Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-08 City Council (10)TO: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 CMR: 414:03 440 PEPPER AVENUE [03-ZC-04]: REQUEST BY STEPHEN PLAYER ON BEHALF OF PAULA KIRKEBY FOR A ZONE CHANGE TO ALLOW AN EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE, DUE TO TERMINATE ON JULY 20, 2003, FOR 15 YEARS IN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance (Attachment A) for the extension of a nonconforming use (art studio) in the R-1 Single Family Residential zone district for fifteen years to terminate on July 20, 2018. BACKGROUND This request for an extension of a non-conforming use was heard by the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) on April 30, 2003. A full project description is included in the attached Planning and Transportation Commission staff report. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning and Transportation Commission recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance for the extension of a nonconforming use (art studio) in the R-1 Single Family Residential zone district for fifteen years, to terminate on July 20, 2018. The Commission expressed support of the Smith-Anderson Editions studio, which occupies the site, and recognized the business as a valuable asset to the community. Members of the public who spoke at the Commission meeting indicated that the art studio was compatible with the neighborhood and that the nonconforming use should be extended. The Commission reviewed the aesthetic issues of the art studio and its relationship with the residential properties in the neighborhood. Since the previous extension in 1993, the CMR:414:03 Page 1 of 3 operators of the art studio have made the following changes to improve the appearance of the building and site: ¯New, softer color paint at the building’s exterior improved compatibility with neighboring structures. ¯Fabric awnings were placed above the exterior windows and roll-up door, which helped to minimize the appearance of the fiat facade facing Pepper Avenue. ¯A wooden fence and landscaping features were installed along the left-side property line to provide screening between the residence and the art studio. ¯Planter boxes and landscaping were placed at the front of the building. Climbing vines were also planted, which have now grown to cover most of the front facade on the right side of the building. ¯A new street tree was installed in the planted strip near the driveway entrance. These modifications have helped to improve the compatibility between the art studio and the residential properties along Pepper Avenue. The studio owners indicated that they are interested in additional improvements to the site. The Commission expressed support for continued maintenance and improvements, but did not recommend requiring any changes as a prerequisite to extending the use. Planning Division staff, through the Architectural Review process, would review any future modifications to the exterior of the building. Although staff’s original recommendation was for a ten-year extension of the nonconforming use, the Commission recommended that the extension be granted for fifteen years to 2018. This recommendation was based upon the value of the business to the City of Palo Alto, the compatibility of the building and the art studio with the neighborhood and the support of the community for the continuation of this use at this location. ATTACHMENTS A. Ordinance amending section 18.94.070 [Nonconforming Use - Required Termination] to change the required termination date for the monotype print art studio use at 440 Pepper Street. B. Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, dated April 30, 2003 (with attachments) C. Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes, April 30, 2003 COURTESY COPIES Steven Player Paula Kirkeby Duncan King Michele Sublivan Linda Craighead CMR:414:03 Page 2 of 3 Leon Kaplan, Director of Arts and Culture, City of Palo Alto PREPARED BY: L,x STEVEN TURNER Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMIL~SON Assistant City Manager CMR:414:03 Page 3 of 3 Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.94. 070 [NONCONFORMING USE - REQUIRED TERMINATION]TO CHANGE THE REQUIRED TERMINATION DATE FOR THE MONOTYPE PRINT ART STUDIO USE AT 440 PEPPER STREET The City Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. Findinqs. The City Council finds that: A. The Kirkeby Art Studio, located at 440 Pepper Street, is a nonconforming use that, among others, was scheduled to be terminated on July 20, 1993, pursuant to the amortization schedule set forth in Section 18.94.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Kirkeby Art Studio requested in 1992 that the City allow them to continue operating at 440 Pepper Street until July 20, 2003; B. In 1993, the City granted an extension of the non- conforming use provisions to allow the use to continue operating at 440 Pepper Street until July 20, 2003; C. The original 15-year amortization period for this property was reasonable and commensurate with the investment involved, and upon that basis expressly reserves the right to review, modify, condition, or repeal this extension, with or without a finding of changed circumstances, at any time following expiration of the original amortization period.Under no circumstance shall this ordinance be construed ascreating a vested right ~for any nonconforming use to remainbeyond its original amortization period; D. The Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearing held April 30, 2003, has recommended that Section 18.94.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to allow such use to be extended until July 20, 2018; and E. The proposed amendment is in the public interest, will promote the public health, safety and welfare, and will not be detrimental to any other uses, for the following reasons: (i) The Kirkeby Art Studio is located in an R-I, Single Family Residential District in a 2,200 square foot building located on a 6,733 square foot parcel; (2) The principal functions of the art studio are to teach, and to create and produce monotype prints. All activities at the site relate to the monotype process, and are relatively low profile in nature and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. According to the art community, the studio is a 030825 syn 0091231 rare and valuable asset, especially because of its instructional and educational activities in the monotype medium. Additionally, some of its classes are affiliated with the City of Palo Alto’s Division of Arts and Culture; and (3) The studio would continue to enhance the quality of life in this community if it were allowed to continue operation for another fifteen years. SECTION 2. Subsection (b) (2) (C) of section 18.94.070 [Nonconforming Use - Required Termination] of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read: "(C) The nonconforming use of the property at 440 Pepper Street for an art studio specializing exclusively in the medium of monotype printmaking and associated instructional uses shall terminate on or before July 20, 2018. Nothing in this ordinance shal! be construed to create a vested right for the nonconforming uses to remain after July 20, 2003." SECTION 3. The Council finds that this project will have no significant environmental effect. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the commencement of the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT : ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney 2 City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 030825 syn 0091231 Attachment B PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Clare Campbell Associate Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENI)A DATE: April 30, 2003 SUBXECT:440 Pepper Street [03-ZC-04]: Request by Stephen Player on behalf ofPaula Kirkeby for a Zone Change to allow an extension of an existing nonconforming use, due to terminate on July 20, 2003, for an additional 10 years in the R-1 Single Family Residential zone district. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance (Attachment A) for the extension of a nonconforming use (art studio) in the R-1 Single Family Residential zone district for another ten years to terminate on July 20, 2013. BACKGROUND Site Information The art studio, Smith-Anderson Editions, which has been in operation by the same ownership for approximately 15 years, is located on a 6,733 square foot lot and occupies a single story building approximately 2,200 square feet. The site has a long paved driveway on the left side of the building and a paved front yard accommodating about five parking spaces. The parcel is located within a pocket of R-1 Single-Family Residential zoning City of Palo Alto Page 1 surrounded by GM General Manufacturing, RM-30 Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential, CS Service Commercial, CN Neighborhood Commercial, and several PC Planned Community zones. The character of the street is dominated by single-family homes with substantial front lawns and landscaping. Art Studio The principal functions of the art studio are to provide instruction and to create and produce artistic prints utilizing the art form called monotype. Monotype uses a manual press that produces a single print. All activities at this site relate to the monotype print process. The Smith-Anderson Editions studio is the only monotype studio available on the Peninsula for classes and workshops. In addition to what the studio sponsors, the City’s Division of Arts and Culture has been allowed to use the facilities for City led classes. The City does not have the space or equipment necessary to provide instruction for this popular medium. Proj ect History_ The current art studio use at 440 Pepper must end by July 20, 2003 unless an extension of its non-conforming status is granted through a zone change. In 1993, the property owners requested that the nonconforming use termination date of July 20, 1993 be extended for ten years.. City Council unanimously approved the requested extension on October 12, 1993 (Ordinance #4!74). The approval of this extension would result in a text amendment in the nonconforming use provision of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 18.94.070(b)(2)(C); which would specifically extend the termination date to July 20, 2013. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Landscaping In 1993, an issue was raised regarding the aesthetics of the art studio site and its incompatibility with the adjacent single-family homes. In the approved ordinance (No. 4174) and in the language of the 1993 Council Staff Report, it is indicated that the property owners were made aware of this issue and that the property owners agreed to make improvements. The agreed upon improvements for a redesign of the "commercial looking" driveway would have achieved greater compatibility with the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The property owners have not made the promised changes; the concerns about the property’s appearance are still valid. However, because Palo Alto extends nonconforming uses of this time througla a zone change, the extension cannot be "conditioned" upon such improvements. California law prohibits such "contract zoning." Zoning Ordinance Compliance The current art studio is a legalized non-conforming use until July 20, 2003. However, it does not conform with the allowed or conditional uses permitted in the R-1 Single Family Residential zone district where it is located. That is the reason why the extension is requested. Comprehensive Plan The current art studio use does not conform to the Single Family Residential land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. It does, however, comply with Comprehensive Plan Policies C-7 and C-27, in that the educational services provided at the studio, including City sponsored programs, enhance the recreational facilities of the Palo Alto community. Policy C-7: Actively work with private, nonprofit, and public community service organizations to avoid duplication and to coordinate the delivery of services like child- care, senior services, and recreation. Policy C-27: Seek opportunities to develop new parks and recreation facilities to meet the growing needs of residents and employees of Palo Alto. Impact on Surrounding Properties The monotype functions of the art studio have minimal impacts on surrounding properties. The City has not received any complaints regarding the use and operation of the art studio over the last ten years. The studio provides a unique and highly regarded service to the City ofPalo Alto’s Division of Arts and Culture and to the community at large. Granting this extension will not preclude the City, in the future, from requiting termination of this use for whatever reason. For example, the extension would not restrict future Councils from terminating the use should its impacts on the neighborhood grow or if the nature of the use changes. City of Paio Alto Page 3 ALTERNATIVES The Planning and Transportation Commission can: 1. Recommend a shorter or longer extension of the period. 2. Recommend denial of any extension. EN~rlRONMENTAL REVIEW This proposal is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it does not meet the definition of a "project" in which CEQA review is required. TIMELINE The current nonconforming use terminates July 20, 2003 unless specifically extended by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: A. Ordinance amending section 18.94.070 [Nonconforming Use - Required Termination] to change the required termination date for the monotype print art studio use at 440 Pepper Street B. Letter requesting nonconforming use extension and studio background information C. Ordinance No. 4174 D. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 23, 1993 E. Planning Commission Minutes, July 28, 1993 F. City Council Staff Report, dated September 16, 1993 G. City Council Minutes, September 20, 1993 H. Letter of support from Marguerite Saegesser, dated April 14, 2003 COURTESY COPIES: Steven Player, 1874 Guinda, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Paula Kirkeby, 440 Pepper St, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Prepared by: Clare Campbell, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Amy French, Manager of Current Planning Department/Division Head Approval:L~~ ~ ~2is Grote, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Page 4 Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PAL0 ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18 . 94. 070 [NONCONFORMING USE - REQUIRED TERMINATION]TO CHANGE THE REQUIRED TERMINATION DATE FOR THE MONOTYPE PRINT ART STUDIO USE AT 440 PEPPER STREET The City Council of the City of Pal0 Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. Findinqs. The City Council finds that: A. The Kirkeby Art Studio, located at 440 Pepper Street, is a nonconforming use that, among others, was scheduled to be terminated on July 20, 1993, pursuant to the amortization schedule set forth in Section 18.94.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Kirkeby Art Studio requested in 1992 that the City allow them to continue operating at -440 Pepper Street until July 20, 2003; B. In 1993, the City granted an extension of the non- conforming use provisions to allow the use to continue operating at 440 Pepper Street until July 20, 2003; C. The original !5-year amortization period for this property was reasonable and commensurate with the investment involved, and upon that basis expressly reserves the right to review, modify, condition, or repea! this extension, with or without a finding of changed circumstances, at any time following expiration of the original amortization period.Under no circumstance shall this ordinance be construed ascreating a vested right for any nonconforming use to remainbeyond its original amortization period; D. The Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearing held , 2003, has recommended that Section 18.94.070 of the Pa!o Alto Municipal Code be amended to allow such use to be extended until July 20, 2013; and E. The proposed amendment is in the public interest, will promote the public health, safety and welfare, and wil! not be detrimental to any other uses, for the following reasons: (i) The Kirkeby Art Studio is located in an R-I, Single Family Residential District in a 2,200 square foot building located on a 6,733 square foot parcel; (2) The principal functions of the art studio are to teach, and to create and produce monot]~e prints. All activities at the site relate to the monotype process, and are relatively low profile in nature and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. According to the art community, the studio is a 030422 syn 0091231 1 rare and valuable asset, especially because of its instructional and educational activities in the monotype medium. Additionally, some of its classes are affiliated with the City of Palo A!to’s Division of Arts and Culture; and (3) The studio would continue to enhance the quality of life in this community if it were allowed to continue operation for another ten years. SECTION 2. Subsection (b) (2) (C) of section 18.94.070 [Nonconforming Use - Required Termination] of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read: "(C) The nonconforming use of the property at 440 Pepper Street for an art studio specializing exclusively in the medium of monotype printmaking and associated instructional uses shall terminate on or before July 20, 2013. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to create a vested right for the nonconforming uses to remain after July 20, 2003." SECTION 3. The Council finds that this project will have no significant environmental effect. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the commencement of the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT : ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney 2 City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 030422 syn 0091231 STEPHEN W. PLAYER Attachment B August 29, 2000 Ms. Lisa Grote Chief Planning Official City Of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Ordinance 4174 440 Pepper Street Smith-Andersen Editions Dear Lisa: I am writing to you on behalf of Smith-Andersen Editions ("Smith-Andersen") formerly known as the Kirkeby Art Studio, which is presently located at 440 Pepper Street. As you and I discussed, Smith-Andersen Editions, pursuant to Ordinance 4174 of the Palo Alto City Code passed on October 12, 1993 by a unanimous vote of the City Council, obtained an extension and permission to continue operating at 440 Pepper Street until July 20, 2003. Since that date, Smith-Andersen has operated at 440 Pepper Street fully in accordance with the provisions and conditions of the Ordinance and has continued tO be a valuable asset to the cultural tradition of the City. I have been informed by my diem, Paula Kirkeby, the owner of Smith-Andersen, that she wishes to remain in that space for an additional ten year period until July 20, 2013 operating on the same basis as she has in the past and as she had at the time that the extension was originally granted for an additional ten year period. Smith-Andersen continues as an art studio to creatively produce and teach printing. All activities at the site relate to monotype process and there are no retail sales at the site. It is a rare and valuable asset to the community and it continues to be a positive addition to the City’s cultural base. The City of Palo Alto presently gives weekend classes under the supervision of the Recreation Department at the site four to five times per year in the process of monotype and etching. Nationally known artists such as Michael Mazer, james Havard, Enrique Chekoya, Brace Nygren, Gustavo Rivera, Nathan Olivera, Joe Zurcher and Marguerite Saegasser have come to the studio to use the press to create monotypes. Also many unknown artists have been encouraged and received their start at Smith-Andersen. 2600 EL CAMINO REAL. SUITE 410 PALO ALTO. CA 94306 650 49~-9102 FAX: 650 856-84.4-8 ElvlAI L: S ~31aye r @wort r~ net. atL net Ms. Lisa Grote August 29, 2000 Page 2 I am enclosing herewith a copy of the ordinance, a copy of my letter to the Planning Commission and to the City Council at the time the extension was originally granted. As the process proceeds, I will present to you additional letters of support from the neighborhood, artists who have used the studio, and other interested parties. On behalf of Smith-Andersen Editions I hereby request that the above ordinance be amended to provide for an additional extension of time for ten years from July 20, 2003 and I would appreciate your initiating the process to make such amendment. Please advise as to what additional information you would need. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, SW-P/bd Encls. STEPHEN W. PLAYER 2 Background Three decades ago, in 1969, Paula Kirkeby and her husband, Phillip, opened Gallerie Smith- Andersen in an historic building at-Homer and Emerson near downtown. Her gallery became a gathering place for major artists to display their works. In the early 70s she began publishing works of art on paper. At first she had to contract the work out because she-didrt’-t-have a-press. In 1978, the building-b~hind the gallery became available, and she and her husband refurbished and installed an old press to produce her first monotypes. A partnership was formed between Paula, Mar3, Margaret Anderson,. a collector, and Joseph Goldyne, an artist. Artists were invited to work at the Press for a week or two and were housed, fed and nurtured by Paula. The partnership continued until 1983. The Press was moved to a much larger building at 440 Pepper Avenue in 1986. Currently three presses are in use. Paula continued attracting artists from as far away as Istanbul. Ten years later she moved her Gallerie to a space at the front of the same building. Both aspects of her business are now known as Smith Andersen Editions. Contributions The Press, a rare and valuable asset for Palo Alto. Paula’s objective in establishing the Press was, and continues to be, to teach, to create, and to produce monotype prints. As the name suggests, monotypes are one of a kind. When she started, the monotype was not a popular art form. Since it did not fall either into the category of painting or printing, it was an orphan. Partly due to her support through her gallery and press, the monotype, which was relatively unknown in the 60s, is now widely considered a legitimate art form. Paula has played a major role in the renaissance of this medium. In fact, nationally the art world connects monotype and Palo Alto. The Press attracts artists from around the world. Although Paula favors abstract design, she gives the artists com.pl__e.t.e_~eedom to work in any manner they choose. She also provides almost any kind of material they desire. Her warmth and hospitality during theirstay complete an environment which enables the artists to be unusually productive. Some return year after year. Sam Francis, whose work appears in many museums around the world, often worked at the Press. It was through his friendship with Paula that he bought .what had been an auto repair garage at Churchill and Mariposa and converted it into a handsome home and studio. Public classes, lectures and demonstrations. Since the Ci~, does not own a press, Paula makes her Press available to instructors in the City’s pro~mam to teach classes in printmaking.When an artist is in residence at the Press from a distant country, Paula arranges with the Division of Arts and Cdture of the City of Palo Alto to have the artist give a lecture or demonstration on his/her techniques. She also makes the press available to Stanford faculty and students. Several professors have worked and are working at the press. The professors are invited to bring their students to see the press in action. She herself has spoken to many art and even law classes at Stanford University. A letter from Dr. Hilarie Faberman, a Ctwator at the Cantor Arts Center, provides illustrations of Paula’s generosity. Art in Public Places. Pauht was a member of the first Visual Arts Jury, now called the Public Art Commission. She helped to develop the policies which are still in place today. She also was responsible for the City’s first outdoor sculpture exhibition. In addition, the program b~neaSts directly from Paula’s artist in residenc~ program. Paula gives the City one print from the work each artist does while at the press. Her gifts have enhanced the City’s collection many fold. A more detailed discussion of her contributions may be found in an attached let’mr from Leon Kaplan, Director of the Division of Arts and Culture. Through her connections with important contemporary artists such as Paul Jenkins, Paula has enhanced the collections of the newly opened Cantor Arts Center at Stanford University. Enrichment for artists in the Palo Alto area. Paula’s gallery and press are a rich resource for local artists. She brings high quality art and artists to our community. The art world so values the works she has published that a retrospective of the works produced at the press was exhibited at the Nevada Museum of Art, Reno last fall and will be at the de Saisset Museum, Santa Clara University next fail. Excerpts from the catalog, The Art of Collaborative Printmaldng, are attached. Paula Kirkeby of Smith Andersen Editions is much more than a businesswoman. She is dedicated bohh to teaching the community about art and to supporting artists. Paula Kirkeby deserves recognition because she provides a vital element in the rich mix which makes Palo Alto special. Attachment C ~ ORDINANCE NO.4174 ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.94. 070 [NONCONFORMING USE REQUIRED TERMINATION]TO CHANGE THE REQUIRED TERMINATION DAT.E FOR THE USE AT 440 PEPPER STREET WHEREAS, the Kirkeby Art Studio, located at 440 Pepper Street, is a nonconforming use that, among others, is currently scheduled to have terminated on July 20, 1993, pursuant to the amortization schedule set forth in section 18.94.070 of the Palo ~to Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the KirkebyArt Studio has requested that the City al!ow them to continue operating at 440 Pepper Street until July 20, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearing held July 28, 1993, has recommended that section 18.94.070 of the Palo Alto Munic!pa! Code be amended to allow such use to be extended until July 20, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after due consideration of the recommendation, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public interest, will promoSe the public health, safety and welfare, and will not be detrimental to any other uses, for the following reasons: The Kirkeby Art Studio is privately owned and operated by Mr. and Mrs. Kirkeby. It is located in an R-l, Single Family Residential District in a 2,200 square foot building located on a 6,733 square foot parce!. The principa! functions of the art studio are to teach, and to create and produce monotype prints. Al! activities at the site relate to the monotype process, and are relatively low profile in nature and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. According to the art community, the studio is a rare and valuable asset, especially because of its instructional and educational activities in the monotype medium. Additionally, some of its classes are affiliated with the City of Palo A!to’s Division of Arts and Culture. Although there currently exists on the site a large "commercia!-looking" driveway, the Council acknowledges the commitment of the property owner to redesign the driveway in a m~nner more compatible with a residentia! neighborhood. The Council finds that the studio would continue to enhance the q uali~y of life in this community if it were al!owed to continue operation for another ten years. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. Subsection (b) {2) of section 18.94.070 [Nonconfo~--ming Use - Required Termination] of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Pa!o Alto Municipa! Code is hereby amended to read: 931013 ].u 0030746 18.94.070 Nonconforming Use - Required Termination. (b) i~i When occupying or using facilities designed or built for nonresidential use, the nonconfo_~ning use shal! be terminated, and the facilities shall be converted or modified to accommodate a conforming use, or shall be removed at or before the time limit prescribed in subdivision (3) of this subsection; provided, however, that no such termination, remova!, or conversion shall be required within fifteen years from July 30, 1978, or within fifteen years from the date such use became nonconforming, whichever date is later; provided, however, that uses which were made non- conformin~ as a result of the 1974 Fire Zone 1 Study, by Ordinance No. 2777, adopted March 25, 1974, shall terminate on November 23, 1990; and provided, further, that any use made nonconforming by said Ordinance No. 2777, the primary purpose of which is to prepare and deliver food to senior citizens, shut-ins and others with limited mobility may remain and shall not be subject to termination pursuant to this section. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve or replace site improvements in accordance with applicable site development regulations, provided that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in any increased floor area. Notwithstanding the dates of termination of uses required by this subsection (b) (2), the required termination date of the following uses shall be as hereinafter set forth: (i)The nonconforming use(s) of the property at 440- 460 Page Mill Road for nonprofit orthomolecular and molecular medical research functions shall terminate on or before July 20, !998. (ii)-The nonconforming use of the property at 464 Colorado Avenue for a dance studio and associated parking shall terminate on or before July 20, 2003. (iii)The nonconforming use of the property at 440 Pepper Street for an art studio specializing exclusively in the medium of monotype printmaking and associated instructional uses shall terminate on or before July 20, 2003. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve or replace site improvements in accordance with applicable site deve!opment regulations, provided that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in any increased floor area or increase in intensity of the use, nor any !oss of parking. S~CTION 2. The Counci! finds that this project will have no significant environmenta! effect. 93 |013 ~ 0030746 iii When occupying or using facilities designed or built for nonresidential use, the nonconfo_~ming use shal! be terminated, and the facilities shall be converted or modified to accommodate a confo~zing use~ or shall be removed at or before the time limit prescribed in subdivision (3) of this subsection; provided, however, that no such te-~mination, remova!, or conversion shall be required within fifteen years from July 30, !978, or wi=hin fifteen years from the date such use became nonconforming, whichever date is later.; provided, however, that uses which were made non- conforming as a result of the !974 Fire Zone I Study, by Ordinance No. 2777, adopted Mmrch 25, 1974, shall te~-mrinate on November 23, !990; and provided, further, that any use made nonconforming by said Ordinance No. 2777, the primary purpose of which is to prepare and deliver food to senior citizens, shuttins and others with limited mobility may remain and shall not be subject to termination pursuant to this section. Such uses shall be pe~--mitted to remodel, improve or replace site improvements in accordance with applicable site development resu!ations, provided that ~ny such remodeling, i~nprovement or replacement shal! not result in any increased floor area. Notwithstandin[ ~he dates of te_~mination of uses re_~ired by this subsection (b) (2), the required termination date of the following uses shall be as hereinafter set forth: (±)The nonconforming use(s) of the property at 440- 460 Page Mill Road for nonprofit orthomolecu!ar and molecular medical research functions shal! te_~inate on or before July 20, i998. (±±)~The nonconfo-~ning use of the property at 464 Colorado Avenue for a dance studio and associated parkin~ shall terminate on or before July 20, 2003. (iii)The nonconforming use of the property at 440 Pepper Street for an art studio specia!izin~ exclusively in the medium of monotype printmaking and associated instruc~iona! uses shal! terminate on or before Ju!y 20, 2003. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve or replace sites_.~ development~mo~ovem=~ =~ ~ accordance with a~p~ 4 c=b~ e ~ ~=" regulations,provided that any such remodeling,im_mrovement or .-=±00~area orreplacementshall not result in an], increased =" - increase in intensity of the use, nor ~ny !oss of parking. S~r~N 2 The Council finds that this project w~ have no significant environmental effect. 931013 I~u 0030746 2 SECTIO~..~ 3. This ordinance shall be effective on the commencement of the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: September 20, 1993 PASSED: Oc~tober 12, 1993 AYES: ANDERSEN, COBB, FAZZINO, HUBEK, KNISS, MCCOWN, ROSENBAUM, SIMITIAN, WREELER NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: APPROVED AS Senior Asst. City Attorney EMERSON F SITE LOCATION RAMDNA EMERSON BRYANT RAMONA F SITE LOCATION ~./~.~ TuSTAFF R~PORT’ F~LE, NO. , ........... Attachment D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT July 23, 1993 PALO ALTO PLANNING COMMISSION Palo Alto, California NONCONFORMING USE TERMINATION EXTENSION FOR: ..AN ART STUDIO AT ~ F’EPPER,,,STREET Members of the Commission: ,REPORT IN BRIEF The purpose of this report and attached ordinance is to discuss and recommend extending the nonconforming use termination date for: An art studio at 440 Pepper Street from July 20, 1993 to July 20, 2003. This recommended action responds to a City Council directive of June 21, 1993 requesting the Planning Commission to im’tiate extending the termination date for this use (see City Council minutes of June 21, 1993, which are included in this week’s Planning Commission packet). The recommended a~tion would result in approving a text amendment in the nonconforming use provisions of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 18.94.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code). BACKGROUND As noted in a January 8, 1993 report to the Planning Commission regarding possible nonconforming use termination extensiom for the Linus Pauling Institum and the Beaudoin Dance Studio, City actions on the Comprehensive Plan Map in 1976 and on a new Zoning Ordinance and Map in 1978 resulted in a number of uses becoming nonconforming and subject to termination. Many of these uses, depending on the amortization schedule that reflected the age of the type of structure where the uses were located, were required to terminate on July 20, 1993. The zoning regulations also contained an exception provision 7-23-93 Page 1 that allowed property or business owners of nonconforming uses to apply for a termination exception within two years after ~ing notified of their nonconforming status. The zoning regulations stated that the principal criterion that the Planning Commission should consider in exception applications was whether the use of the property in question was compatible and not detrimental to the land uses designated in the Comprehensive Plan in surrounding areas. Over time, approximately twenty property or business owners applied for exceptions and approximately ten uses were granted exceptions or extensions. Most recently, the City Council on February 16, 1993 approved zoning text amendments to Section 18.94.070 of the Zoning Ordinance extending the nonconforming use termination dates for a nonprofit orthomolecular research organization (Linus Pauli.ug Institute) from July 20, 1993 to 3uly 20, 1998 and for a private dance studio (Beaudoin Dance Studio) from July 20, 1993 to July 20, 2003. The P~g Commission acted on these termination extensions on January 13, 1993 in response to an earlier request from Council. PHILLIP AND PAULA KIRKEBy ART STUDIO The art studio at 440 Pepper Street is operated by Philtip and Paula Kirkeby, who also operate the Smith-Anderson Gallery in DowntownPalo Alto. The principal functions at this art studio are to teach the use of and to create and produce artistic prints utilizing the art fore called monotype. (This teclmique hereaftgr is referred to as "monotype".) Monotype uses a manual press which produces a single print. Only water and oil-based inks are used in the monotype print process. All activities at this site relate to this monotype process. Those activities include instruction on the monotype process to visiting artists. The lessons normally are provided to one artist at a time, who are at the studio, and extend from approximately three days to two weeks. Artists come to the studio at the invitation of the owners. The tessons usually occur during normal weekday working hours. No more than three or four persons are on site during these instruction periods and they include the artist, a printer and the instructor, usually Mrs. Kirkeby and perhaps an assistant to Mrs. Kirkeby. In addition, lectures are occasionally held at this an studio for up to 30 individuals where visiting artists demonstrate their techniques using the monotype process. Such lectures are held once or twice a year on a weekday ~ evening and last about two hours. The Kirkebys also offer two-day workshops on weekends approximately four to six rimes a year where they teach students the monotype process. These workshops are aff’tliated with imtructional programs sponsored by the City of Palo Alto’s Division of Arts and Culture. The Kirkeby’s Art Studio at 440 Pepper Street occupies a 2,200-square-foot reinforced concrete block building that is located on a 6,733-square-foot parcel. The zoning of this site is R-1 Single-Family Residential. The Comprehemive Plan Map designates this sit~ as Single-Family Residential. 7-23-93 Page 2 that allowed property or business owners of nonconforming uses to apply for a termination exception within two years after being nofi.t:ed of their nonconforming status. ~ zoning regulations stated tha~ the principal criterion tha~ the Planning Commission .should consider in exception applications was whsthar the use of the property in question was compaffole and not detrimental to the land uses dssigmted in the Comprehemive Plan in surrounding areas. Over time, approximately twenty property or business owners applied for exceptions and approximately ten uses were granteA exceptions or extensions. Most recently, the City Counci! on February 16, .1993 approved zoning text amendments to Section 18.94.070 of the Zoning Ordinance extending the nonconforming use termination. dates for a nonprofit orthomolecular research organization (Linm Paulhag Institute) from July 20, 1993 to Juty 20, 1998 and for a private dan~ studio (Beaudoin Danc~ Studio) from July 20, 1993.m Iuly 20, 2003. The Planning Commission acted on these termination extensions on Janua~ 13, 1993 in response to an earlier request from Council. PHILLIP AND,,,,,PAULA KIRKEBy ART STUDIO The art studio at 440 Pepper Street is operated by Phillip and Paula Kirkeby, who also operate the Smith-Anderson Gallery in Downtown Palo Aim. The principal functions at this art studio are to teach the use of and to create and produce artistic prints utilizing the art form called monotype. (The, technique hereafter is referred to as "monotype’,) Monotype uses a manual press which produces a single print. Only water and oil-based inks are used in the monotype print process. All activities at this sitz relate to this monotype process. Those activities include instruction on the monotype process to visiting artists, q’he lessons normally are provided to one artist at a time, who are at the smdie, and extend from approximately three days to two weeks. Artists come to the studio at the invitation of the owners. The lessous usually occur during normal weekday working hours. No more than three or four persons are on site during these imtruetion periods and they include the artist, a printer and the instructor, usually Mrs. Kirkeby and perhaps an assistant to Mrs. K.irkeby. In addition, lectures are occasionalJy held at this art. studio for up to 30 individuals where visiting artists demonstrate their techniques using the monotype process. Such lectures are held once or twice a year on ~ weekday ’ evening and last about two hours. The K.irkebys also offer two-day wor~hops on weekends approximately four to six times a year where they teach students the monotype process. These workshops are aff’tI.iated with imtruetiona~ programs sponsored by the City of Palo Alto’s Division of Ar~ and Culture. The Kirkeby’s Art Studio at 440 Pepper Street occupies a 2,200-square-foo~ reinforced concret~ block building that is located on a 6,733-square-foot parcel. The zoning of this site is R-1 Single-Family Residential. The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this site as Single-Family Residential. REQ~TED EXTEN$~ION Phillip and Paula Kirkeby are requesting a 10-year termination extension from July 20, 1993 to July 20, 2003 in order to allow them to continue to operate this art studio where monotype prints are produced. (See attached letter from their attorney Stephen W. Player.) The Kirkebys own this site. They have stated that finding an alternative site in Palo Alto that could accommodate the monotype press equipment would be extraordinarily difficult. The Kirkebys have been notified by the City that the July 20, 1993 termination on their art studio use at 440 Pepper Street will be deferred until the outcome of this pending action has occurred. ISSUES ON., AN EXTENSION Staff has noted in numerous reports on nonconforming uses that the number of nonconforming usesrequired to terminate in 1993 has significautly declined since approval of the 1978 Zoning Ordinance and Map which resulted in approximately 80 nonconforming uses becoming subject to termination. Other than a few uses, where the owners were granted exemptions or extemions to the Zoning Ordinances termination provisions, many of the nonconforming use businesses either have relocated to sites where such uses were permitted or these businesses simply closed and the underlying sites were re-occupied or redeveloped into uses that were conforming. Most of these nonconforming uses in effect have had sufficient opportunity to relocate to other sites over the past I5 years ff they chose to do so. The art studio site at 440 Pepper Street was originally an auto repair business in 1978 and later the site was used as a carpentry shop, The Kirkebys purchased the property approximately f’we years ago for the sole purpose to use it as an art studio to teach monotype to artists. In the interim, they were periodically notified of their nonconforming use status by the City as were all .other owners of nonconforming uses subject to termination. The principal issues to address in this termination extension include discussion of the unique characteristics of this art studio that differ it from other nonconforming uses required to terminat~ on July 20, 1993 and the compatibility of the functions of this art studio with adjacent uses. The monotype functions at this art studio are of a very low profile nature and they create virtually no disturbance upon the immediate neighborhood. On many occasions when staff has surveyed nonconforming uses, this art studio has not been in active use. In effect, this monotype art studio is used only intermittently for the functions described in previous paragraphs. 7-23 -93 ~:WCSR~Cr~.EX’T Page 3 ¯ Admittedly, the design of the structure where this art studio is located is not visually compatible with adjacent anti nearby single family residential structures. Nonetheless, the neighborhood also contains other types of service commercial uses nearby on E1 Camino Real and on Ash Street, that are conforming. As a result, this neighborhood has a distinctive mixed use character not found in many R-1 single family residential neighborhoods throughout Palo Alto. Moreover, the monotype and related functions/hat occur at this site expand the cultural resources and assets available to this community. As noted earlier, and in the attached correspondence, the monotype print process is unique and is the only one located in Palo Alto and until recently, the only one in the Bay Area. As such, this function including the occasional community workshops and artist lectures pro’n’de an enrichment to the cultural environment of this community that cannot be .easily quantified but should be acknowledged. While a termination extemion may defer conversion of th~ site to residential use, it may also offer an opportunity in the future for a live/work type function to occur on this site. This concept currently is being discussed by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commitme in the initial vision and goal setting phase of the Comprehensive Plan Update. It has also been discussed by the Planned Development Subcommittee, which is comprised of ARB and Planning Commission members. While implementation of such a goal to have such mixed functions in residential neighborhoods most likely would not occur until after adoption of a new Comprehensive PIan, and would notlikely apply to many R-1 neighborhoods; the OIive/Pepper neighborhood ske could indeed be an appropriate m.rget area to allow live/work situations where artists and other crafts-persons live where they work. Consideration of allowing such an art studio a conditional use in R-I single family districts also was considered as a possible strategy for allowing this monotype art studio to remain at this site. However, art studios may not be appropriate even as conditiona! uses in many R-1 shagle family neighborhoods. Therefore, staff believed that initiating a termination extemion in response to the City Council directive would be the most appropriate procedure to consider for extending this monotype art studio use at this rime. If an extension is approved, sufficient time would be afforded in the Comprehensive Plan Update process to consider potentia[ application of live/work policies for appropriate residential neighborhoods before such a termination extension would expire. One last issue regarding this possible termination extension that shouid be discussed is the groundwater plume, that is discussed in the attached EIA Negative Declaration. The sources for this plume are Hewlett Packard facilities at 640 Page Mill Road and 395 Page Mill Road and the Varian facility at 601 Ca.lifornia Avenue. In addition to remediation efforts that are described in the attached EL& including removal of source tank, and groundwater extraction and treatment, the EIA also noted that the Baseline Public Health Evaluation (BPHE) of this area concluded that there were no significant risks for residents living or workers working in buildings built on concrete slabs that are similar to the concrete block structure where this art 7-23-93 Page 4 Admitte~T, the d~ign of the struature where this art studio is located is not visually compatible with adjacent an~ nearby single f~mi~y residenfia~ sumrares. Nonetheless, th~ neighborhood also contains offer types of service commercial uses n~arby on E1 Camino l~.ai aucl on Ash Strut, ths~ are conforming. As a result, this n~i~hborhood has a distinctive mixed use character not found in many R-1 siugle fam~y residential neif~hborhoods throughout Palo Alto. Moreover, the monotype and related. ~dons th~ occur ~ this site expand the cultural resources and asses available to this community. As noted earlier, and in the attached correspondence, the monotype print process is unlqne and is the only one located in Palo Alto and until r~centIy, the only one in the Bay Area~ As such, this "function including the occasional community workshops and artist lectures provide an enrichment to the cultural environment of this community that cannot be .easily quantified but should be acknowledged. While a t~rmimtion extension may defer conversion of tiffs si~ to residential use, it may also offer an oppormuity in the fuUn’e for a livetwork type function to occur on this site. ’I~nis concept currently is being discussed by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee in the initial vision and goal setting phase of the Comprehensive Plan Update. k has also been discussed by the Planned Development Subcommittee, vekich is comprised of ARB and Planning Commission members. While implementation of such a goal to h~ve such mixed fimcfions in reside~ n~ighborhoods most likely would not occur until after adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan, and would notlikely apply to many R-I neighborhoods; the Olive/Pepper neighborhood ske could indeed be an appropriate target area to allow live/work situations where artists and other crafts-persons live where they work. Consideration of allowing such an art studio a eondifionaI use in R-I single family districts also was considered as a possible strategy for allowing this monotype art studio to remain at this site. However, art. studios may not be appropriate even as conditional uses in many R-1 si.ugle family neighborhoods. Therefore, staff believed that initiating a termination extension in response to the City Council directive wouId be the most appropriate procedure to consider for extending this monotype art studio use at this time. If an extension is approved, sufficient time would be afforded in the Comprehensive Plan Update process to consider potential appIication of live/work policies for ~:ppropriate residential n~ighborhoods before such a termination extension would expire. One last issue regarding this possible termination extension that should be discussed is the groundwater plume, that is discussed in the attached EIA Negative Declaration. The sources for tiffs plume are Hewlet-t Packard facitkies at 640 Page Mii! Road and 395 Page Mill Road and the Varian facilit3’ at 601 California Avenue. In addition to remediation efforts that are described in the attached EIA including removal of source tank, and groundwater extraction and ~reamaem, the EIA also noted that the Baseline Public Health Evaluation 03PHE) of this area coneiuded that there were no significant risks for residents Iivmg or workers working in buildings built on concrete slabs that are similar to the concrete block structure where this art 7-23 -93 Pag=4 studio is located. As a re.suit, individuals using the site will have no exposure to those contaminams as the site improvements and activities will not intercept the water table. addition, as rem~diation continues, any potential risk will bez.ome less significant and eventually the contaminated groundwater will me~t drinking water standards. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Staff supports extending the termination date of this monotype functioning art studio at 440 Pepper Street from July 20, 1993 to July 20, 2003. Continuing monotype functions at this art studio will have rninimzl effect on adjacent single family residences because these functions result in very low levels of activity, they have minimal employment, and they seldom generate traffic or overflow parking. However, the design and construction of the structure, where this.art studio is located, is aesthetically incompatible with the nearby single family residences. In addition, an extension would d~fer conversion of the site to family housing. Nonetheless, an extension is supported because these monotype art studio functions enhance the cultural and social environment of this community and a void of such cultural enrichment would occur if these functions were required to terminate. Such an extension would require that the same monotype functions that are described in this report continue at this art studio and that this use and ancillary functions (e.g. the workshops and lectures ) do not expand or intensify overtime. The proposed extension in the attached draft ordinance specifically refers to an art studio whose functions are Iimited to teaching and to creating and producing artistic prints utilizing the art form called monotype. Thus, the extension would apply to any potential art studio performing monotype art reproductions at this site for the duration of the extension. E.~’IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The proposed modification to the zoning ordinance’s nonconforming use provisions will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. A negative declaration is attached. 7-23-93 Page 5 P~COMMENDATION Staff re.commends that the Planning Commission r~ommend to the City Council approval of the following: 1.The attached negative declaration; and The following added provision m the nonconforming use termination section of the zoning ordinance (Section 18.94.070) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (see attached draft ordinance) permitting a termination extension from July 20, 1993 to luly 20, 2003 for an art studio whose functions are limited m teach and m create and produce artistic prints utilizing the art form called monotype. ~lly submitted, I3EORGE Assistant Official NANCY MADDOX LYTLE Chief Planning Official/ Zoning Administrator Attachments:1.Letter from Attorney Stephen Player 2.Letters from members of the public 3.Site Map A ~T A ~T~+~.~ Philip and Paula Kirkeby Stephen Hayer - Crist, Griffiths, Schulz & Bion, 650 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 300, Pa!o Alto CA 94301 Judith Wasserman, 751 Southampton Drive, Palo Alto CA 94303 Marguerite Saegesser, 840 Mesa Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94306 Leon Kaplan, City of Palo Alto, Cultural Center N. E. Lark_in, Palo Alto PuNic Art Commission, 448 8th Avenue, Menlo Park CA 94025-1849 Frank Lobde!l, Patti L. and Phyllis Wattis Professor of Art, Stanford University., Stanford CA 94305 Robert and Nancy Weeks, 4075 Scripps Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94306 Susan Wexler, 805 Tolman Drive, Stanford CA 94305 Dr. Hilarie Faberman, Stanford Museum of Art, Stanford CA 94305-5060 Robert and Ruth Halperin, Stanford Universit3, Museum of Art, Stanford CA 94305-5060 Elaine Gradman, 1885 Mark Twain, Palo Alto CA 94303 P:kI~2SRq~C!J.t~’T 7-23 -93 Page 6 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends tlmt tlm Planning Commission recommend to the Cits’ Council approval of the following: 1.The attached negative declaration; and The following added provision to the nonconforming use terminzfion section of the zoning ordinance (Section 18.94.070) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (see attached draft ordinance) permitti~ a termimtion extemion from July 20, 1993 to July 20, 2003 for an art studio whose functions are limited to t~aeh and to create and produce artistic prints utilizing the art form called monotype. Respe~ff-ully submitted, NANCY MADDOX LYTLE Chief Planning Official/ Zoning Administrator Attachments:1.Letter from Attorney Stephen Player 2.Letters from members of the public 3.Site Map Philip and Paula Kirkeby Stephen Player - Crist, Griffiths, Schulz & Bion, 650 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 300, Palo Alto CA 94301 Judith Wasserman, 751 Southampton Drive, Palo Alto CA 94303 Marguerite Saegesser, 840 Mesa Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94306 Leon Kaplan, City of Palo Alto, Ctfltural Center N. E. Larkin, Palo Alto PuNic Art Commission, 448 8th Avenue, Menlo Park CA 94025-1849 Frank Lobdell, Paul L. and Phyllis Wards Professor of Art, Stanford Unlversit-y, Stanford CA 94305 Robert and Navy Weeks, 4075 Scripps Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94306 Susan Wexler, 805 Tolman Drive, Stanford CA 94305 Dr. Hilarie Faberman, Stanford Museum of Art, Stanford CA 94305-5060 Robert and Ruth Halperin, Stanford University Museum of .4zt, Stanford CA 94305-5060 Elaine Gradman, 1885 Mark Twain, Palo Aim CA 94303 7-23 -93 Page 6 Attachment E Wednesday, July 28, 1993 Regular Meeting Item ORAL COMMUNICATIONS APPROVAL OF MINUTES I. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of June 30, 1993. 3401 ALMA STREET o- ALMA PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER: Amendment of Planned Community (PC) District at 3401 Alma Street to allow the construction of a single-story, 6,000-square-foot retail building, reconfiguration of a portion of the existing parking lot, construction of trash enclosures and installation of new landscaping at the Alma Plaza Shopping Center. The applicant also proposes to reconfigure the property lines on two parcels, which are under common ownership. Environmental Assessment: No significant impacts were determined to result from this project, and a negative declaration has been prepared. Zone District: PC. File Nos. 93-ZC-9, 93-ARB-91, 93-EIA-20. Continued from the June 30th Planning Commission meeting. 440 PEPPER STREET: Zoning ordinance text amendment to the conforming use termination provisions in Section 18.94.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to extend the termination date for a nonconforming use art studio located in an R-I Single-Family Residential District from July 20, 1993 to July 20, 2003. Environmental Assessment: No significant impacts were determined to result from this project, and a negative declaration has been prepared. File Nos. 93-ZC-11, 93-EIA-26. 4.Appointment of Architectural Review Board liaison. 5.Appointment to Planned Development (PD) Subcommittee. 6.Cancellation of August 11, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. 3 3 19 28 29 29 PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS (6-0-0-1; Schink absent) AT THE AUGUST 25, 1993 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. J. Slocum 07/28/93 -I- again collaborated with Lucky and perhaps with city staff, and maybe even have had a three-way collaboration prior to going to the Architectural Review Board. AGENDA ITEM 3 440 PEPPER STREET: Zoning ordinance text amendment to the conforming use termination provisions in Section 18.94.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to extend the termination date for a nonconforming use art studio located in an R-I Single-Family Residential District from July 20, 1993 to July 20, 2003. Environmental Assessment: No significant impacts were determined to result from this project, and a negative declaration has been prepared. File Nos. 93-ZC-11, 93-EIA-26. Chairman Beecham: Do we have any clarifications from staff? Mr. Zimmerman: No. Chairman Beecham: Any questions from the commission by staff? Commissioner Cassel: I have a question about the length of the term for this. Just theoretically, if the Comprehensive Plan were to change the zoning in this area and we had given the 10-year grant, does it go to the new new zoning map that we draw, or does this last for ten years anyway? Mr. Zimmerman: It goes with the extension that would last ten years if approved by Council. Chairman Beecham: If there are no more questions, we will go to the public hearing. Steven Pla.yer~ 1874 Guinda Street~ Palo Alto: I am appearing on behalf of the applicants, Phillip and Paula Kirkeby. But before I begin my formal remarks, I would like to take this opportunity to say just a few personal words about Pat Cullen, as this is her last evening as a planning commissioner. It is a rare opportunity that I have to be able to speak to Pat publicly to thank her for the 13 years of service on the commission. We have had many issues together over those 13 years, always in a spirit of good hearted debate. We have not always seen eye to eye on every issue, but I think we have come away with a degree of mutual respect. We ran against each other for City Council before some of you were born. I just want to thank you from one who has appeared in front of you, has been an adversary, has been a contestant with you, to thank you for the many years you have given to this city. We are a very, very fortunate city to have someone of your caliber and your dedication that has given us 13 years of service on this commission. I want to thank you personally. Commissioner Cullen: Thank you very much, Steve. That touches me. Mr. Player: I want to wish you all the best of luck in all that spare time you are going to have. I am sure they will be calling on you from time to time for some sage wisdom about the record and what we did in the past. Let me just speak briefly, because before you is a very well prepared o7/28/93 -19- One other issue I would like to raise is that I have indicated and is in your packet and as Leon Kaplan’s letter has indicated, one of the services done at this location is teaching. There is an opportunity to learn about the press. There is an opportunity for citizens of our community to learn, for artists to study and learn. In a sense, it is like an educational institution. If you look at the uses which are normally compatible with the R-I zone, it talks about private, educational facilities. I worked with staff to try and make this a conditional use within the zone, but the strictest interpretation is that it has to have a curriculum, etc., so it does not quite fit, but it is very, very close. It is really an instructional, private educational facility. So if you look at it in that sense, it is a use that is deemed by our code to be compatible in an R-I zone. I would like to express my appreciation of your consideration of this request. We are simply asking for a ten-year extension of the amortization period from July 20, 1993 to July 20, 2003. Thank you. John Flather~ ..352 Middlefield Road~ Palo Alto: Thank you for the opportunity you are giving me this evening to, in effect, echo the words eloquently expressed by the previous speaker. I have lived in Palo Alto since 1970, and happen to be a collector of works of art. That is what brings me here this evening. I feel very strongly, and would not otherwise be here, that I wish to support an extension of the easement for the press which would allow it to continue working as-it has done and is doing at the moment. I will touch on two things. One is the commercial side, and one is the teaching side. It is a commercial press, and if you think that being a commercial press in the fine arts business, the contemporary business, is easy these days, running a restaurant is like being a child’s tea party in comparison. It is extremely difficult. In these troubled years of the art market, the lady to my right [Mrs. Kirkeby] has succeeded by good sense, good management and imagination and the need and desire to go out or the periphery of contemporary art and invite people into the studio, in effect, giving them the keys and saying, you are here to do what you want. That is extremely unique. This word "unique" has been bandied about on one or two occasions already tonight, and I want to emphasize it. This press, even in a commercial sense, is unique by the fact that it is still there, even in these troubled times, and pays homage to the guts and the imagination of the owner. The other side is the teaching aspect. I am a board member of the Graphic Arts Council, a support group related to the Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco. One of the facets of this organization is teaching and learning in the fine arts, particularly related to graphics. As a member of this organization, and indeed, of the Committee for Art that runs various study groups at Stanford for both-organizations, I have visited the press over the years in an educational sense. In other words, we go in on weekends when the press is open for us, and we are taught the mysteries in the art of the monoprint and various other types of fine art printing. I would suggest that this aspect, the educational aspect, the good heart and good sense of the owners to open the press to people like myself and other members of the support organizations, both at Stanford and in San Francisco, the fact that they are willing to do this makes this a very special combination. It is unique to have this educational and this commercial twin visit, and to come out with such great results. So I wish to say, very vehemently, that I feel very strongly than to do other than allow this press to continue in its present location doing the 07/28/93 -21- Commissioner Ojakian: You are asking for a ten-year period of time. Why the ten years? Why not five, or looking at it from the other end, what is going to happen ten years down the road that says -- Mrs...Kirkeb.y: I don’t know, but I would be grateful for ten years. I will accept whatever is given to me to stay and continue working for the community and with the community, but ten years sounded like a good number. My lawyer and I discussed it, and that was it. Commissioner O.~akian: Meaning, in ten years from now, do you have any plans? Mrs. Kirkeby: I have absolutely no plans. Maybe you will see me again! Commissioner Ojakian: One last thing, since you mentioned this briefly. We have had several of these sites around the city in which we basically amortized out businesses that have been there. In some cases, businesses have moved in, realizing that the clock was ticking, so to speak. Maybe this is more of a question back to the staff. Is there some reason, or were you not informed of what was going on? Mrs. Kirkeb.y: I initially said, when we purchased the property, we were informed that it might be zoned residentia!. When I received letters, I did call and I was talking about one thing, and no one knew what I was talking about, because I wondered, is it really going to be zoned residential? We never heard the term "amortized." We never heard anything about 1978. I am telling you, I am surprised to be here. Commissioner Ojakian: I would be interested in having staff comment a little on that when we close the public hearing, on what the process was of informing people. Commissioner Cullen: I have a concern, not so much in the use as it exists, but the way in which the driveway in front of your location is striped and lettered. That seems to me a little inconsistent with the residential quality of the neighborhood. I would like to see a proposal, or maybe include a condition on this extension of the termination, that something be done there. I understand that you may have people trying to park in that space, although it looked like there were plenty of parking spaces on the street when ! was there. There must be a more residential way to keep that space for your own use. I think it looks commercial when you drive up the street. Mrs. Kirkeby: That is the way we purchased it, and that was there when we purchased it. I have spoken with Karen Lloyd, who is a landscape architect, and she has been talking with myself and my husband about maybe doing a circular drive, something with planting. Commissioner Cullen: So it is not because you need the parking. Mrs. Kirkeby: No, absolutely not. We have a driveway that would take about five cars. Sandy Eakins~ 3493 Greer Road, Palo Alto: I want to let you know that the Public Art Commission scheduled its regular meeting an hour early tonight 07/28/93 -23- so that we could come to your meeting in order to support the press and maintain the press in this community. Several of the commissioners have asked me to say that they are very strongly in favor of keeping the press. A lot has been said about the kind of studio it is. I would like to mention, in addition, that the Kirkebys have been extraordinarily thoughtful in setting this up. There is a little apartment for artists who are in residence, so that it really enhances the quality of the art experience. This is inspiring to those of us who have been serving on the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee because we know there is a strong interest in live/work spaces for artists. Other communities, bigger communities, Emoryville, with all of its industrial buildings, have already gone this route. I don’t know that any other city’s example is necessarily totally instructive to us, but this means that the artist is really part of the neighborhood while he or she is there. I would like to take this opportunity to say a little bit about what art does for a community. When I spoke at the council, I said that my motto is, "There is no such thing as too much art." I thought I don’t need to say that again, but I guess I do. There really is no such thing as too much art. We will never overdose on art. We may all have different tastes, but we all need all we can have. I know Judith Wasserman spoke to Commissioner Schmidt at the break, saying that one amenity that was omitted from the Lucky consideration was having some public art in that area. I didn’t want to miss a chance to say that in public. I believe we are all better off living with the creative spirit that artists bring to our lives. But artists have to have studios. They have to have places to work. There is a very serious shortage of studios, work spaces in this community. The last time I counted, there were 80 people on the waiting list for the spaces at Cubberley. That, I think, is a serious number to consider. There is demand. Artists want to be a part of Palo Alto, and I think we should all be grateful for that. I think there is a mutual benefit for a neighborhood between artists and neighbors, a cross fertilization, that can happen. The Kirkebys have agreed to provide a program for people in the neighborhood so they can really be part of it. Hearing Ms. Vasquez, we know that there is truly appreciation for artists in the neighborhood. The presence of artists and art facilities is often a sign that a neighborhood is on the way up. So I think that is another reason to encourage this. Finally, I would like to mention that one of the insights I have encountered in working on the Comprehensive Plan is creative, current thinking about more liveable communities having less rigid restrictions about who does what and happens in a city or town so that people can live and work nearby and there can be more interesting things going on. This is a wonderful opportunity to have a more interesting occurrence in a neighborhood. It is one way to increase diversity. We have been using that word a lot in the Comprehensive Plan discussions. Diversity can often have to do with kinds of careers and with socio-economic conditions. We all know that artists are not overpaid people, so if we can find a way to make it possible for more artists to be in our community, we will all be better off. I am afraid that if we don’t have them, it is going to be very arid here. This community has benefitted from the extraordinary contributions that others have described that Phillip and Paula have made. We can all enjoy 07/28/93 -24- the art they have donated to the city. It is not just in the Cultural Center. It is in many other city buildings, including the training room at Cubberley -- that wonderful monotype of the big pink pig. The next time you are in there, be sure to check it out. It is from the Kirkebys. So I sincerely hope you will extend the right of the studio to remain at 440 Pepper Street for another ten years. Chairman Beecham: Thank you for your comments. With that, we will close the public hearing and bring this back to the commission. Ms. Case: Mr. Chairman, before you close the public hearing, I wish to point out that prior to the meeting, two petitions were submitted for your information in support of this application. Chairman Beecham: Thank you for pointing that out. Comments from commissioners? Pat, we are going to miss your quick response. Commissioner Cullen: Well, you had Pam Marsh’s, which was quicker. MOTION: As the last motion ~ am probably going to make on this commission, I would like to move that we approve the extension of the termination for this particular art studio. I feel it is an exception to the usual application before us, in fact, as I was reading it, it seemed to me almost to qualify for what we have in residential areas as the home office, which is an allowed use in the R-I area. Although this does apparently have more than one person at a time occasionally, it does not sound like it has a great deal of people. I think it is a unique facility. I lived diagonally across the street from the Smith Anderson Gallery and have purchased a number of items there. It is an outstanding gallery, known nationally for the quality of exhibits that they have and for the artists that they encourage. I think it is a very valuable item in our cultural landscape in Palo Alto. I cannot think of a more appropriate candidate for an extension. I would, however, like to condition the approval on doing something about the landscaping in front. It does not have a residential look from the front. I am happy to hear that it was not the Smith Anderson people who put in that lovely parking with the Glidden paint. So I move that we do approve extending the termination for the ten years requested and the. negative declaration that there is no environmental impact, and that this extension would run from July 20, 1993 to July 20, 2003 for this particular art studio. Can we do that? For this art studio, or does it have to be a__~n art studio? Ms. Case: Yes, we have fairly well tailor-made the use in the ordinance, as you can see, to one that uses monotype and teaches, as well. Commissioner Cullen: I gather there are no competing facilities. I compliment the applicant on being a real addition to the community. SECOND: By Commissioner Glazier. Chairman Beecham: It has been moved and seconded to accept the staff recommendation with the condition to relandscape the front yard in a suitable, residential mode. Ms. Case: Mr. Chairman, staff would like to comment on the condition. I don’t believe it would be appropriate here. What I would propose is for us to insert something into one of the preambles, which would I propose to read like this: "Although there currently exists on the site a large, commercial-looking driveway, the council acknowledges the commitment of the property owner to redesign the driveway in a manner more compatible with the residential neighborhood." Chairman Beecham: Do the maker and seconder accept that? (Yes) Any other comments? Commissioner Schmidt: I am happy to support the motion. The type of mixed use neighborhoods that we are, indeed, talking about in the Comprehensive Plan update, is supported by this facility. I am very happy to see that the neighbors are in support of keeping this facility here and that it is quieter than some of the neighbors a little farther away. I feel that having this internationally known monotype press in Palo Alto is a great opportunity for us. I wish to comment that I have taken monotype classes at Stanford. It is, indeed, a wonderful medium, and I am happy to keep it in our community. I also want to make an additional comment related to what Vic mentioned earlier, related to amortization, in general. We have had some other projects that have come through recently, and I hope that in our Comprehensive Plan revision, we do not do much or any amortization again. I feel we have set up a difficult circumstance, and we have faced this problem in a variety of ways. It does not seem like we are giving the same message to everyone. Some groups were criticized for coming to us at the last moment for a change, while others were encouraged to come at the last moment for a change. In some cases, we say things are different, and in some cases, we say things are not different. I am happy to support a use that does provide for something interesting in the neighborhood, something that the neighbors approve of. We have just finished amortizing some other uses that by the end of the Comprehensive Plan revision, we will wish that we had not amortized and that they were things we would like to have in our communities. Commissioner Cassel: I want to agree with what Commissioner Schmidt has said. I had some of the same feelings that we have been giving mixed messages on some of these properties. This looks like a wonderful thing, yet others have been turned down. So I went through the exercise today of comparing this property with the one that was turned down by the City Council on Monday night so that I could see if there was, indeed, a difference in the two properties and so that I could be consistent. In looking at them, there is a difference in the zoning request. This is an extension. This is an extension of time for ten years, whereas the other, although they are both changes in zone, they were actually changing the zone from R-I to RE, Residential Estate. Is there a significant change in circumstances from the situation that happened when this was originally zoned to now? For Bay Area Health, the Council said no. In this one, the Comprehensive Plan may change it. There is probably a 07/28/93 change in that there is a less intense use. Is this detrimental to the neighbors? The neighbors in this situation seem to say no. The neighbors were very opposed to the application of Bay Area Health. Others of us felt that it was not detrimental to the neighborhood at Bay Area Health. We must look at special circumstances. It must meet a special circumstance. In Bay Area Health, there was a special circumstance. The whole issue had been revisited before by the City Council. The only special circumstances I can find here is that it is under consideration for a future change that will be compatible with the plan that we are presently considering. This apparently has a much more instructional use. Bay Area Health had an instructional use, but its primary function was not an instructional use. There is an issue of coming at the last minute. Both projects have come at the last minute. Is there another site that is appropriate? I certainly think there must be another site that would be appropriate. If you can move 50 people in a health care setting, and say, there is another site, then certainly, you can move a printing press. In both cases, these are not the original owners. In both cases, these were purchased in the middle of the amortization. Those are the comparisons I made. I am going to support this. I supported the other one, and I am going to support this. I feel they are both appropriate. The City Council keeps saying, every time these come up, it is a land use issue. You must base it on the land use issue. You cannot get all excited about how nice the owner is. You have to do it, based on land use. I think this will be an appropriate land use decision for the site. Commissioner Carrasco: I support what Sandy Eakins spoke about. It comes up often at CPAC, the idea of diversity and the idea of making live/work more possible. If we can incorporate some of the ideas of a non-obnoxious use that could occur in R-I zones, it would be great. It seems like this kind of use should happen more often. So I will support this. Commissioner Ojakian: I want to thank the staff, because I like the way they fashioned this ordinance to make it very specific for the type of use that can exist there, because in some of the other situations where we have allowed conditional use permits or whatever, they have had a wide enough scope to have us end up with certain types of uses I think we all wish were not there. The second thing is, since I am a neighborhood sort of guy, so to speak, I looked at this very carefully, and that is why I asked some of the questions that I did. The thing that fascinates me a lot tonight is that we have had not only no neighborhood opposition, but we have had neighborhood support. So that is really encouraging. Also I would like to take off on what Sandy Eakins said. For any of us people who have gone through this neighborhood, that whole area, the Ventura area, one of the good news things, and I guess this is a little bit of a comment to the contrary from what Commissioner Schmidt just said, one of the good news things about the amortization that we put in is that it has helped revitalize this neighborhood. I think that is a blessing to the community, so I am happy about a lot of the things our predecessors have done to bring this neighborhood back. I hope that we continue to do things along those lines. 07/28/93 -27- Having said that, I do not see that this particular operation is a detriment to the neighborhood. In fact, what makes it different from some ofthe other businesses we have amortized out is that it is not just a business, in and of itself. It is a community asset which is contributing to the community activities currently.-- I would almost like to condition one of the comments that was made before. I am encouraged by the remark that was made about incorporating some of the people in the neighborhood as part of this program. That is the type of interaction that I think all of us would probably like to see and hope that we would encourage. I will stop there." I have tied everything together enough to say that in some ways, I have had a little change of heart on this from where I started off. The only other thing I think we might have talked about a little is, how long the period should run. Chairman Beecham: Do you have any comment on that item? Commissioner Ojakian: My feeling is that we should have a little bit of a discussion on that. I am not sure I have a set opinion on that, but it was interesting to hear the comment that in ten years, we might be back at this process again. Chairman Beecham: I think ten years has no real basis. It is a decade away from now. It is long enough to continue to serve the community, and probably to the limits of the applicants’ horizon, but not so far as to be detrimental to something that has not been brought up, unless Kathy said it and I missed it, that we are, at the moment, withholding a piece of property from residential. But ten years is not too severe a time for one parcel, I feel. Commissioner Cassel: I thought about that. Why not just do it for five years? My sense is that if we do anything to it, that we make it longer so that it goes beyond the end of the next Comprehensive Plan, so that you are thinking about it at the same time, thinking about the Comprehensive Plan. But this problem may totally be resolved in the Comprehensive Plan process. Commissioner Ojakian: I don’t hear any reaction from my colleagues, other than you, Bern. I am not even sure if I was talking about shortening the period of time. Maybe it is satisfactory to just leave it and see what comes out of the Comprehensive Plan which might negate any of this, anyway. I am perfectly happy to see the business last there through its duration. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: With that being said, if there are no other comments or discussion, all those in favor of the motion to accept the staff recommendation which will forward this to the City Council for extending the termination date, along with a preamble as delineated by staff regarding parking, please say Aye? All opposed? That passes unanimously. Mr. Zimmerman: This will go to the City Council on September 20, 1993. AGENDA ITEM 4 Appointment of Architectural Review Board liaison. Chairman Beecham: Do we have anyone who wishes to be an ARB liaison? 07/28/93 Attachment F September 16, 1993 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California Nonconfo_~ming U~,e Term,ination,Ex~ension ,for an,,Art Studio at 440 ~epper Street Members of the Council: Report in Brief This report forwards the recommendations of the Planning Commission on amendments to Section 18.94.070 of the Zoning Ordinance that would extend the nonconforming use termination date for an art studio at 440 Pepper Street. Background On July 28, 1993, the Plan~.ing Commission considered a zoning text amendment extending the nonconforming use termination provision for this art studio use at 440 Pepper Street. This action was in response to a City Counci! directive on June 21, 1993, requesting the Planning Commission to initiate proceedings to extend the termination dare for this art studio. (See attached report to the Planning Commission of July 23, 1993.) Planninq Commission Acti0~ At the conclusion of the public hearing on July 28, 1993, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of: !)The negative declaration and The added provision to the nonconforming use termination section of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 18.94.070) of the Paio Alto Municipal Code permitting a te~--mination extension from July 20, 1993 to July 20, 2003, for an-art studio at 440 Pepper Street, whose functions are limited to teaching and to creating and CMR:475:93 producing artistic prints utilizing the art form called monotype. In taking this action, the Planning Commission also recommended that language in the preamble of the termination extension ordinance contain language acknowledging property owner commitment toredesign the driveway and parking area in front of the art studio. The reason for this requested change to the preamble was to strongly encourage the property owner to modify the parking and driveway paved area in front of the art studio with some form of landscaping, in order to improve the visual compatibility of the art studio site with adjacent single family residences. The property owner agreed to this recommended modification to the preamble of the ordinance. Summary and Conclusion Staff supports this modification to the ordinance preamble for the reason previously cited. It also supports the Planning Commission recommendation on extending the termination date for this monotype art studio~ Recommendation Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council adopt: !)The attached environmental assessment recommending a negative declaration, and 2)The attached ordinance adding provisions to the nonconforming use termination section of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 18.94.070) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code that permits a termination extension from July 20, 1993 to July 20, 2003, for an art studio at 440 Pepper Street whose functions are limited to teaching and to creating and producing artistic prints utilizing the art form called monotype. Respectfully submitted, Assistant Official BERNARD M. STROJNY" ’ Assistant City Manager KENNETH R o SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CMR : 475:93 9/16/93 Page 2 producing artistic prints utilizing the art form called mono~yp_ e. In taking this action, the Planming Commission also recommended that language in the preamble of the termination extension ordinance contain language acknowledging property owner commitment to redesign the driveway and parking area in front of the art studio. The reason for this requested change to the preamble was to strongly encourage the property owner to modify the parking and driveway paved area in front of the art studio with some form of landscaping, in order to improve the visual compatibility of the art studio site with adjacent single family residences. The property owner agreed to this recommended modification to the preamble of the ordinance. Summar’f~ andConc!usion Staff supports this modification to the ordinance preamble for the reason previously cited. It also supports the Planning Commission recommendation on extending the te.~ninaCion date for this monotype art studio. Recommendation Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council adopt: !)The attached environmental assessment recommending negative declaration, and The attached ordinance adding~ provisions to the nonconforming use termination section of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 18.94.070) of the Palo Alto Municipa! Code that permits a termination extension from July 20, 1993 to July 20, 2003, for an art studio at 440 Pepper Street whose functions are limited to teaching and to creating and producing artistic prints utilizing the art form called monotype. Respectfully submitted, Assistant Pl~knning Officia! Assistant City Manager KEI~NETH R. SC~EIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment C~P.:475:93 Attachment G Excerpt Minutes City Council Hearing September 20, 1993 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission Recommendation re Approval of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to the Nonconforming Use Termination Provisions to Extend the Termination Date for a Nonconforming Use Art Studio located at 440 Pepper Street Steve Player, Crist, Griffiths, Schulz & Biorn, 1874 Guinda Street, attorney representing the applicant, said both the staff and the Planning Commission recommended the request for an extension of the termination date be granted. He provided the Council with additional letters that supported the extension (letters on file in the City Clerk’s Office) and photographs of the adjacent neighbor- hood and the property at 440 Pepper Street. The building had been painted, and steps had been taken to improve the property so it was compatible with the neighborhood. The Council had an unique opportunity to make a courageous decision to allow the art studio to remain in an area which was amortized out by a decision in 1978. In 1978, there was an auto body shop at the location, then a carpentry shop, then a window shop, and five years ago Phillip and Paula Kirkeby bought the shop for the purposes of operating a monotype studio and press. Artists came to the studio to study the technique of monotype. It was a unique studio, and there was only one press in the Bay Area. There was a broad selection of people from the neighborhood, art community, and many other areas in the City that supported the extension of the amortization period. It was a land use decision, and the Council should consider whether or not the use was compatible with the R-1 neighborhood. There was no traffic because it was a teaching studio and artists stayed in the area and studied for two to three weeks. The studio was not invasive nor was there any obnoxious Odors or noise as indicated at the time the Council considered the location in 1978. The applicant asked for an extension that was limited in time and use. The extension was in line with the update of the Comprehensive Plan since the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) was considering mixed use of cultural, educational, and structural-type uses in R-1 neighborhoods. It was an appropriate neighborhood for that type of use, and he urged the Council to allow it to continue. Mayor McCown declared the Public Hearing open. Council Member Andersen queried whether the people associated with the facility would make certain that over the ten-year period, the facility would be maintained in a manner appropriate for an R-1 area. Mr. Player said the Ordinance required the applicant to redesign the driveway and make it appropriate for an R-1 area. Council Member Huber clarified a suggestion had been made regarding the maintenance, but it was not part of the Ordinance. He had visited the site and it appeared that asphalt work had been done in front of the building. He would have expected a grassy area instead of asphalt to make it compatible with the R-1 neighborhood; Mr. Player said the asphalt had been painted to cover the strip- ping. The redesign of the driveway would include landscaping. Mary Jean Place, 809 Northampton Drive, supported the continuance of the press at the art studio not only because it was a cultural asset to the City but because it gave the City the recognition on a national and international level since some of the pieces of art created at the studio went worldwide. Phillip and Paula Kirkeby were committed to the production of fine art pieces and had produced art shows that were a benefit to the local community and all of Northern California. The Kirkeby’s were active members in the community. When the City had quality people who produced quality products not only for themselves but for the world, it made a quality community. She urged the Council to support the extension. Michele Sullivan, 461 Pepper Street, supported the use of the property at 440 Pepper Street as an artist studio and Ms. Kirkeby’s efforts to provide working space for artistic activities. The art studiofit in well with the diversity of their small and cohesive community. The continued use at that location would not negatively impact the environment and the safety of the residents on Pepper Street. The residents of Pepper Street desired that the Kirkeby’s be permitted to continue to use the property as they had done in the past. Jocli Margolies, 450 Pepper Street, livec~ next door to the art studio and said there had never been any traffic problems or excessive noise from the studio. She liked the cultural differenc- es and the influence it provided to the neighborhood. She hoped the art studio would remain a part of the community. Eliana Vasquez, 441 Pepper Street, had lived in the neighborhood for many years and said the Kirkeby’s were the best neighbors the neighborhood had ever had. The art creations were an asset to the neighborhood and Palo Alto. She spoke on behalf of the neighbors who were happy to have the press in the neighborhood and wanted the press to stay open. David Wilke, 460 Pepper Street, had lived in the neighborhood for six years and said the business at 440 Pepper Street was a low-key, quiet place. He hoped the Council would approve the extension. Tony Lydgate, 440 Olive Avenue, moved to Palo Alto 20 years ago because he felt that Palo Alto was a city that offered not only cultural and artistic support but also support for business. The City could.not afford to diminish the cultural or business attractiveness to people. He agreed with the other speakers that the usage did not create any undue parking or traffic. He urged the Council to allow Palo Alto to continue to enjoy the benefits of a tremendous cultural resource. Sandy Eakins, 3443 Greer Road, asked the Council to uphold the Planning Commission’s recommendation to keep the art studio and workshop on Pepper Street. The City needed the creativity and spirit that artists brought to the community. If the amortization law were rewritten today, the situation might be considered differently and seen as a worthwhile activity in an R-1 zone. Mayor McCown declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Cobb, to approve the Planning Commission and staff recommendations to adopt: 1. The environmental assessment recommending a negative declara- tion, and 2. The ordinance adding provisions to the nonconforming use termination section of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 18.94.070) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code that permits a termination extension from July 20, 1993, to July 20, 2003, for an art studio at 440 Pepper Street whose functions are limited to teaching and to creating and producing artistic prints utilizing the art form called monotype. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.94.070 [Nonconform- ing Use - Required Termination] to Change the Required Termination Date for the Use at 440 Pepper Street" Council Member Fazzino was delighted to join Vice Mayor Kniss and place the item on the agenda. The Kirkeby’s art studio contributed so much to the community. The use was consistent with the adjoining residential neighborhood and the conditions would assure that the situation continued. He appreciated the willingness of neighbors to come and speak on behalf of the proposal. Palo Alto had long demonstrated its commitment to art in many ways, and it was a modest way in which the City could preserve an important culture asset. He endorsed the comment by Planning Commissioner Eakins that the City should encourage art whenever it could in the community. He hoped the Comprehensive Plan process would identify ways to allow art studios of that nature to remain in residential areas as long as the impact was on the order of the Kirkeby’s studio. He supported the ten-year amortization. Council Member Andersen asked whether the City would have any leverage in the event the landscaping conditions regarding the front of the facility degenerated and became incompatible with a R-1 neighborhood. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the City did not have much leverage under the Ordinance since the language was a suggestion of what the owners intended to do rather than anything binding. The new weed abatement provisions provided some property maintenance standards, but it would take an extreme situation to trigger those requirements. Council Member Andersen clarified the City was working with the goodwill of the owners to make certain the properties stayed in an appropriate condition. Mr. Calonne said that was correct, especially with the driveway. Vice Mayor Kniss was reminded that Palo Alto was a small town with big city assets. There were comments made about the mix of business and residential and the security that came from that mix. It was special to see the number of people supporting the arts in the community. She supported the proposal. Council Member Rosenbaum originally had some objections when the issue was first proposed, but he had been won over by the testimony of the neighbors and, more importantly, by the indication that the Kirkeby’s were willing to significantly improve the appearance of the property. He was concerned the industrial-style garage door still remained at the front of the facility and hoped that aspect of the appearance might be improved. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 4 M A R G U E R I T E Attachment H April 2003 To the Planning Commission of the City of Palo Alto. Hamilton Avenue Paio Alto, CA 94301 ! know that Smith Andersen Edition has applied for non conforming use of the property on 440 Pepper Street. Smith Andersen is a very important asset to the community, it is a important place where artists can be printing and where great shows are taking place. It is the most important gallery space on the Peninsula and should be kept alive and vibrant. The only place you can admire world renowned works. I hope you will consider the request in a positive way and I am thankful for this decision. / S A E G E S S E R Attachment C 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 !0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ,31 32 33 34 37 38 39 :MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26: Wednesdm.’, April 30, 2003 REGULAR MEET~G - 7:00 PM ’ CiO, Council Chambers Civic Center; 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 9430J ROLL CALL: 7:00 PM Commissioners: Annette Bialson, Chair" Michael Griffin, t’Tce-Chai~" Karen Holman Patrick Burr Bonnie Packer Phyllis Cassel Joseph Bellomo Staff: Steve Emslie, Planning Director Lisa Grote, Chief.Planning Official Wynne FurTh, Senior Assistant City Attorney Susan Ondik, Planner Clare Campbell, Associate Planner John Lusardi, Planning Manager, Special .Projects Joe Teresi, Senior-~En~neer, Public Works Zariah t~etten, Executive Secretary AGENDIZED ITEMS: 1. 440 Pelaper Street* Zoning Code Change for 2"d Units Reports From Officials: Information on upcoming ordinance changes establishing storm water quati~, protection requirements for land development projects - Public Works. Reports From Committees: Zoning Ordinance Update. Chair Bialson: I would like to call this meeting to order. Would the Secretary please call roll. Thank you. The first item on the agenda is Oral Communications. OR_4L COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speA: to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available fi’om the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. Chair Bia!son: ! have no ,,aras for that so ! wil! close tha~ item. Cio, of Paio Alto Page ] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless relnoved from the calendar by a Commission Member. Chair Bialson: We don’t have any items on the Consent Calendar. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITION,.q AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. Chair Bialson: There are no Agenda Changes. UNFINISHED BUSINESS. Public Hearings: None. Chair Bialson: No Unfinished Business. Chair Bialson: So we will go on to New Business and the first item is 440 Pepper Street. Would Staff please make a presentation? NE W B USI]~SS. Public Hearings: 440 Pepper Street* - [03-ZC-04] Request by Stephen Player on behalf of Paula Kirkeby for a Zone Change to allow an extension of an existing nonconforming use, due to terminate on July 20, 2003, for an additional 10 years in the R-1 Single Family Residential zone district. Environmental Review: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmenta! Quality Act. SR Weblink: htm:ii,s’,~av.citvofpaloalto.or _~!citva~endaipublish/Marmin ~-transDortatiov.-meetin~s q 822.Ddf Ms. Lisa Grote. ChiefPlannin~ Official: thank you Chair Bialson and Commissioners. This is an application to adopt an ordinance change, which would change the text in Chapter 18.94, which is our nonconforming uses section of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the existing art studio to remain on the site at 440 Pepper Street for another ten years. So the sunset date for the use would be extended to July 20, 2013. The use has been on the site for approximately t5 years and in that time we have not received complaints from any of the nei~mhboring uses about disturbances or incompatibiliry of the use wdth the surrounding residential neighborhood. It is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies, which call for encouraging recreational uses both private and public, and to avoid the duplication of recreational type uses and this does provide uses and services that our Communib, Services Department with the City does contract with. So it avoids the duplication of those services by both the punic and private agency. We are supporting the application for an extension. As you may have noticed that because this is a Zoning Ordinance text change we aren’t able to put conditions on it. You can’t condition a Zoning Ordinance text change which is why we are encourag-ing the landscaping in the front setback area but are not putting conditions of approval on for that landscaping but we are encouraNng the appIicam to go ahead and provide that landscaping which we would then review again because it is a Zoning Ordinance text change that can’t be a condition of approval. With that we are recommending approval of the extension to July 20, 2013. I would City of Palo Aim Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 !3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 99 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 a4 45 46 47 48 like to introduce Clare Campbell she is the project planner on this. I think it is her first or second time in front of you but she and I are both here to answer questions. Chair Bialson: Any questions, Commissioners? Joe. Commissioner Bellomo: Just to clarify, Lisa. To disclose, I was out at the property today and I walked the site. It mentions that there was a summary of significant issues and that the property owner agreed to make improvements. That is on page two of the Staff Report. How is that executed or determined or agreed upon that that would happen to the streetscape for the building? Ms. Grote: It would be an agreement that the o~mer would consent to. It is a verbal agreement at this point and then as she would make those changes we would re~4ew them most likely at a Staff level for an architectural review Staff level. Commissioner Bel!omo: Would it have been appropriate at this level to have a schematic drawing of what those improvements might be so we could get a handle on this? It is a bit va~e for me. Ms. Grote: Actually, the application in front of you tonight is to extend the period of time for the use rather than any kind of physical improvements to the site. So it is really you are loo -k.ing at the land use rather than an?, physical improvements to the site. Commissioner Bellomo: Okay. Again, it is just a bit va=o-ue on how and when this will come about or if it will. So really it is voluntary is what we are saying. Ms. Grote: It is voluntary and if it does come about, if the applicant does move forward we would most likely review it at Stuff level. It is an architectural review application but at Staff level for minor landscaping changes. Commissioner Bellomo: So what you are saying is all we can do is encourage it. Ms. Grote: Correct. Commissioner Bellomo: Thanks. Chair Bialson: Pat. Commissioner Burr: How does the commitment on the landscaping by the property owner differ from the commitment they made ten years ago? Ms. Grote: h is a similar commitment. Commissioner Bun: And, does Staffhave any reason to believe it wil! be of different value than the last commitment? Ms. Grote: I do believe that the apphcant would like to make changes and improvements. The)’ may want to speak to that during theft- presentation as weli. Cio’ q,"Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 !6 !7 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ’-r! 48 Commissioner Butt: One question for Wynne. While the landscaping is not part of any condition that we can have attached to this, my understanding from reading the findings that are necessary for approval are that the finding issues ha~ing to do with compatibility with adjacent neigJaborhood and not detrimental to any other use can include the physical aspects of the property and its compatibility as part of a condition for extension. Ms. Wvnne Furth. Senior Assistant City Attorney: Unfortunately, this is an unusual "kind of zone change and you have to make those findings assuming really that the building and the project will be just as it is now. You can’t count on any changes being made. So if you believe that the project as it presently exists without the 1993 plans implemented isn’t suitable for extension then unfortunately you really can’t vote yes on condition because we can’t condition a zone. This is an unusual procedure but this is what we do in Palo Alto. We have this list of uses whose amortization periods have been extended out and it is basically just a yes or no decision, not a yes with conditions. Commissioner Burr: But our extension is not limited to considering a ten-year extension. Is that correct? Ms. Furth: That is correct. Chair Bialson: Any other questions? I think we should disclose contacts at this point and I will start. I did have a phone call from. Mr. Steve Player and we did have a Iittle bit of a discussion. Commissioner Cassel: I went out to the site on Saturday and Mr. Player was there, so was the owner and we had limited conversation. Chair Bialson: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I visited the site but I haven’t spoken with anyone. Commissioner Be!lomo: I visited the site today and had an oppommiD~ to meet an employee there, Tom, who showed me the back and inside of the building. Chair Bialson: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I am familiar wSth the site so I didn’t visit recently. Commissioner Butt: I visited the site on Saturday, did not run into Phyllis and then ~ briefly spoke with Steve Player before the meeting. Commissioner Griffin: I visited the site twice actually and I have not talked to anyone on the phone from the applicant. I did receive a phone call from a satisfied customer. Chair Bialson: Okay, I also visited the site and have been in the site previously on art related matters. I think we will hear from the applicant at this point. Mr. Player, are you going to be speaking for the appIicant? You have 15 minutes. Cio, of Paio Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2! 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Ms. Steve Player, Applicant: Thank you Madam Chairman. V~rhat I would like to do is talk briefly about the situation. It seems like ten years has gone by in an instant. It was kind of fun looking at the transcript from the past where everybody was saying ten years from 1993 what will you be doing in 2003 and the answer was maybe we will be back and here we are, we are back. It is interesting, it seems like in the blinking of an eye were here talldng about this particular issue and this particular treasure that we have in our community. I think that the record stands for itself in the sense of the value that this particular monotype studio has to the community. 1 l~e to look at it as part of the fabric of what makes Palo Alto unique. One of the unique things about Palo Alto is its deep commitment to the arts and to culture and that Paula Kirkeby and the Smith-Anderson Editions has been one of the keystones of that particular commitment to art and culture. Basically since 1993 the press has operated in the same manner that it existed in 1993. It has continued to offer classes to the City of Palo Alto, it has offered classes to young children, it has brought artists and residents of a national stature to work with the monotype .discipline and it has been a good neighbor. It has been ten years at that location since we got the extension and as Staff has reported there has been no objection raised by any of the neighbors. To the contra.D, Paula and Phil have been a real addition to the texture of that particular Venmra neighborhood. Paula Kirkeby is here to answer any question which you miglat have and there are several letters which have been delivered to you hopefully they are in your packet which are in support of our application. If you do not have I have several others, one is from Michael Flicker, Sidney Ma.vfield, Gall Wooley, Rex Vaugh and Hillary Favorman and I think there are several others that I have not seen. As long as they are all in your packet I won’t need to go through and read these. What we are asking for simply is things to remain the same as they have been for the last ten years, simply allowing an extension for that period of time, for another ten years. There are, as set forth in the report, there are issues raised and you have raised them here again tonight about improvements in the physical appearance of the building. Believe me the building looks about 100% better than it looked in 1993. They have expended considerable money in painting the building, in improving the asphalt, putting awmings on the building, there has been planting along the property, a new fence and several other improvements over the years to maintain the building in a manner, which is very suitable. I have seen some other buildings dov, qa in that particular neighborhood and I think this building and the improvements that have been made to it have been considerable. I know I have talked to Paula and Phil and they do have intentions to put some fencing around it. I think that the asphalt as such does allow off street partdng when they have classes there and is a positive in ftztat sense. There is par-king along the driveway so that there is no intrusiveness into the neig.hborhood of excess parking or traffic. If there is an intrusion in the neighborhood it is probably on a Monday Night Football night or an NCAA night when the Old Pro has cars lined up and dow~ Pepper Street. As I said I have severaI people here who are going to be spe "aking in support of it. The number one thing in support of the extension I think is the value to the Ci~" of Paio Alto. in t~is time Cir. of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 39 4O 41 43 44 45 46 47 48 of budgetary constraints when we are looking at benefits and what we can and cannot maintain in this City here is an asset, which provides a benefit that the City does not have to provide. It is a press it is a basis for teaching and providing classes for our City without any capital expenditure expense on the City’s behalf. What I would like to do is just simply, I don’t have 15 minutes of material because I think that is all pretty well set forth. What I would like to do is spend a few minutes now with Paula Kirkeby here rather than making a formal presentation if there are some questions that you would like to address to her at this time, and then I would mrn it over to members of the public who are speaking in support so we can get the issues out on the table. Chair Bialson: Thank you for your brevity. Do the Commissioners have questions? Yes we have some questions for Paula. Mr. Player: Paula, do you want to come down in front? Paula has just been elected to the Arts Commission so she is going to get used to speaking in public again. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Why don’t we start with questions from Phyllis? Commissioner Cassel: ~rhen this came before the Planning Commission ten years ago you indicated that the use would be for a single person or two that would perhaps be living onsite who would be studying there for a short period of time and you indicated that there would be two major meetings there during the year and four smaller workshops or classes. This time it sounds like there is a great deal more use of that site. Could you explain how intense the use it? How often you have classes? How large are the classes that you have there? Ms. Paula Kifkebv. Applicant: The ctasses are primarily from the City of Palo Alto and I think they have them scheduled three a ?,ear, so that has increased. They are pubhshed in a brochure that the City Art Center sends out and the Art Center has paid for those classes. In turn the A.rt Center pays the master printer that teaches the classes. There are ei_~_J~t students to a class. So those are the classes. The projects that we do I would say the project are approximately four to five a year which means an artist will come maybe travel from Oakland or San Mateo and come on a daily basis or from New York and stay at The Press for a couple of weeks and do their project. So there isn’t any impact as far as a lot of traffic. We have never had a complaint. I have asked our neighbors and speak with them. We have never had a complaint about this. But it has changed you are rigxht, Ms. Cassei, it has changed. Commissioner Cassel: The classes, you say you have three classes a year. Is it one class for --^’~ ~- ~’^-~- ~""~ days a week.ol1~ day or is it a class lot ~ ,lure .~vc Ms. Kirkebv: It is called a wor’kshop and they are for two days. The?, are a Saturday and a Sunday and they are listed in the Palo Alto Art Center brochure that goes out. Eight is the max number of students. .~~ hylh~: I(aren.Chair Bialson: Thank you. Do you have more questions ~ ~ ~ City o.fPaio Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 !5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 .37 38 39 4O 4I 42 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Holman: Just a quick question. I understand you are planning on doing some landscape change and Mr. Player mentioned potentially some fencing. Could you just say a little bit about what your plan is? Ms. Kirkebv: Well, my husband and I have discussed it because we lmow that is an issue. We have tried to make the building, paint it a little softer it had big stripes on it when we got it and we changed some of the planting, put planters and awnings and a little cosmetic surgery. We covered the white lines with the asphalt we resurfaced it. Okay. So now Steve talked to me about something else and my husband and I discussed a fence that we would setback however the City allows and it would have a rolling gate so that cars could sti!l come in and be parked there and we would plant in front, dig up the asphalt and put sod and plants in front of the fence if that would help the City. I have spoken to our neighbors in the City. and I knocked on doors and asked them and they said that they dicha’t think it was necessary. If the City. feels it is necessary it is something that cosmetically we have talked about and we will be very. happy to do. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Michael. Commissioner Griffin: I wonder for the benefit of those of us here that were not familiar with the before but only the after, maybe you could describe a iittie bit and you already have of course but Nve us some more on exactly what is it that you have done in compliance with this 1993 extension. Ms. Kirkebv: Okay. The building when we initially got it had big blue bands. I do have photo~aphs some place of that. Then in the driveway there were big white stripes with people’s names in the from. It looked like a real commercial building. So we picked a soft color that was conducive to the houses that were being built in the neighborhood and the other houses and we painted the building and then we put awnings in the front. It didn’t have awnings. We put awnings in the front of the building and in the back of the building. Then we had a fence put in on the side. As you face the building the left hand side that we share with a new neighbor and we put vines and things there and we take care of that. And we put planters in front of the building that have evergreen and flowers and keep it going. Then in the very front we had the City put a tree in because the tree had broken. Then we put planting along with the neighbors that live, as you face the building, to the right. We planted the front so that it would have a little more of a sense or feeling. That’s it. Commissioner Griffin: I take it that you would be willing to continue with the landscaping pro~arn and continue to make additional improvements. Ms. Kirkebv: Absolutely. We would do our very best. You know financially it is always a problem but we would absolutely do our best. I think that the best would be the idea with fencing in the building so no one sees this big asphalt look if that is offensive to anybody and then we would plan in front of the fence and still maintain par’king through the means of a sliding gate. Chair Biaison: Joe. Ci.rv of Paio Alto Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 -22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 _~1 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Bellomo: .The improvements you did make, Paula, were those shown to Planning Staff. Ms. Kirkeby: We were asked to make those improvements initial. Commissioner Bellomo: The improvements, but specifically the awnings were those specific requests? Ms. Kirkeb-v: No. Commissioner Bellomo: improvements? Ms. Kirkebv: No. We just tried to g-ive the building a.better cosmetic feel for the neighborhood. Commissioner Bellomo: Okay. The future changes that you might consider, landscaping, irrigation, whatever you do, are your plans to take that before Staff?, Ms. Kirkebv: I don’t "know about this Stuff. Commissioner Bellomo: Palo Alto’s Planning Staf-£ Ms. Kirkebv: .absolutely. Commissioner Bellomo: But the changes previously were not.o Ms. Kirkebv: No because it wasn’t reconstruction or puaing in a big fence. /~ Commissioner Bellomo: Okay. As far as the parking I believe it is a rolled curb, correct? Ms. Kirkebv: It is, the whole thing is. Commissioner Bellomo: So when people approach it they pull up and pull parallel into it. Initially you talked about stripes that were removed. Were there any ADA accessible stripes? Ms. Kirkebv: What is .~3A? Commissioner Bellomo: For handicap accessible spaces. Ms. Kirkebv: There weren’t an):, no bm it is handicap accessible. People come in wheelchairs. Commissioner Bellomo: They do? Ms. Kirkebv: Absolutely and you can wheel fight in and you can wheel fight into the bathroom. Those were just voluntary? You had no input fl"om the City on those Cio’ of Palo Aho Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 34 36 37 38 39 40 4! 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commis~ioner Belio-trio: I noticed that it was barrier free. Ms. Kirkebv: Absolutely. Commissioner Bellomo: Okay. Thanks. Those are my questions. Chair Bialson: Any other Commissioners? Thank you very much. Ms. Kirkebv: I would like to say that in ten years I will be 80 and I might come before you again if you approve this. Chair Bialson:. Just a second, I have one more Commissioner. Commissioner Packer: This is more a question of curiosity. Ten years ago it was indicated that when you bought the building 15 years ago you didn’t "know it was residential because I assume the building has always been used for commercial purposes. Ms. Kirkebv: Yes. Commissioner Packer: Do you know what it was used for before? Ms. Kirkebv: Yes I know several things that it was used for. It was a Volvo garage at one time. It is a very. interesting community this little area. It serviced the professors at Stanford. The whole area, the little houses and eve ,rything is really veD" interesting historically. Then some man bought the building and he rented part of it to a landscape architect and then he had all kinds of windows and things that he was selling in the building. It was a window display and sales place. That is what I "know. Chair Bialson: Thank you..Any more from the applicant, Mr. Player? _Mr. Player: No, I have nothing more. Only to say that this is such a positive asset and it is a pleasure to come before you when vou are as-king for something that you know is going to benefit the City and has continued to benefit the City. It is so rare sometimes that we get an opportunity to do something that when you walk away from it you can feel ve~, positive about the fact of what we have done. So I would encourage your support in ~anting the extension as recommended by Staff. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. I think we should hear from members of the public now. The first person is Duncan King to be followed by Michele Sullivan and you will have five minutes. Mr. Duncan Kin~. 2471 E. Bavshore Road. Palo Alto: I will take less than five minutes. I was not born here but I was raised here, went throu~, the Palo _Mto school system, have practiced law in Palo Alto for 30 years. I have also made monotypes in Paula’s studio. I am over there on occasions. What I -know about the place is it is absolutely unique. It benefits not only the community, because community members can come in there and use these presses to use this wonderful medium called monotype but she also brings in other artists, some well-known some not so well-imown. Many of them for the first time are able to make monotypes here. Many of those monorypes stay in the community so the art that is made there by these famous and free Ci~; of Palo Aho Page 9 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 43 44 45 46 47 48 artists stay here. I think it is a tremendous asset. I would request as a citizen of Palo Alto that you grant the extension. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Michele Sublivan to be followed by Linda Craighead. Ms. Michele Sublivan. 461 Pevper Street. Palo Alto: Good evening Madam Ch~erson and members of the Commission. I am going to be very brief because I gave extended remarks back in 1993 when we had the first extension. We, I reside at 461 Pepper with my partner Barbara Salon, and we endorsed and supported the extension back in !993 and we wholeheartedly support the request for an extension to 2013. We believe that this property, is a really good use. It is welcome in our neighborhood. We like Paula and her husband as our neighbors. We now have several young children in our neighborhood who I think probably at some point in time are going to be able to take advantage of this facility right across the street from them and I think that is just gear. So I wholeheartedly endorse this and hope that you do gant this extension. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Just one second, can I ask a question? V~rhat are your feelings about the landscaping in the front of the house? Ms. Sublivan: Well, we purchased our house in 1986 and I will tell you that the propert~~ looked just awful at that point. That was just before Paula purchased it. Then in 1993 she did extensive improvements on it be the color of the property now fits in more naturally with neighborhood, the landscaping looks nice. I iike the awnings because I think it takes away from the commercial aspect of it and makes it blend in better. We have had no problem with any of the parking there as was mentioned we have more problems with the Old Pro than we do with anything else that takes place on the street. Right now I would say it looks very, very nice and if she decides that she is going to do any improvements she has always consulted us. Again, it would be something that would be welcome. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Linda Craighead to be followed by Leon Kaplan. Ms. Linda Crai~head. 1313 Newell Road. Palo Alto: I am the Director at the Palo Alto Art Center. So the Palo Alto Art Center and I have been a huge beneficiary of Paula and Smith- Anderson Editions. So I really look at this as a great oppormmty to speak in favor of The Press. We did an exhibition when I first came to the Center called "Directions in Bay Area Print Making" and Smith-Anderson Press is one of the really f_me presses in the Bay Area was represented in that exhibition. In the catalog Sidney Mayfield the curator who put the exhibition together said Smith-Anderson primarily was put together to print intimate scale prints and monotypes. Kirkeby preferred an open door for the artists to explore printm -ak_ing rather than to require the artist to do a finished product. That has really been one of the wonderful things for me as the Director of the Art Center. The Art Center is all about arts education mad Paula has been a huge supporter in terms of an education and what we are doing and has allowed students to come in and out of her studio even though it is only eight students per quarter it is a huge resource for them in terms of time and access to a really professional press. I cannot think of another example like that where a press allows students to come in- and to print and use their faciiities. Pauia has been incredibly generous over the years. She has donated prints to the Art Center in terms our fund raising efforts, which we have used and she has contributed presses to us. We had a press I think for over three months for a Project Look Cio: of Paio .4ito .Page l 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 progam teaching the kids how to print. That was an incredible experience of kids worldng on a real professional press. The collaboration, the classes for adults when we are all looking for places to work together to maximize our resources Paula is a wonderful, wonderful example of that. I encourage you to continue. Give Smith-Anderson that extension. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Leon Kaplan and I have no other speaker request cards. Mr. Leon Kaplan. 1313 Newell Road. Palo Alto: I am the Director of Arts and Culture for the City of Palo Alto. In the interest offal! disclosure I win be 70 in ten years. The Staff Report and earher speakers have actually .explained to you the enormous value that The Press has to the City of Palo Alto and I will attest to that, it is tree. It is a true statement. it is an invaluable treasure to this community. I will add that Paula has been generous to the City of Palo .alto and that over the last ten years we have taken possession because of Paula’s generosity of 50 monotypes valued in the tens of thousands of dollars that form part of the two- dimensional collection of the City of Palo Alto. I urge you to gant this extension. It is a no- brainer. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. I see there are no other speakers so I will bring this back to the Commission. Do you have any questions or comments? Let’s combine them today. Karen. Commissioner Holman: Just one clarification. The extension is for an art studio and not specific to this business, correct? Ms. Grote: That is correct. It could change ownership. They would be required to have the same types of uses that this facility offers but it could change ownership. Chair Bialson: Pat. Commissioner Burt: I will just offer a comment. After reading the StaffReport and the reports from a decade ago I was concerned with this issue of the landscaping and commitments that had been made but after hearing from the applicant from at least one nei~o_Jabor it seems that the improvements to the site have made it more compatible than it was when orig-inal nonconforming extension was ganted a decade ago. So for those reasons I will take the applicant’s commitment to continue those improvements and I will be supporting the Staff recommendation. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Joe. Commissioner Bellomo: I will also be supporting this fantastic asset to the community. I have one question for Staff. A use of this type is required for discretionary review on ;m-~provements, correct? Are they exempt from improvement? It says owner ageed improvements, are they exempt from Staff level review of awnings, fencing, landscaping, irrigation, parking, striping? Though I concur with Pat there are improvements made are they in another ball field? Ms. Grote: The?: are not exempt. So any furore changes would need to go through a Staff level review. Cit3.’ of Palo Alto Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 !6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Bellomo: It is not a condition but more of an on the record statement that improvements. Ms. Grote: Are subject to most likely a Stafflevel review because they are going to be of minor nature. Commissioner Bellomo: Of course. Okay. I am here to support this recommendation. Chair Bialson: Bonnie. MOTION Commissioner Packer: I would like to make a motion if it is not too premature that we support the Staffrecommendation to recommend to the City Council to adopt the ordnance that is Attachment A in the Staff Report for the extension of this wonderful nonconforming use. Is there a second before I speak? Chair Bialson: Is there a second? SECOND Commissioner Cassel: I’ll second it. Chair Bialson: Phyllis seconds. Would you like to speak to your motion? Commissioner Packer: I wish I could incorporate, well I will incorporate by reference the wonderful comments that were made in 1993 when this nonconforming use was first ganted by the Commissioners at that time, including Phyllis and Sandy, about the value of this art studio. In addition to that I would like to say that there are times when an area that is zoned for all one kind of thing like an R-1 use really benefits from a little bit of eclecticism and it makes the whole neighborhood just that much more interesting and a better place to live. That neighborhood is ve~ eclectic. That part of Pepper Street is right near E1 Camino, there is Viking Auto Body on the comer, there is a tot of stuff going on and this particular use, which was something commercial for years before, seems to add to the neighborhood rather than detract from it. So this is a time when I really feel happy to make this motion in order to encourage where appropriate these different uses in an R-1 neighborhood. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Phyllis, would you care to speak to your second? Commissioner Casse1: I was on the Planning Commission when this came before us before. It was one of my first items that x heard. -c ~ ¯~,~oj~,,.L does ......look a .............it did before. It is a _m-eat improvement. It does seem to be maintaining a low intensity use, which the?, promised it would originally. There are two two-story houses now to the left side of this project which means that this building is no longer the tallest one in the area and new houses seem comfortable moving in beside the project which I think means that people are feeling comfortable with the business. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 I axn a httle concerned that in talking about doing something with the parking, which I think needs to be done, that we are overdoing it if we start putting fences in front and I think there is probably something a little simpler that can be done that can make this a httle more comfortable and maintain the parldng space. When I first read this I was almost an_my when I read that nothing had been done about the parldng but I was quite reheved when I went over to see the site and felt it had made a geat deal of improvement. So I am happy to second it. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Michael. Commissioner Griffin: I enjoyed hearing the resume of what improvements have been made to the property in thelast ten years. We obviously are dependent on the applicant’s continued good will to continue to exercise come artistic creativi~ over there and I am feeling confident that we are going to be seeing that. I am pleased to support the motion. Chair Bialson: Okay Karen, you can talk before me. AMENDED MOTION Commissioner Holman: I actually was considering a friendly amendment. The amendment was to extent the nonconforming use to !5 years. The reason for that is because I think everyone including the neig, hbors, which is geat support to have, supports this use. It is a unique use. Although the applicant said that in ten years she will be 80 and mi~__ht be back here again what I thought about when I was rea.ding the StaffReport was this is such a unique use and ifI had to do the process again would that help me make up my mind whether to retire and close down the business or not, maybe. I think what we can do to help support these really artistic, creative, unique uses, anything we can do to help that especially with such neighborhood support would be well advised. So I would ask a friendly amendment be approved by the maker and seconder of the motion for the extension to be ganted for 15 years to the year 2018. Commissioner Packer: I don’t see an?’ reason why not. I’ll accept it. Chair Bialson: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I wasn’t going to accept it. The reason has to do with this extension of the nonconforming use. This is probably one of the last of the nonconforming uses extended from the previous extensions. There are only one or two left in town. By this time we should have finally got through to some zoning and some changes and this may indeed have a change to it zone to a more mixed use and not need the extension. That is what was hoped that we wouldn’t need it this time because that would have happened and it didn’t happen. Ten years with one use a tot of things can happen in that particularly and we can’t condition this on whether someone wi!! !ive to 80 and it wi!! be the same o,.~er. So under those circumstances think we should keep it where it is. Chair Bialson: Okay. I have a question..Do I ask-for a different second now or a dif!%ren-~ motion? Cio’ o./’Paio Alto Page I3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 !6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Ms. Furth: Well, Karen can move her amendment as an unfriendly amendment, simply as an amendment to the motion. Chair Bialson: Okay. Karen. Commissioner Holman: Or could it be a substitute motion? Which is more appropriate? Ms. Furth: You can do either one. SUBSTITUTE MOTION Commissioner Holman: Then I would move a substitute motion, which would be to approve the Staff recommendation with the one change that the extension be granted for 15 years to the year 2018. If a second comes along I will say one other thing about it. SECOND Chair Bialson: I will second that. Commissioner Holman: Thank you, A_nnette. I appreciate absolutely what Phyllis’s comments are but I think we thought by now the change in zoning prob=bly would have happened in that area and if the zoning change doesn’t happen or even if it does we would have a conforming use there. So I am less concerned about a nonconforming use and more enthusiastic about supporting the use that does exist there at this time. Chair Bialson: I did not speak to the previous motion or the motion that is now before us. I will just say that I will be supporting the motion and the reason for that is essentially that I think this is a huge asset to the communitT. It was in 1.993, it still continues to be and I think that we should trv to maintain and make as easy as possible the continuance of this family run wonderful cultural gem we have in our communiD,. While we sit here and talk about doing things and making plans and presenting them to Staff you have to understand that that does distract from people doing what they are best at doing. It is also a dedication of funds that we are imposing on a party, that mav not be necessary. The neighbors aren’t as’king for it, no one else seems to be as’king for it and for us to take that position I think is unduly harsh. I will be supporting the 15 years because I a_m-ee with Karen that on a human basis as people start approaching these points in time where they are facing the need to do something more that can weig, h into the issue of whether one retires, whether one bothers to go out and find someone else who will follow in your footsteps. So that is why, I will be supporting the 15-year term. MOTION PASSED t¢,,,~,,l~, do,,’* want to ,~;."-~ it then ! tui~rg: ,,,,,hat we ~houta do is vote on that substitute motion. So the motion before us at this time is to essentially go with the recommendation of the StaffReport however we are=~,oin~, to extend for 15 years to Julvo 20., 2018. Is that correct? All those in favor say’ aye. (ayes) All those against say nay. (nay). That motion carries with all the Commissioners but Phyllis Cassei. Thank you veD’ much. That is the end of the matter. ! have one more comment. Karen. Cio’ qFPalo Aho Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Commissioner Holman: Yes, in reading the Staff Report and this has been addressed by other Commissione~ too it does read, and I appreciate the Planner has not been on Staff long enough to have seen ti,~e prior condition of the property but maybe from prior photo~aphs could there perhaps be a more clear explanation of what changes have transpired at the propero, when the project goes to the Council? That would be much appreciated. Ms. Grote: We will do that. Chair Bialson: Thank you and thank you for everyone attending. The next item is Item Number Two and dens with zoning change for the Code with regard to second units. Commissioners, we are going to bifurcate this to a certain extent because our City Attorney who is in attendance tonight will not be able to be here with regard to items in the RMI) and P zone because she lives within 500 feet of such a zone. Is that correct, Wynne? Ms. Furth: That is. So we are as-king that the Staff Report will be on the entire project and then the public hearing as well but when you have questions and deliberations if you could handle the matters outside of that district first then I will leave and you can discuss the remaining issues with the rest of the Staff. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. A new cast of characLers. Staff, care to make a presentation? Zoning Code Change for 2nd Units: The Commission will consider an amendment to Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to make accessory dwelling units a permitted use in the RE, R-1 and OS districts in accordance with State Law. SR Weblink: htm://~rw.citv~f-~a~a~t~.~r~/~irva~-enda/pub~ish/D~annin~-transp~rta~n-rneetin~sq 824.~df Mr. John Lusardi. Plannin~ Manager. Special Proiects: Yes. Madam Chair and members of the Commission the item before you tonight is revisions to the single-family district regarding state housing legislation and second dwelling units. The proposal is to amend the zoning code to eliminate discretionary review and public review of second dwelling units and replace it with a Stafflevel and a ministerial review. Essentially a ministerial review is the same as a building permit review. Just as a note, on the average we have had five second-units built per year from the years 1985 to 2002. That is what our records show" to date. We think it is very important to emphasize the reason for this proposed change now prior to the proposed Zoning Ordinance Update. On September 29, 2002 Assembly Bill 1866 was si~med into law. The bill was very explicit in changing the government code and stating that when a local agency receives its first application on or after July 1, 2003 for a permit pursuant to the subdivision that is second units the application shall be considered ministerial without discretionary., review or hearing. The important distinction there is that what we are dea!ing v.dth here is the use, that is the second unit use, that is what is being delineated in the state legislation. Under the new leNslation second dwelling units must be reviewed ministerially and without a public hearing. Timing is an issue here as the leNslation takes effect on July 1, 2003 and we need to amend our Zoning Ordinance to address that deadline. City qfPalo Alto Page 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 43 44 45 46 47 Having stated that the state legislation requirements for the proposed changes are what is really driving this it is important to note that changes in the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element that the Council recently approved also promote the same goals that are being shown in the state legislation and as also contained in the proposed ordinance before you this evening. Program H- 7 encouragkng second units and H-8 allowing small attached ministerial units. What will not change with respect to this is the existing developmen~ standards for detached second units. That is minimum lot sizes, maximum unit sizes, allowable floor area, setback requirements, all of those will remain in the Zoning Ordinance and the second units will be required to meet those standards. Also this does not legalize any illegal second units that are in the commu~ty at this time. Now what will change is ministerial review of second units in the estate residential, the single family R-1 and the Open Space, OS, districts. The change is that the second dwelling units from conditional use permit to a permitted use in these zoning districts. An additional change is under the R-1 district a unit over a garage but still within the building envelope, an important distinction, was also a conditional use requiring special findings. Those special findings will no longer be allowed. However, it is important to point out that if it is a second story, even over a garage unit, it would trigger the individual review process and that individual review process would be the same review process that now exists. That is, it would be subject to appeal because that is not a use issue in that regard. That is a recommendation that we are making, a change that is different from your staff report and we’ll get into that at the end. We v,411 clarif2y those changes. What will also change are attached second units in these zoning districts. We will allow small attached second units with the following development standards: a size of up to 250 square feet, the entrs~vay where no exterior stairway or no street-facing entry,, compatibiIity with main unit and with respect to style, roof pitch, color and materials and on parking of one additional parking space..Another important note here is any second unit that is an attached unit and is a second story unit would also be subject to individual review process and would also be subject to the appeal process that currently exists in the individual review progam. Staff level Architectural Review Board of second units in the RMD (NrP) district is a distinction here and it is a change. It is really an interpretation again of the fact that the RMD and the _NrP review is being triggered by the second unit. Basically the interpretation of the state legislation says that any second unit that triggers a review is a ministerial review or a staff level review. That means that a second unit is already permitted in the RMD district but with neighborhood preservation overlay and it must have an ARB review. That is the current conditions. The change that the state legislation dictates is that the ARB stafflevel review be in place with no public hearing and no appeal because a public hearing for a second unit and not the primary unit is what is triggering that review. e.~ep,~,n~ w~th~ the PdV~ a,,’*,’,,’* there are cent’s.anThe development -~ +;~" a" ; .......... ,,w~ .........ptlons that are different than the variance process. Those development exceptions would remain in place and the process with respect to those development exceptions would remain in place. That is Ney would still be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator through a public hearing and could be suNect to appeal. That does not change the condition or the requirement of the second use. Cin., of Pato Alto Page ]6