Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-20 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: OCTOBER 20, 2003 CMR:423:03 4044 SUTHERLAND DRIVE [03-AP-07]: APPEAL BY WEIPING WANG AND HELEN FENG OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S DENIAL OF A HOME IMPROVEMENT EXCEPTION APPLICATION TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING RESIDENCE (90 SQUARE FEET) TO ENCROACH 5’-0" INTO THE REQUIRED 25’-0" CONTEXTUAL FRONT YARD SETBACK. ZONE DISTRICT: R-1(743). FILE NO.: 03- HIE-12. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s original denial of the Home Improvement Exception at 4044 Sutherland Drive (Attachment A). The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommends the City Council grant the appeal and approve the Home Improvement Exception (HIE) application as requested, based upon two changed findings, as indicated in Attachment B. BACKGROUND An appeal was filed by the property owners of 4044 Sutherland Drive, in reference to the June 11, 2003 Director’s decision to deny the HIE application. Attachment C contains a more detailed project description, history, and discussion of the applicant’s appeal statements with staff’s responses, as well as the resource impact, policy implications, environmental review, and attached letters from the property owners and neighborhood residents. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The PTC reviewed this project at its meeting on August 13, 2003 and voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council support the appeal and make the required findings for the approval of the HIE application. Minutes of the meeting are provided as Attachment D. The CMR:423:03 Page 1 of 3 PTC stated that the following three findings could be made for project approval (see Attachment B: Record of Land Use Action): (1)"Finding number one can be met on the basis of the value of the two mature trees in the backyard that would be lost (with a rear yard addition), one at least that is visible to the surrounding areas and desirable to the compatibility and overall character of the neighborhood." (2)The proposed project would be "significantly more desirable as a one-story addition with a very minor encroachment in the front setback over the alternative of a two-story home which is less compatible (with neighborhood character). Second, the broader definition of the neighborhood character, which is for purposes of this HIE, was a different definition than we have in the R-1 (District regulations). The neighborhood character certainly would include properties across the street, immediately across the street, and in any event a two-story home has been acknowledged as not being consistent with the houses on the side of the street that this property is on". (3)The proposed addition encroaches into the contextual front yard setback but still maintains a 20-foot setback from the front property line. Other than violating the contextual front yard setback, the project would meet all applicable City codes and ordinances and would not be detrimental or injurious to adjacent properties, the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. Moreover, the PTC noted that a 20-foot front setback had been the required setback in this neighborhood until November 2001, that flaws in the standard HIE findings have resulted in unintended consequences, and that a second-story addition would cause a change to the neighborhood character. The PTC also inquired about the process for initiation of a zoning code amendment concerning the HIE approval process and the contextual front yard setback requirement. This request was a result of the discussion of this application and was not listed on the heating agenda. Therefore, staff recommended that the request be advertised as a regular agenda item for a future public hearing (at a time to be determined) and that the PTC initiate the amendment(s) at that time. ALTERNATIVE TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION The PTC recommendation is in opposition to staff’s recommendation for the outcome of this project application. If the City Council supports the PTC’s recommendation to support the appeal, the three required findings for approval of this HIE application are provided in Attachment B. CMR:423:03 Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Record of the City Council Land Use Action (Staff Recommendation) Record of the City Council Land Use Action (PTC Recommendation) Report to the Planning and Transportation Commission dated August 13, 2003 Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Project Plan Set (Council Members only) COURTESY COPIES Weiping Wang and Helen Feng, Property Owners Eric Keng, Project Applicant Jean Wilcox, Resident Rosemary Nurre, Resident PREPARED BY: Chris Magnhss6"n, Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~_ ~%//~_~ Emil}’-~arri~0-~- Assistant City Manager CMR:423:0a Pa~e o of 3 Attachment A ACTION NO. 2003- RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 4044 SUTHERLAND DRIVE: HOME IMPROVEMENT EXCEPTION 03-AP-07 (ERIC KANG, APPLICANT) At its meeting of , 2003, the Council of the City of Palo Alto upheld the denial of the request for a Home Improvement Exception to allow an addition to the existing residence, 90 s.fo of which would encroach 5’-0" into the required 25’-0" contextual front yard setback,making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION I. Backqround. The Director of Planning and Community Environment ("Director") finds, determines,and declares as follows: A. On May 7, 2003, applicant, Eric Kang, submitted a request for a Home Improvement Exception (HIE) on behalf of Weiping Wang and Helen Feng, property owners of the residence at 4044 Suther!and Drive. The proposed project involves an addition to the existing master bedroom of approximately 200 s.f., in order to provide a new master bathroom and additional usable floor area. 90 s.f. of the (approx.) total 200s.f. would encroach into the contextual front yard setback.The encroachment into the required front yard setback resultsfrom the location of the addition and its proposed size. B. Following Staff review, the Director reviewed and denied the project on June Ii, 2003. C. It is possible to achieve the layout of the proposed floor plan without encroaching into the required front yard setback by reducing the size of the master bedroom and bathroom by 2-3 feet within each room. As a result, the new bathroom would not have to be relocated and access for sewer lateral connection would still be feasible.This alternative would comply with City regulations; avoid any significant hardship to the existing house design; andthe eliminate the need for other, more costly design concepts, such as an addition to the rear of the building with removal of a tree and the redesign of the existing floor plan or an new second-story addition. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The appeal of Staff’s decision and the scope of this project are exempt from the 1 provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act Sections 15270 and 15301. per SECTION 3. Home Improvement Exception Findings 1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved in that : There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions.applicable to the subject property that would justify the requested encroachment into the required 25-foot contextual front setback. The lots surrounding the site are of similar size and have similarly sized houses. They maintain the 25-foot contextual front yard setback. It is possible to reconfigure the building addition in order to comply with the current zoning regulations, thus eliminating the need for an exception. 2. The granting of the application is not desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character, which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of the regulations in that : The proposed project would maintain the architectural style of the existing residence, but it would alter the neighborhood character. The contextual setback, which the applicants wish to violate, is explicitly designed to maintain neighbor character. 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that: The proposed addition encroaches into the contextual front yard setback. Other than violating the contextual front yard setback, the project would meet all applicable City codes and ordinances and would not be detrimenta!or injurious to adjacent properties, the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. SECTION 4. Home Improvement Exception Denied. Improvement Exception No. 03-HIE-12 is denied. Home 2 PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by Easy Living Home titled "Residential Addition for: Weiping and Helen Wang", consisting of 4 pages, dated March 20, 2003, revised May 6, 2003, and received May 7, 2003. Attachment B ACTION NO. 2003- RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 4044 SUTHERLAND DRIVE: HOME IMPROVEMENT EXCEPTION 03-AP-07 (ERIC KANG, APPLICANT) At its meeting of , 2003, the Council of the City of Palo Alto granted the Appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s denial of the request for a Home Improvement Exception to allow an addition to the existing residence, 90 s.fo of which would encroach 5’-0" into the required 25’-0" contextual front yard setback, "supporting the Planning and Transportation Commission’s findings, determination and declarations: SECTION I. Background. determines, and declares as follows: The City Council finds, A. On May 7, 2003, applicant, Eric Kang, submitted a request for a Home Improvement Exception (HIE) on behalf of Weiping Wang and Helen Feng, property owners of the residence at 4044 Sutherland Drive. The proposed project involves an addition to the existing master bedroom of approximately 200 s.f., in order to provide a new master bathroom and additional usable f!oor area. 90 s.f. of the (approx.) total 200 s.f. would encroach into the contextual front yard setback. The encroachment into the required front yard setback results from the location of the addition and its proposed size. B. Following Staff review, the Director of Planning and Community Environment (~Director") reviewed and denied the project on June II, 2003. C.On August 13, 2003, the Planning and Transportation Commission ("Commission") reviewed the- staff recommendation to uphold the Director’s denial of the project. The Commission voted unanimously to support the appeal of the Home Improvement Exception, making the Findings in Section 3 of this document. In addition, the Commission noted that (i) a 20-foot front setback had been the required setback in this neighborhood until November 2001, (2) flaws in the standard HIE findings have resulted in unintended consequences, and (3) a second story addition would cause a change to the neighborhood character. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The appeal of Staff’s decision and the scope of this project are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act Sections 15270 and 15301. per SECTION 3.Home Improvement Exception Findings i. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved in that : There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property that justify the requested encroachment into the 25-foot contextual front setback. There are two mature trees in the backyard that would be lost with a rear yard addition, one at least that is visible to the surrounding areas and desirable to the compatibility and overall character of the neighborhood. 2. The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing archi tectural style or neighborhood character, which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of the regulations in that : The proposed project would be significantly more desirable as a one-story addition with a very minor encroachment in the front setback over the alternative of a two-story home which is less compatible with neighborhood character. Second, the broader definition of the neighborhood character, which is for purposes of this HIE, was a different definition than we have in the R-I (District regulations). The neighborhood character includes properties across the street, immediately across the street, and a two-story home is less consistent with the houses on the side of the street that this property is on. 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that: The proposed addition is a minor encroachment into the contextual front yard setback but still maintains a 20-foot setback from the front property line. Other than violating the contextual front yard setback, the project would meet all applicable City codes and ordinances and would not be detrimental or injurious to adjacent properties, the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. 2 SECTION 4. Home Improvement Exception Approved. Improvement Exception No. 03-HIE-12 is approved. Home PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by Easy Living Home titled "Residential Addition for: Weiping and Helen Wang", consisting of 4 pages, dated March 20, 2003, revised May 6, 2003, and received May 7, 2003. 3 Attachment C PLANNING DMSION STAFF REPORT 2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PLANNING & TR_A_NSPORTATION COMMISSION Chris Magnusson Planner DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community Environment August 13, 2003 4044 Sutherland Drive [03-AP-07]: Appeal by Weiping Wang and Helen Feng of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s denial of a Home Improvement Exception application to allow an addition to the existing residence, 90 s.f. of which would encroach 5’-0" into the required 25’-0" contextual front yard setback. Environmental Assessment: Categorically exempt from the Califomia Environmental Quality Act per section 15301. Zone District: R-1(743). File No.: 03-HIE-12. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transaortation Commission recommend that the City Council den?, the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Communit3, Environment’s ori~mnal denial (Attachment A). BACKGROUND proiect History On May 7, 2003, apphcant, Eric Kang, submitted a request (03-HIE-12) for a Home Improvement Exception (HIE) on behalf of Weiping Wang and Helen Feng, propert%., o~naers of the residence at 4044 Sutherland Drive (see Attachment B). After re-~dewing the application, staff informed the applicant that all required findings for the HIE approval could not be made for the project. On June 11, 2003, a Director’s decision to den?’ the application was rendered in writing and mailed to the applicant (see Attachment C). The proposed project involves an addition to the existing master bedroom of approximately 200 s.f., in order to provide a new master bathroom and additional usable floor area. 90 s.f. of the (approx.) total 200 s.f. would encroach into the contextual front yard setback. The encroachment IIII.U LIIE; I ~L!LLU CU I-I.UIIL ~Vi:IlL! bGLU:dL;Ji I C;bL.tll.b ~ UIII LLIE IU~i::I,LIUII UI LII~, i:ILIUILIUII and - ......... -~ size. City of Palo Alto F~age 1 DISCUSSION KIE Findin_-s The HIE request was originally denied because not all of the three required findings for approval, as set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.90.055(a), could be made. This determination was based on the review of all information contained within the project file, all public comments received, and the review of the proposal in comparison to all applicable zoning and municipal code requirements. It is Staff’s position that a viable addition to the residence can be accomplished without an exception to the zoning re~m.~lations. In ligaht of not being able to make all of the required findings to support the exception, and after reviewing documentation submitted after the original denial, Staff concludes that the Director’s decision should be upheld, with substantiation of the findings as follows: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinau, circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to propert3, in the same district. No exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property were evident, as it relates to the exception request. The lots surrounding the site possess similar lot sizes and house sizes, in addition to maintaining the 25-foot contextual front yard setback. It is possible to reconfig~re the building addition and comply with the zoning regulations, thus eliminating the need for an exception. The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural s~. le or neighborhood characzer, which would nor otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of the regulations. A one-story addition is preferable to a two-story addition in this case, to preserve the character of the one-story neighborhood. However, the encroachment is not needed to maintain the architectural style of the existing residence, since an addition could be constructed that does not violate zoning standards. Furthermore, the proposed project would not be consistent with the neighborhood character because it would not comply with the contextual setback standard. This standard is specifically designed to maintain neighborhood character. The granting of the application will nor be detrimental or injurious ~o propert?, or improvements in the vicinit?, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safe~,, general welfare, or convenience. The proposed addition encroaches into the contextual front yard setback but still maintains a 20-foot setback from the front property line. Other than violating the contextual front yard setback, the project would meet el! applicable City codes and ordinances and would not be detrimental or injurious to adjacent properties, the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. City of Palo A#o F~age 2 The letter requesting the appeal indicates the property owners’ position in regard to the ¯ Director’s decision, stating that the support.of the community should be taken into account (see Attachment D). In terms of meeting the required findings for approval, the owners indicate the following: (1) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the proper~y because the building was constructed with a slab-on-grade foundation, the bathroom location is critical to allow positive slope for connection of sewer hne(s), and a tree within the rear yard makes expansion impossible within that area; (2) keeping the expansion of the existing residence to single-story would preserve the architectural style and neighborhood character, rather than building a second-story addition; and (3) the projact would not be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity because of the neighborhood support, and a distance of 25 feet from the face of the building to the edge of the sidewalk would still be maintained (see Attachment E). As referenced in the letter of appeal, neighbors’ written statements submitted to the Planning Division have also been attached for the Commission’s review (see Attachment F). In response to the applicant’s statements above, Staff believes that it is possible to achieve the layout of the proposed floor plan and maintain the contextual front yard setback by reducing the size of the master bedroom and bathroom by _-0 feet within each room. As a result, the new bathroom would not have to be relocated and access for sewer lateral connection would still be feasible. Furthermore, Staff believes : (1) this is the appropriate option for compliance witt-i City re~m.llations; (2) this would alleviate any significant hardship due to the existing house desig-n; and (3) this would eliminate other, more costly design concepts, such as an addition to the rear of the building with removal of a non-protected tree and the redesig-n of the existing floor plan or a new second-story addition. In terms of pubhc comment on the appeal, an email from a neighborhood resident, supporting the original decision of the Planning Director for denial of the application, was received by Staff and has been provided as Attachment G. RESOURCE IMPACT The project application and the appeal fees are not cost-recovery and do not cover the cost(s) associated with the continued review of this application. Continued review of this application through appea! affects various Staff resources, such as an increase in workload and the creation of new costs to prepare for and carry out public hearings. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies. ENWIRON-MEN~rAL REVIEW The appeal of Staff’s decision and the scope of this project are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Sections 15270 and 15301. ATTA CI-IMEh~rs Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Site Map Home Improvement Exception Denial Letter Owners’ Appeal Letter HIE Project Description Letter (03-HIE-12) Letters of Project Support Email from Neighborhood Resident Project Plan Sets (Commissioners Only) COURTESY COPIES Weiping Wang and Helen Feng, Property Owners Eric Keng, Project Applicant Jean Wilcox, Neighborhood Resident Prepared by:Chris Magnusson, Planner Reviewed by: Amy French, Current Planning Manag(~- DEPA_RTtt, IENT/DI~SlSION HEAD .&PPROV ’ ~--~ Lisa ~/rote, Chief Plann~g Official City of Palo Alto Page 4 Attachment B Site Map 4044 Sutherland Drive Attachment C June 11, 2003 City of P alo Alto Department of Planning ant~ Community Enviornment Eric Keng 616 Ramona Sn’eet, Suite 21 Palo Alto, California 94301 RE: Denial of 03-HIE-12 (4044 Suthefland Drive) Planning Division Dear Mr. Keng, After reviewing your completed apphcation for a Home Improvement Exception (HIE) for a five-foot (5’) encroachment into the current twenty-five foot (25’) contextual front yard setback, staff has concluded that we cannot support this request and the apphcation is hereby denied. Upon reviewing your application staff was able to confirm two of the three required findings but unable to confirm the first of the three findings: There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the proper~y involved that do not generally apply to the property in the same district. The lots surrounding your home all have similar lot sizes, home sizes, and the same twenty-five foot (25’) setback. Staff has determined that it is possible to reconfignre the addition to comply with the current zoning regulations. This denial may be appealed pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.92. The appeal period expires ten (10) days from the posmaark date of this letter. Please contact me at (650) 617-3137 if you have an?, questions concerning this matter. Sincerely, Amy French, Manager of Current Planning cc. Bryan A. Moore Weiping Wang & Helen Feng 4044 Sutherland Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 250 Ymmiiton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, C.,a. 9"_303 6503292441650.329.21~." June 21, 2003 Zoning Administrator Department of Planning and Community Environmem 5’~ Floor, Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attachment D RECEIVED JUN g 4 2003 Dep~rl:mem ot ~’~nnmD Comn~n~j En~ironmem RE: Denia! of 03-HIE-12 (4044 Sutherland Drive) Dear Ms. Amy French,. We are dissatisfied with the denial of 03-HIE-12 (4044 Sutherland Drive). The support of the commtmity, should be taken in lm consideration. The original application, which was hand delivered on March 23, 2003, includes letters of support from neighbors, Rosemary & Clive Halla~ A1 & Jean~,-tte Bre~mer, Wendy Smith, D’Axm For~ and Lilly Leiu. We would like to appeal pursumat to Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter t 8.92. Sincerely, W~iping W~mg & Helen Feng 4044 Sutherland Drive ’~’ Palo Alto, CA 94303 Attachment E 18,2003 Eoning Administrator Dgpartment of Planning and Cofi~muni~ Euvirom~nt Fifth Floor Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Home I_mpmvcment Exception for Mr. Weiping Wang, and his wife Helen Feng, And their children Brian and Adam, residing at 4044 Suthefland Drive, Palo Alto, CA Dear Ms. Amy French, My family and I would like to request consideration of a Home Improvement .Exception. We would like to r~nodel and slightly enlarge our existing master bedroom.. And add a badly needed second bathroom. Our intent is to improve the functionality of our home. These chauges wil! require exception to the average setbacks. There are exceptional and extraordinary, oir~ces and conditions applicable to the property revolved that do not generally apply to proper~., m the same district. The existing house is exceptional and extraordinary, b~cause it is slab on grade, malting the location of the second bathroom a oritical matter. The ideal location for the second bathroom will be bcnvccn the existing bathroom and the stre~ If placed further away from the strcet, there will I~ insufficignt positive slope for s~wer. Our neighbor across the street,, Mr. And Mrs. Hallatt,.had tremendous problems with the sewage backing up. Since we moved m two and half years ago, they have had monthly visits from the Rote-Rooter Service, and the ciW had to dig up the street twice. Furthermore, there is a beautiful, majestic tree on rear side of the house, making expansion to the rear bedrooms impossible. We would like the second bathroom to ~ handicap accessible for our etdefly parems wh~ they visit. The existing bathroom is only 5 feet wide, which is inaccessible for wheelchairs. The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style and neighborhood character, which would not oth~-~wise be accomplished through the strict application of code. The neighborhood ,houses ar ,e~ floor ranch style and we would like to conform by not building a seconc, floor./,N, ached is pm~sed remodehng plan for yous review. The addkio~ extending a *~",~ ~*’~ intofront vat& is better than one story above our neiehbors’ rooftree. ~ ...... The _m’anting of the-application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements m the vicinity, and will not be detrimemal to the public health,, mfety, general welfare or convenience. We are ve~ lucky because we have wonder~ neighbors. As soon as we moved in our house, al!.our neighbors invited us ~o see their various renovations. They knew that we would need to add another bathroom bemuse we have two childrem Tbe.v are very happy that we are not considering a second floor additio~ mad will be, using the shghtly modified plans of Rosie. The- can see the fir~isbed size of the addition because it will be a mirror image of Rosie’s house. Additionally, the requested front setback conforms to the old requiremem of 20 feet,, plus an additional f feet to the sidewal~ Therefore, the total distance from the sidewalk will be 25 fe~. The esthetics appearance of the neighborhood is virtually indistinguishable by the slight protrusion of ~w feet beyond the average setback, whe~ it is viewed in the context of a 25 fe~’t deep lawn. Our goa! is to blend with and maintain the character of the existing house. The proposed addition will only add a few minor changes to the existing spaces, but bring tremendous enj ,oyment to our family- no more fighting to use the bathroom. The proposed work has no impact on the adjacent neighbors or the neighborhood itself. The proposed work is the most cost effective solution. Other solutions were impraeticaI or unacceptable. In closing, this proposat is the most logical and clear cut in temas of function,. impact to neighbors, and cost. We hope that you will review.this application favorabh). Please call or write ffyou have an), questions. Thank you for your consideration and your time. Smcerety Yours, . ¯ Mn,-ch 21, 2003 Attachment F Zoning Administrator Department of Planning and Community Environmen~ Fifth Floor Palo Alto City Hal! 250 Hamilton Avenue Polo Alto, CA- 94301 Attention: Ms. Amy French I am responding to a request on behalf of my neighbors at 4044 Sutherland Drive. They are plmming to remodel their home and would like to extend the. front of their house the same distance from the street as ours at 4049 Sutherland Drive. They would like an exception te the average setback. We are insupport of their request. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Rosemary & Cli e~(gfi-tallatt 404,9 Sutherland Drive Pa!o Alto, CA 94303 March 21, 2003 Zoning Administrator Department of-Planning and Community Environmenl Fifth Floor P’a.lo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue., Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attention: Ms. Amy French I am responding to a request on behalf of my neighbors, Helen Feng and Wei Ping Wang at 4044 Sutherland Drive. The:}, are. planning to remodel their home and would like to extend the front of their house the same distance from the street as -- at 40q-q’Sv, therland Drive. They would like an exception to the average setback. We are in support of their request. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, A1 & Jeanette Brenner 4037 Sutherland Drive Pato Alto, CA 94303 Attachment G Magnusson, Chris From:George Browning [georgb@concentric.net] Sent:Monday, August 04, 2003 8:25 PM To:chris.magnusson @ cityofpaloalto.org Subject:4044 Sutherland Drive, [03-AP-07] Jean Wilcox 4005 Sutherland Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303-4729 650-493-1279 georgb @ concentric.net This request will come before you on Wednesday August 13¯ at 7:00 p.m. Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission While I encourage applicants Weiping Wang and Helen Feng to enlarge and improve their property, at 4044 Sutherland Drive, I support the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s denial of a Home Improvement Exception application. This request would allow an addition to the existing residence (90 square feet) to encroach 5’ 0" into the required 25’ 0" contextual front yard setback. I support this denial because if it were ~anted it would be the first such setback zoning variance on Sutherland Drive, and it would change the character of the Street. I draw the Commissions attention to the "Single Family Residential Design Guidelines for Palo Alto." Under the heading Streetscape and Open Space it says: "The front and rear setback pattern on the block should be identified and respected ......... If there is a strong pattern of houses set back further than the minimum required by code, then a new house should respect that pattern and be located more than 20 feet back from the front property line." Sutherland Drive is a row of very attractive !950’s style tract homes built by Williams & Burrows. Nearly every resident has made changes and improvements to their homes within the allowable zoning codes. Also, the changes that have been made to other houses on Sutherland Drive have included the addition of a second bathroom. Applicants have more than enough land on their property on which to build an addition without requesting this zoning variance. The tree immediately behind the house is not on Palo Alto’s list of heritage trees and could be legally removed to enable the building of an appropriate and legal addition behind the house. I, therefore, ask that the Planning and Transportation Commission deny applicants request to encroach 5’ 0" into the required 25’ 0" front yard setback. Jean Wilcox 8/5/2003 Attachment D 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 !3 t4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes Au=mast 13, 2003 DRAFT EXCERPT 4044 Sutherland Drive* [03-AP-07]: Appeal by Weiping Wang and Helen Feng of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’ s denial of a Home Improvement Exception application to allow an addition to the existing residence (90 square feet) to encroach 5’-0" into the required 25’-0" contextual front yard setback. Environmental Assessment: Categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15301. Zone District: R-1 (743). File No.: 03-HIE-12. Chair Griffin: Again we have an asterisk indicated here. Mr. Emslie: This is a quasi-judicial act so you would need to disclose an3, contact you had outside of the hearing. Chair Griffin: All right, let’s start again with Bonnie, would you address yourself to that please? Commissioner Packer: I had not contacts but I rode my bike around the neighborhood. Vice-Chair Cassel: I am going to follow Pat’s directions. I don’t think driving around is the contact you are talking about and I have had no personal contacts. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: Nothing to report. Chair Griffin: No report from Commissioner Burr. car and observe the contextual setbacks. Annette, none from you. I did get out of my Would Staff like to make a presentation please? Ms. Amy French. Current Plannin_~ Mana_~er: Yes, thank you Chair Griffin. Good evening Commissioners. This project is the addition of a second bathroom and enlargement of a bedroom at the front portion of an existing one-story home. The applicant’s wish to encroach five feet into the front setback, the minimum front yard setback. In the R-1 district the minimum front yard is the geater of 20 feet or the average setback of the immediate neighborhood otherwise known as the contextual front setback, we often refer to it as that. This standard became on November !9, 2001 after adoption by the City Council in September of that year. The predominant pattern in this neighborhood is a 25-foot front yard setback and one-story homes built in the 1950s. Given that the block is longer than 600 feet the 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 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 average front yard setback is based on the ten sites located on the same side of street and nearest to the subject property pursuant to the code section 1812.050D. The first and third of the three findings required to approve a Home Improvement Exception are very similar to the City’s variance findings. In this case the third finding was made. The project meets applicable City codes and regulations with the exception of the average front yard setback, which in this case is the minimum front yard setback. The project would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. However, the first and second finding required for an HIE could not be made. The first finding requires exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to property in the same district. In this case no such conditions were evident and the lots surrounding the property have similar lot sizes and home sizes as well as the same 25-foot front yard setback as the subject property. Staff is constrained in making this finding whether or not this outcome was intended by the creators of the HI~. According to the Chief Planning Official the interpretation of the first HIE finding has not changed since the HIE process was established in the early 1990s. The second finding could also not be made in this case. The encroachment is not needed to maintain the architectural style and is not needed to keep the home a one-story structure. In addition the encroachment would be inconsistent with the neighborhood character since all ten houses on same side of the block do not protrude forward of the contextual, or minimum in this case, setback or forward of the garage wall. There are other homes in the larger neighborhood whose placement appears closer to the street such as the new two-story homes. There are about three two-story homes within the larger neighborhood. However, these homes are not included in the homes used to determine the contextual front yard setback for the subject property. Project Planner, Chris Magnusson will provide a description of an alternative to the requested encroachment and he will summarize public comments received to date and provide a recommendation. Mr. Chris Ma_o-nusson. Planner: Thank you and good evening. The proposed project involves an addition of approximately 200 square feet to enlarge the existing master bedroom and to add a new master bathroom. Staffbelieves it is possible to accomplish a similar floor plan layout while maintaining the contextual front yard setback. In doing so it would mean a reduction of two to three feet within the master bedroom and proposed master bathroom thereby reducing the size of the overall addition but allowing its same location for purposes of connecting to the existing sewer lateral, preserving the existing tree within the rear yard and eliminating the second sto~, concept which were all concems raised by the applicant in the original exception request. Staff feels that reducing the size of the addition is the least complex and least costly soiution to comply with all development regulations of the zoning district while still a!lowing an overall increase in the size of the building by approximately 100 square feet. In regards to public comments received to date, al! written letters received by Staff~. have been provided for your review as Attachments 1= and G of the Staff Report. In summation of those comments there were five propem, owners in favor of the Home T~,,,,-,~,,o,-~om Exception and 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 t5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 one against. That individual feeling that the current pattern of houses along the portion of the block shouldbe respected and the required front yard setback maintained. Finally, the next step in the process for this application is to proceed to the City Council for review and Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s original denial. That concludes Staff’s presentation and I would like to note that the applicant is also present to speak to the item. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Do we have any questions at this point? Bonnie, I think you were first. Commissioner Packer: I have a question. Exactly how was it or to what part of the homes was it measured to determine the 25-foot setback on all those ten homes? Did it go to the wall or did it go to the eaves? Mr. Ma~usson: The measurement is taken from the front property hne back in toward the property. The measurement to determine where to place a building is to the building wall not to the actual ease itself. There is an allowable protrusion for eaves. We measure setbacks from building wall to property hne. Commissioner Packer: Are there also allowable protrusions of bay windows? Mr. Ma~usson: That is correct. Commissioner Packer: Where is the property line? Is it from the center of the street? is it from where the lawn meets the sidewalk? I have always been confused about that because when you go and look at your deed sometimes your property line is from the center of the street and it isn’t always clear. Did you go to the Recorder’s Office and determine where the property lines were? How accurate are we talking about? Because what we are talking about here is only five feet. Mr. Ma~usson: Right. In terms of how Staff verifies whether or not the applicant’s information is correct first of all we have records here. We basically check our GIS system in this case to determine whether or not there is a consistent setback along the street. Similar to the overhead, which is an aerial photo of the neighborhood, the GIS department here has worked off of the aerial to create outlines of each individual house and they have overlaid those onto parcel maps where we can take an actual measurement using tools within the computer. That Nves us a relatively accurate idea because again it is based off of an aerial photo. What I should point out is that considering that the applicant is the individual who is determining all setbacks for the building whether they are existing or new the?, would be taking measurements in the field, which would be most accurate. Then also in determining where the front property line is the most accurate way is to obtain a survey of the property. K not doing that then it is possible for architects or other lay people to take rough measurements but front property lines do vary as far as locations go from neighborhood to neighborhood. Really what we suggest is that the individual, if they are having difficulty, obtain the survey so the?’ have a professional land surveyor create a document that they can work off of to draft a site plan. In 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 !0 1t 12 13 !4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 DO 34 35 36 38 39 4O 41 42 43 this instance, as shown on the site plan before you the applicant has noted the 25-foot setback along each property, that it is consistent. Also in checking the records I found it to be consistent as well. Commissioner Packer: Thank you. Vice-Chair Cassel: You have said that the applicant can take two to three feet out of the bathroom. I don’t have the sizes here but they are also asking that this bathroom be accessible for physically limited people and a wheelchair turnaround in standardly consistent with a five- foot diameter circle between the items. I wonder how you figured. I tried rearranNng this thing and you might get a foot out of it. I don’t know how you figured you could get two to three feet out of it. _Mr. Ma_o-nusson: In response to your statement I would say that again there is no minimum requirement in this case for our review for size of a bathroom or bedroom. Basically the standards that are in place allow an individual to build out to setback. In that case the City is not requiring a minimum size for the bathroom it is really what the applicant is proposing. My suggestion would be then in that case, if they did want to maintain, because they are essentially creating a new master bathroom it is stil! possible to reduce the bedroom size, however uncomfortable that may be for the individual homeowners. I should also point out that there is allowable floor area and lot coverage available to build out to the rear of the property and I am sure the architect has looked at that possibility as well. The homeowners noting that there is an existing tree just south of the building that they wanted to preserve. Again, we weren’t stating a specific requirement for the bathroom itself nor the bedroom size. Vice-Chair Casseh K people need to meet a handicapped or a physically disabled requirement they need to make that space. What you are saying is that isn’t something they can do in this. this is the easiest way this plays out, to go forward. It is the least disruptive and the least expensive, clearly. And they want to make that. You are saying that we are not concerned about their ability to meet that requirement. Mr. Magnusson: I am not saying that I wasn’t concerned as far as their personal use but in terms of meeting the ordinance standards unfortunately malting the argument that you have an exceptional or unusual circumstance that applies to the property and therefore you need to have an accessible bathroom was not stated by the applicant themselves. So this is new information to me as far as them needing to have a particular size and them making the case for the exception itself. The only information I am working off of is just the information on the site plan and their brief statement about the addition itself. Commissioner Bialson: I got the sense that Staff is feeling verb’ constrained in its ability to gant an HIE in this situation and that that constraint flows from the definition of the front yard setback that you are allowed. It seems to be from the language that you were using that it had to be a minimum of 20 feet or the average of the setback for five homes on either side. Is that correct? 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 Ms. French: And then the one phrase that needs to be added to that is the greater of the two that you just mentioned. That is where we get into this difficulty. We can’t choose whether to do the 20 or the 25 we have to choose the greater of the two. Commissioner Bialson: It seems then that that is essentially making mute your ability to have discretion in this case. Is that correct? ,Mr. Emslie: Yes. There is no discretion in this. Commissioner Bialson: So why do we bother with a hearing? Why don’t we just it ministerial and say if you can meet these mathematical requirements then you get granted this additional square footage but if you don’t meet these mathematical requirements then no HIE? Mr. Emslie: That is very possible. In fact that is part of the straggle that Staff has with implementing the t-EE process is that the findings are essentially making variance findings which as you know as Commissioners that it is difficult to make variance findings because you need to find a hardship or unusual circumstances pertaining to the land. We don’t have one here in the KIE but it is possible to establish a ministerial process by which you do not have these onerous findings in order to grant minor deviations from that. In fact many codes do have a minor deviation or minor variance as it is sometimes called that does not require the stringent standard that are included in these findings. Commissioner Bialson: I will hold off for right now. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burt: A couple of questions some as follow-ups to previous Commissioner questions. First, these homeowners could build a two-story residence at this site? Ms. French: They could it is not a single story overlay neighborhood and they do have the area available onsite to create more floor area on the second floor. Commissioner Butt: So when Staff reviewed this were you weighing the comparative compatibility to the neighborhood of a setback variance or deviation versus the incompatibility of a two-stoi),, home on that street? Ms. French: It was considered. It was also looked at that the?, had a large rear yard that was in the building envelope of the rear yard that was possible. This was not the only place they could add on at the first floor level. So there were those two considerations. First of all there are some two-story homes in the neighborhood, obviously it is not the predominant pattern, but it is not the only option other than to add an encroachment in the front yard. The?, could put conforming floor area on the first floor of this house adding on to the existing house. Mr. Emslie: I thirffc in general Staff finds that what we can do to support one story additions in neighborhoods that have predominance of one stories is a planning objective but unformnate!y there is nothing unusual pertaining to this as a lot that enables us to overcome primarily the first 1 2 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 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 finding. K the Commission were interested in having us be able to take other factors into account other than the very stringent variance findings that currently apply we can certainly explore that. But as it is written now this does not permit us to take factors like design compatibility encouraNng one stories into our deliberations. Well, you can but you have to make all the findings. Commissioner Burt: I need to -kind of break them down one at a time. The one that I am focusing on at the moment has to do with Staff saying that because it is possible to do a different one story addition that therefore the point of comparison would be between an alternative one story addition which the applicant may not choose to go for and this alternative. Whereas I am trying to understand why Staff is not comparing the less desirable alternative of the two-story overlay. If we are talking about neighborhood compatibility I don’t know why the comparison wouldn’t be to the alternative of a two-story building. Then we are judNng which is the more compatible to the neighborhood Nving a setback allowance or them choosing to go to a two- story structure. Ms. French: Frankly, in the first pass at this project with the first Planner, we thought that finding number two could possibly be made. It was only as we wrote this Report that we tightened up on that one and said well there is this alternative. Frankly, the first time this came forward I was doing just that looking at two-story, versus one story and thinking well we can make that stretch and say one story is better. But we are still stuck with finding number one. Commissioner Burt: Well for the moment I am trying to deal with finding two without jumping over to one and saying we can’t talk about two because we need to talk about one. Chair Griffin: Could I just interrupt for just a moment? This is good stuff. I am wondering however perhaps it would be worthwhile to have some input from the applicant first and then we could carry on with these good detailed discussions. Commissioner Burt: I am okay with that. Let me ask another clarification. I believe the applicant says that the setback is defined from their property line. I think this goes to what Bonnie was trying to ask. The sidewalk appears tO be 25 feet from the proposed addition. Is that correct? But that is not the property line setback? Mr. Ma~usson: That is correct. On the site plan before you will notice that the applicant has denoted the setback of 25 feet to a point of where the trellis structure is from front property line to the wall of the building. Then essentially there is approximately five feet from property line to where the sidewalk beNns. Commissioner Bun: So we would be in essence requiring a 30-foot setback from the sidewalk. Mr. Emslie: The effective would be 30 feet but that is a universal condition in al! cases. It does vary as Staff pointed out with the matters of feet but there is always a distance between the back of sidewalk and the front property line. There are utilities and other public improvements that are located in that area. So every property has a condition where *,heir setback is geater when measured to back of sidewalk. It does vary though. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 45 46 Ms. French: Just one thing to add to that is in the definitions of front yard setback it does say from the front property line. It is clear in the definitions of our zoning code that that is where you take the measurement from for the purpose of determining the minimum front setback. Chair Griffin: All right if we could hear from the appellant, Weiping Wang. K you would like to make your comments now please. You will have 15 minutes for your comments if you need them. We will need to have you use the handheld microphone as well if you would please. Mr. Weipin_~ Wang. Applicant. 4044 Sutherland Drive. Palo Alto: Thank you Commissioners and Planning Department for allowing me the chance to talk about our proposed plan. Just to Eve you a little bit of an update or background or what the existing house loo "ks like and why we choose the front. There are technical reasons, our architect will be able to add more to it. This is the existing house, which is as you can see very. small. It is three bedrooms and one small bath, which is about five feet, and we just barely scrimp. It is typical Palo Alto style. What we are proposing is not to build a monster house on the block. What we are n’ying to do is to add a desperately needed bathroom, which is wheelchair accessible to allow our parents visit and live with us. They have pretty severe arthritis and also had recent open-heart surgery. Now you asked about the property line and indeed from the sidewalk to the current is a 30-foot setback and from property back is 25 feet. This is the proposal. We plan to add this new master bath. We have considered putting it in the back however there are trees, which are. by the "kids of the families. Also you don’t want to go to the back and go out or go through the "kids room they are very small and crammed already. It is just not a suitable walkway if you look at this. Also the sewer is in the front and if you want to take bathroom pipes through here which is very costly and you have to dig through the slab and jeopardize or the family has to move out because there is no bedroom you live in. it is very messy. So the most cost effective way is to add the bath in the front side of the house, which is what we planned here. According to the American with Disabilities Act’s guidelines to make it wheelchair accessible building you need a five-foot space or 60 inches. Either this way or you can use a so-called T-way if you don’t have that space you can use this type of approach. In fact this is more space conserving and that is how this layout will fit into this space, which is shown in the handout. So this is what we cal] the need of the family to build this bathroom. As you can see currently the house is up to here and .there is only five feet to the contextual setback. As you can see for five feet mathematically you cannot build a bathroom with five feet and have six feet allowance. Plus if you build it in the back the bathroom will not have a toilet or shower. There is simply no space for it. This is really mathematic how this came out. So one of the reasons that the contextual setback was there was to preserve the neighborhood character. K you look at our neighborhood we look at the most recent house, in the past ten years, they are monster houses built, two sto~, houses and so on. We looked carefully and tried to preserve the neighborhood character. The two houses in front of us have done a remodeling. K you use the current rule not ~andfathered previously you can barely see what encroaching ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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 means and how that affects the character. I simply cannot see that really affected. In fact we thought that was a good way of alleviating the crowded space of the house yet preserving the neighborhood character. So we think the purpose of that section was there was to maintain the neighborhood character and our design in fact was based on the design of the house that is just right across the street that is keeping the neighborhood character. So in conclusion we request the ganting of the exception by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you Mr. Wang. We also have two other speakers.here. I am going to confer here. we would like to hear from Rosemary Nurre and you have five minutes Rosemary to discuss this in more detail. Ms. Rosemary Nurre. 4049 Sutherland Drive. Palo Alto: I am a neighbor of the Wang’s. I live directly across the street, in fact that was my house that was shown. We remodeled ten years ago and in fact did they are using or following plans that are similar ours. The reason why we put the bathroom next to the existing bathroom was primarily one of cost. It made it less expensive. because all the pipes were already there. Also in case any repairs needed to be done everything was right there. The argument to go out into the backyard I really don’t think is a reasonable request just because of the way the houses are designed. We in fact did go out into our backyard and we added a kitchen and a family room, which really makes much more sense Nven the way the houses are designed. I did an informal survey of our block this morning and we of course live across the street but on our side of the block ever?, house but one has remodeled. I have no idea what the setbacks are for each of those homes but I don’t feel if the Wang’s come out that additional five feet that it will destroy or hurt the character of the neighborhood. I certainly would not like to see a two-story house across the street from us. So I am very, very happy to see them go forward with this addition. Also for selfish reasons because as they improve their home that obviously improves our property values. So I would like to strongly recommend that the Council Nve them the variance because these homes are very, very small and again, almost all of the people who have lived in these homes have remodeled. Most of the homes that have not been remodeled I think all but one are all rental properties. So as people come in and buy these properties they are in fact remodeling them and updating them. The house two doors down from the Wang’s that home was just purchased, it had been a rental property for 18 years. The new owner has plans also to remodel. I am sure this is going to come up again because people are vet?, desirable for that additional space and I don’t think they do want to-go up. That would I think would really hurt the character of the neighborhood. So I would like to recommend that the Council approve the variance. Thank you very much. Chair Griffin: Thank you for your comments. We have a third card from Eric Keng. Would you please use the large microphone? Thank you, Eric. Mr. Eric Kent. 616 Ramona Street. Palo Alto: Yes. I am the architect for this project and also practice in Palo Alto for the residents of Palo Alto. I just want to express one concern about contextual setback from the point of a professional and the residents. I think this house was put, this particular contextual setback in the Zoning Ordinance is an unfair situation because everything else in the Zoning Ordinance goes direct with a 30 feet height limit. That applies to the whole City. Only the contextual setback goes by the average. Average compared to the other street I have to setback an additional five feet and on the other street they don’t. So I think 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 .9.3 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 the problem itself is extraordinar3., or an exceptional condition. This item needs to be treated separately. My client has seven signatures of I think we have seen ten houses. K you can get more than 50% of the people to agee with this I think this item shouldn’t be an item that is denied for the setback or we can push back to the 20-foot setback rather than stay with 25. This item itself is different from any other zoning requirement. I think the zoning amendment was requested by the citizens of Palo Alto. We will do the research, we do the amendment, we revise the Zoning Ordinance. In this particular case the neighbors support this variance exception. Why can’t we use the same principle applied to this project and get it accepted and get approved? Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you. I have no more cards so we will bring it back to the Commission. Do you have any further questions of Staff? Pat, you were discussing something? Commissioner Bialson: I was curious, do we have the exact language with regard to that front yard setback that was added I understand in 20017 Commissioner Packer: I would like to get some backgound on that. This came out of our individual review exercise where we were dealing with the large homes. I will pass this down. I have a copy of the ordinance as it was presented to Council. I think this is a situation where we were dealing with a concern of large homes going into setbac "ks that would change the character, really going in and building things that we felt would be terribly incompatible. I don’t "know, we must have not realized when we sent this up to Council that when we put in the words, "or the geater than," that we would be taking homes that were built for the past 45 years on 6,000 square foot lots that always had 20 foot front setbacks. I lived in a house just like this. We all knew it was 20-foot front setbacks until November 2001. All of a sudden we have this concept of a contextual setback that all of a sudden put the setback as 25 feet in these developments, these track developments that we never even considered. So my question to the City Attorney is as we review this can we recommend or relook at this particular ordinance language to come up for discussion in front of us so we can consider the impact of what we have done, an unintended consequence? Mr. Emslie: I think the appropriate action for the Commission is to forward this on to the Council. As you know part of the Individual Review and the contextual setback was a part of that as was pointed out. We do an annual review of the implementation of the various components of the Individual Review. I think the proper course of action would be for the Commission to direct Staff to communicate to the Council during our upcoming review, and that will be done in November of this year, the problems that you have just articulated regarding the contextual setback. I might make another suggestion too. We also see that there is a disconnect between desire to allow some minor deviations when it makes sense and the findings that are required under the HIE. I would also strongly urge the Commission to communicate that to the Cib, Council for Staff and perhaps the Zoning Code Team to come up with a more ministerial process or one that allows ~eater flexibility for c!osely defined deviations from standards where it is maybe within 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 !4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 ten percent of the standard. Then there is a facihtated process that doesn’t involve making these 2 stringent findings. 3 4 Ms. French: Did you want me to read it allowed? That was an earher request. 5 Commissioner Bialson: I think we have it here. Bonnie was kind enough to send it down our way. Ms. French: Excellent. Commissioner Bialson: I guess this highlights the problems that arise. We should keep in mind as we are going through the Zoning Ordinance Update the knee-jerk reaction to the perceived last battle we fought in a war and the unintended consequences that flow from what we try to achieve as being perhaps a comprehensive answer to what we had last perceived as a real problem or the last battle we had gone into. I appreciate your points, Steve, and I think we need to do all the things you suggested. I am very concerned about the appellants who are before us right now. I am trying to craft some way around this because this case is a poster-child for how badly flawed this process now is. Is there anything we can do at this point besides go throu~ a process of waiting until November when we go in for a report to the Council, etc.? I am looking for some help here. Ms. Ancel: I think that you would still need to be in the position to make those findings in order to ~ant the HIE or to not go with the Director’s recommendation for denial. Commissioner Bialson: So we would have to make those mathematical findings? Or we could ig-nore them? Or we could modify them? Ms. Ancel: That first finding, there needs to be some evidence that we can point to that there exceptional or extraordinar3, circumstances applicable to that property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same area. So there are two factors. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burr: But we are not required to disapprove this merely because it would require a deviation from the setback, right? We have to make the findings that would allow that deviation from the setback. We do have that discretion provided we can establish that the findings are met. Is that correct? Ms. Ancel: i think, no. Commissioner Bialson: There are two findings that are in contention. Mr. Emslie: The hardest finding to make is always the first one and that is whether there are unusual circumstances pertaining to this particular property that do not pertain to other properties in the same dis~ct. So the way to make that finding is to find something particular about how this lot is configured. We heard testimony about the appIicant’s concern about encroaching upon 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 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 a tree. Well, it is not an ordinance-protected tree. The City values its a tree canopy very highly, we often when Nven discretion make provisions to preserve all trees on a site whether the?, are protected or not. So that location of a tree is often used as a finding to make that first one. Vice-Chair Cassel: How big is this tree? The breast height? How big is it around? Mr. Emslie: Actually there are really two trees that I think are within the building envelope so that if you built out to the building envelope it would encroach within the drip line. The smaller of the two is completely within the building envelope and then a second tree, which a portion of the drip line would be within the envelope and that is a much larger tree. Vice-Chair Cassel: I was try. ing to get that standard breast height measurement of the diameter of the tree. That is maybe a little much at this point. Mr. Emslie: Maybe the applicants can help. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I am very s.vmpathetic to this and I am sympathetic to wanting to keep trees and I am sympathetic to wanting to do the most affordable project. It is most affordable to put plumbing near plumbing. At the same time I am a little bit concerned about where we are going right now because I am concerned about a precedent that we mi~t be setting in making findings based on this. So I have a couple of questions. You said we can refer to Council or make recommendations to Council suggested changes or amendments to the Individua! Review guidelines, one of them being contextual front setbacks. Can Commission actually initiate that and review it so that we can make it move along faster and then continue this item for this applicant? Is there something along those lines that we could do? Mr. Emslie: My understanding is the Commission can initiate an amendment to the Zoning Code. This item has not been advertised to that affect. It would need to reappear on the agenda, Commission would need to initiate the zoning code, Staff would do the research much like we did with the Park Avenue sites you just recently considered. Commissioner Holman: Well, this is something I think that does need to be fixed. I think you can tell, it seems to me anyway from the comments of the other Commissioners that it seems like most of us have similar concerns. Also I have concerns that we have someone here who is wanting to basically do the right thing and compatibility was the goal of the Individual Review process. It isn’t a criticism of that process because you can never anticipate all unintended consequences that is why we have the yearly review of that process. I can’t help but make the comparison because we had a ve~, large project come to us some months ago and variance findings are hard to make and Staff has compared HIE findings to variance findings yet we made variance findings to allow a 50 foot height were a 35 foot height 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 !4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4-1 4-2 43 44 45 46 would have been required. So if you take that and compare it to this, well that was a commercial project and this is a residential, they seem just so out of scale to each other. So we would have to notice initiating an Individual Review process amendment recommendation to Council. And we could continue this? I don’t know how the applicant feels about that but we could continue this then to a time uncertain? Chair Griffin: That is a question. Is it possible to do that? Mr. Emslie: You could. That is a course of action. You could essentially ask Staff to agendize initiation of a zoning code amendment to address either one of two items to implement a minor ministerial process that allowed for minor adjustments in certain development standards or an amendment to how the contextual setback is determined under the HIE. I think we would want to follow those both if you were so inclined to initiate that text amendment. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I think we should go ahead and initiate but I don’t want to hold up the applicant. I would like to throw out for discussion some ways that we can find some exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that we feel will fit so that can make finding one. I think finding two is easy, it is to avoid having a second story be put up which would really cause a change to the neighborhood character. So I think we could probably make that finding. So some ideas for the exceptional or extraordinar3, circumstances could be the applicant’s need to have a bathroom that is handicap accessible. It is a personal situation I don’t know if we are stretching a little bit legally whether it could be applicable to all the buildings as a whole but we want to deal with a building situation that is caught between a change in an ordinance. The ordinance was in effect for who -knows how long, from 1950 until now, for 50 years and then it is going to change again. So the applicant came in the middle. That is an extraordinary circumstance, it is a legal extraordinar3, circumstance if we want to make that finding. Pat is dying to speak. Commissioner Burt: Bonnie, I am prepared to make a motion but I think we need to clarify. The first finding has to be applicable to the property not the residents. So it is inappropriate I think to make that other claim as much as we all maybe sympathetic to that. MOTION I do think we have a basis to meet the findings and I would like to make a motion to that effect. I would move that we support the appeal of the HIE and if I have a second I will speak to the motion. SECOND Vice-Chair CasseI: i will second it. Commissioner Butt: Okay. i wil! just go through the findings. ! believe finding number one can be met on the basis of the value of the two mature trees in the backyard that would be lost, one at 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 3O 31 D-- 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42. 43 45 46 least that is visible to the surrounding areas and desirable to the compatibili~, and overall character of the neighborhood. The second finding would be met on the basis of it being significantly more desirable to have a one-story addition with a very minor encroachment in the front setback over the alternative of a two-story home which is less compatible. Second, the broader definition of the neighborhood character, which is for purposes of this HIE, was a different definition than we have in the R-1. The neighborhood character certainly would include properties across the street, immediately across the street, and in any event a two-story home has been acknowledged as not being consistent with the houses on the side of the street that this property is on. Then the third finding Staff has already made and found that the applicant is in concurrence with that. Then after we are done with this I would hke to see if we can hold a discussion on how to move forward on brinNng this back for consideration on other aspects in a more broad sense. Chair Griffin: Karen. Vice-Chair Cassel: Sorry, I go next. I seconded this because I think this is exactly what we hoped to have in town. This is our goal. I understand why Staff denied it and why it fits their rules and that is why it comes to us. This is exactly what we want to See a small addition on a house. I tried to play with this and fi~tre out how I would take some square feet to the back of the house and make it work. Besides losing the trees it is very difficult to do in a reasonable amount of space. One of our goals is to make the homes look smaller and not appear massive. One of the goals that this particular addition does is make this house not feel as massive. We are trying to discourage second story homes, make it possible when people want to do it and we are trying to make the desig-ns of homes such that they don’t feel massive. I feel that the design presented did that. We have to recognize that this family still has another almost 1,000 Square feet of ability to develop on this site which may go back at a later time or may go up, which is one of our limitations in this. This is the goal of the review process that we were doing and it meets that goal. The process Of the HIE was not meant to be difficult to meet. Char Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I don’t believe it is stated in the Staff Report but I just want to confirm so that it is on record that an HIE is for 100 square feet or less of a deviation, right? Mr. Emslie: There is no standards for qualifies for an HIE. It is totally discretionary. Commissioner Holman: So t made that up. Vice-Char Cassel: No, Karen, you are talking about additional square footage that we can gant over the maximum FAR. There is some limit on that isn’t there? Mr. Emslie: That is folklore in Palo Alto. Char Griffin: .~mnette. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 !9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Commissioner Bialson: I am going to support this motion. I think we all a~ee that the spirit of the leNslation was as we have indicated and as was very well put by Phyllis. We now have to deal with the situation in hand and then go on with correcting the statute. I will support this motion and I think we have spoken about all the reasons why we should. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: Of course I am going to support it too. I just want to mention that I used to live in a home with the exact same floor plan. I know how small it is and I know that if you are going to go out in the back the only loNcal place to extend is in the dining room and kitchen area. You can’t put a bathroom back there. You can’t get through the bedrooms. So the only appropriate design is to go forward and that is probably common to all those homes and that is why they aiready went forward before the ordinance changed. So I am glad that the Commissioners look like thev are all going to support this. I hope we can fix the ordinance. Chair Griffin: Are there any more comments before we vote? Yes, Karen. Commissioner Holman: I will support the motion. As other Commissioners have said it is the kind of project that we want to see and compatibility was the goal and for all those reasons I will support it. I would like to see us address the contextual front setback issue ASAP though because I don’t want us to get into a situation where we are setting a preceden~ here and then in the future it gets abused. So I hope we will do that expediently. MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1 Commissioner Bellomo absent) Chair Griffin: Then if we could vote on this item. All those in favor of the motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? There are none. This passes unanimously.