at City
Facilities and Authorization for up to Four One-Year Contract Extensions .......6
8A.Report of Williamson Act Contracts with in the City of Palo Alto .....................6
8B.(Old Item No. 2) ist Reading with Revisions - Ordinance Deleting Chapter
18.43 (Community Commercial) and Adding Portions of a New Chapter 18.16
(Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial Districts) of Title 18
(Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code ....................................6
8C.(Old Item No. 3) Ordinance 4923 entitled "The Council of the City of Palo
Alto Hereby Approves Deleting Chapters 18.41 (Neighborhood Commercial),
18.44 (Community Commercial Combining District (CC(2)), 18.45 (Service
Commercial), and 18.49 (Commercial Downtown), adding Portions of a New
11/06/06
Chapter 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial
Districts), adding a New Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial District), and
Amending Section 18.94.970 (Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying
Facilities) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance), and Amending
Section 16.20.120(A) (Freestanding Signs) of Title 16 (Building Regulations)
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code". .............................................................8
8D.(Old Item 8) Resolution 8662 entitled "The Council of the City of Palo Alto
Supports Comprehensive Election Reform that Would Inspire Higher Voter
Confidence in the Elections Process" ................................................... ......9
Public Hearing: To consider a request by Steve Pierce on behalf of John
Woodworth to subdivide a single 16,507 square foot parcel back to the two
original parcels, one at 7,503 square feet and one at 9,004 square feet at
705 & 711 Cowper Street [06PLN-00102]. Exceptions to lot design would be
required to allow a lot area of 7,500 square feet at 705 Cowper Street where
8,500 square feet would normally be the minimum lot area and site widths of
50-feet for 705 Cowper Street and 60-feet for 711 Cowper Street, where a
75-foot lot width would normally be required. Environmental Assessment: An
Initial Study has .been completed and a Negative Declaration has been
prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
requirements. Zoning District: RM-30 .......................................................10
10.Public Hearing: To consider approval of a Request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Rezoning for a 13.27-acre parcel located within the Enid
Pearson Arastradero Open Space Preserve from Open Space/Controlled
Development to Publicly Owned Conservation Land and from Open Space
zone designation to a Public Facility zone designation at 1525 Arastradero
Road [06PLN-00045]. Environmental Assessment: An initial study has been
prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed in accordance
with CEQA guidelines .................................................................. ~ .......... 13
11.Recommendations for Additional Disaster Preparation Resources ..................16
COUNCIL COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND REPORTS FROM CONFERENCES ......18
12.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR N EGOTIATOR ..................................................19
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m .................................19
11/06/06 2
credentialed members of the news media."
Council Member Cordell said she supported the motion but asked to retain
Item (7), which implied the counting would not be performed behind closed
doors.
Council Member Mossar said she felt the ordinance was poorly worded and
she would vote no.
Council Member Beecham said he would vote no.
Mayor Kleinberg referred to Item (3) and raised concern regarding judicial
oversight and how it could apply to members of the judiciary to not actively
participate in a campaign for another judge.
Mr. Baum clarified the language stated "who are responsible for the
oversight of elections" which implied an election official.
Mayor Kleinberg asked whether it could be interpreted to prevent judges
from being involved in judicial campaigns.
Mr. Baum recommended referring to a member of a legislative branch or
executive official.
Council Member Cordell said it would be a stretch to imply it impacted
judges and she was not concerned. She urged the Council to support the
motion.
I~lOTIOl~l PASSED 7-2, Beecham, Mossar no.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Public Hearing: To consider a request by Steve Pierce on behalf of
John Woodworth to subdivide a single 16,507 square foot parcel back
to the two original parcels, one at 7,503 square feet and one at 9,004
square feet at 705 & 711 Cowper Street [06PLN-00102]. Exceptions
to lot design would be required to allow a lot area of 7,500 square feet
at 705 Cowper Street where 8,500 square feet would normally be the
minimum lot area and site widths of 50-feet for 705 Cowper Street and
60-feet for 711 Cowper Street, where a 75-foot lot width would
normally be required. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has
been completed and a Negative Declaration has been prepared in
accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
requirements. Zoning District: RM-30.
Planning and Community Environment Director Steve Emslie said the
11/06/06 10
property was formerly the Cowper Inn and the proposal was to subdivide a
property merged in the mid-1980’s. It would allow the owners to sell each
parcel individually as single-family residences. The result would be a
conforming lot with non-conforming structures. The houses would be over
the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and would not conform to the current
daylight plane for the property. If the property were altered, it would need
to be brought up to compliance and the size of the homes reduced.
Council Member Drekmeier asked whether both structures would remain
intact and sold as single-family homes.
Senior Planner Steven Turner clarified the intent was to keep both structures
intact. A bridge connecting the two structures would be removed through an
Architectural Review Board (ARB) application process.
Planning and Transportation Commissioner (P&TC) Daniel Garber said the
P&TC focused on how to keep the existing structures intact. The applicant’s
proposal would be for the single parcel to revert back to two parcels with no
changes except removal of the bridge. Returning the site to its original form
created an incentive to purchase the sites individually, keep the existing
structures, and retain greater FAR rather than tearing them down and
rebuilding.
Council Member Morton. asked why a condition was not requested to
preserve the historical character of the structures.
Mr. Garber said the P&TC found it more compelling to leave the structures as
non-complying, which created a greater incentive to keep the houses .in their
existing form.
Council Member Morton said it might not add anything compelling but it
would provide an incentive to preserve the buildings and make it clear why
the Council would grant the excess FAR.
Mr. Garber said a substantial changewould result in re-permitting work on
the buildings, which would require going through the Architectural Review
Board (ARB) process. If the homes were scrapped and reconstructed; they
would need to be rebuilt under more constrained codes. The processes
already in place would prevent that from happening.
Council Member Drekmeier asked what the existing FAR was and what the
applicant would be entitled to if they were to start over.
Mr. Turner said 705 Cowper exceeded the maximum FAR. Its FAR was
5,758 square feet and the current FAR allowance for a single-family house
was 5,000 square feet.
11/06/06 11
Mayor Kleinberg declared the Public Hearing open at 9:07 p.m.
Steve Pierce, 209 Cowper Street, Applicant representing the owners John
and Peggy Woodworth said staff report (CMR:394:06) described the project
in detail. The homes were purchased by the Woodworth’s in the mid-1980’s
and the Cowper Inn opened in 1986. The City required the Woodworths to
merge the properties because of parking which straddled the property line.
The Woodworths are planning to close Cowper Inn and sell the homes with
the interest to preserve them. Splitting the 10ts would preserve the houses
for several reasons. The lot was zoned for RM30 and with a total square
footage of 16,500 the property was vulnerable to redevelopment as a multi-
family project, but less vulnerable if it were split in two. The yield would be
lowered from eight to four possible units. There were four existing units.
Each house had an accessory unit. The potential buyers were interested in
purchasing the property for single-family homes and not a development
project.
Council Member Morton said he found Mr. Pierce’s comments to be
inconsistent. Mr. Pierce indicated the homes were historical but it would
detour buyers if a condition was granted to split the lots subject to a
covenant to preserve the historical character. He suggested potential buyers
would be interested because they cared about the historical nature of the
structures.
Mr. Pierce clarified buyers would be attracted to the homes because of their
historical nature but they would be detoured if there were restrictions that
would impede their ability to upgrade the homes.
Mayor Kleinberg declared the Public Hearing closed at9:12 p.m.
I~lOT:IOl~l: Council Member Barton moved, seconded by Beecham, to
approve staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission’s
recommendation to adopt the Negative Declaration and the proposed
preliminary parcel map with exceptions to subdivide a single 16,507 square
foot parcel into two parcels, one at 7,503 square feet and one at 9,004
square feet, and grant exceptions for lot width and lot area, based upon the
findings and conditions contained within the Record of Land Use Action.
The following items have. also been provided for review:
-Environmental Assessment and Negative Declaration; and
-Preliminary Parcel Map plan set.
Council Member Barton said to return the site back to two properties would
be a good approach in preserving the structures. Under the current zoning,
the structures would not be allowed to remain their existing size, which
implied they would not retain their current structure.
11/06/06 12
Council Member Beecham echoed Council Member Barton’s comment and
supported the motion.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked whether consideration was given to rezone the
property as R1 or R2.
Mr. Turner said it was not discussed. The property was zoned RM30 and by
building a single-family home on the lot it would revert to the R1 rules. The
RM30 zoning code stated when using the R1 code, R1 rules must apply.
Rezoning would not be required.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked if there would be a reason for the City to not
consider rezoning to R1 or R2 if the agreement was to keep the units in the
backside of the property as single-family homes.
Mr. Emslie said it would be the prerogative of the City to designate the site
to the appropriate zone. Based on the testimony of the applicant, the City
would agree with their goals to preserve and remain in non-conforming
status in the R1 standards. It would not be different from the conditions
created by subdividing. The Council could initiate rezoning. It would require
action to initiate it at a separate hearing, and then it would be referred to
the P&TC with a recommendation back to the Council.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Council Member Morton moved to have
the lot split granted on the condition that the historical condition of the
residence be preserved.
Council Member Barton did not accept the amendment because he felt it was
not necessary. The reason the Council was taking action on the issue was
because the City compelled the owners to merge the lots together 20 years
ago. It would be unreasonable for the Council to come back now and
subdivide at the owner’s request and to undo what the Council requested the
owners to do and to place a condition.
AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
10.Public Hearing: To consider approval of a Request for a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and Rezoning for a 13.27-acre parcel located within
the Enid Pearson Arastradero Open Space Preserve from Open
Space/Controlled Development to Publicly Owned Conservation Land
and from Open Space zone designation to a Public Facility zone
designation at 1525 Arastradero Road [06PLN-00045]. Environmental
Assessment: An initial study has been prepared and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration is proposed in accordance with CEQA guidelines°
11/06/06 13