Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-05-14 City Council (4)TO: FROM: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: MAY 14, 2001 CMR:234:01 404 LOWELL AVENUE: APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT TO APPROVE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED, TWO-CAR GARAGE WITHIN SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that Council modify the Director’s approval of Home hnprovement Exception 00:HIE-18, and .revise the conditions to include the following: 1.The garage shall be situated at least 9 feet from the east property line, and at least 40.5 feet from the street side property line. The garage shall have no window on its east side. The fence along, the east side of the property shall be no greater than six feet in height, and all vegetation along the east property line within five feet of the fence shall be trimmed so that it is never higher than the fence. The Home Improvement Exception shall be of no further force and effect if: (1) the floor area of the main structure is increased by 35 percent or more from that presently existing, or (2) 35 percent or more of the footprint perimeter is altered. As a condition of approval for any permit to make such alterations, the new garage shall either be removed or modified to comply with the then-applicable zoning. Alternatively, it shall be removed and at least one covered space constructed on the site of the original garage or another complying location. BACKGROUND Home hnprovement Exception application 00-HIE-18 was approved on September 29, 2000 to allow the construction of a detached; two-car garage at a distance of 30.5 feet fl’om the street side-yard property line adjacent to Lowell Avenue, and at a distance of 71.5 feet from the front property line adjacent to Waverley Street, where 75 feet is the CMR:234:01 Page 1 of 4 minimum distance required under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 1.8.88.030(b)(3). The propoSed garage is a-replacement of a two-car garage that was demolished without permits in February 2000. Demolition of the garage resulted in a code enforcement case, which can be resolved once the garage is replaced. The Home Improvement Exception [00-HIE-18] was appealed on October 6, 2000 by William Devine on behalf of Gideon and Bina Ben Efraim, the neighboring property owners at 420 Lowell Avenue. The basis stated for the.appeal was that: (1) the applicant confronts no exceptional circumstances, and can remedy his zoning code violation without impacting nearby property; (2) the applicant seeks an upgrade for his property at his neighbors’ expense; (3) the placement of the proposed garage is architecturally irrelevant; and (4) the larger, more prominent gar.age will be detrimental and injurious to nearby property. The appeal was heard by the Planning Commission on November 29, 2000. (Please refer to Planning Commission minutes and the November 29, 2000 staff report -- Attachments A and B). The Commission voted unanimously to support the staff recommendation to uphold the approval of the home improvement exception with the following additional conditions of approval: 1)If more than 35 percent of the main structure is demolished or the footprint is cha, nged, the HIE approval will be revoked; and 2) The garage shall be situated at least 8 feet from the east property line. The additional conditions were proposed to ensure that (1) a new or substantially modified primary structure would not replace the existing home while maintaining the non-complying garage; and (2) the reduced rear setback resulting from the increased width of the replacement garage would not be borne solely by the neighboring site at 420 Lowell Avenue. Only the applicant and the appellant spoke at the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting. DISCUSSION On December 11, 2000, Council directed the appellant and applicant to continue discussions in an effort to reach a mutually agreeable solution. The directive was in response to a letter submitted by the appellant on the morning of December 11, 2000 that outlined a compromise he was willing to accept (see Attachment C). Both parties returned to Council on December 18, 2000, but had not been able to reach reconciliation. The item was rescheduled to February 5, 2001 for final hearing by Council but was CMR:234:01 Page 2 of 4 continued so that the parties could continue negotiations. The applicant and appellant have been unsuccessful in reaching an acceptable compromise to date.’ After further reView of the proposed project and the proposed compromise submitted by the appellant on December 11, 2000, staff recommends the revisions as outlined above, to include three additional conditions. The Planning Commission recommended modifying the conditions to lessen the impact of the structure on the neighboring property, and to make sure the encroachment into the rear yard was only allowed so long as it promoted significant preservation of the existing house and site development pattern. Further modifications to the conditions are recommended by staff to better protect the neighboring house at 420 Lowell Avenue, which is also an older home built prior to current zoning standards and is located unusually close to the shared lot line. An existing window in the neighboring house is in close proximity to the shared property line and to the approved location of the garage. Privacy and access to light and air can be enhanced by restricting windows on the east side of the garage, and by setting back the garage an additional ten feet from the street-side property line adjacent to Lowell Avenue and an additional three feet from the rear property line, and by reducing the height of the fence and vegetation. The recommendation is acceptable to the appellant. The alternative outlined below is also acceptable to the appellant. The i~ecolnmendation is not acceptable to the applicants because the street-side setback of 40.5 feet, rather than the approved 30.5 feet, will prevent them from increasing the size of their private rear-yard area; one of the primary goals of the HIE application. ALTERNATIVE Counci! may approve replacement of the garage in its original size and location under the cu,._~:ent HIE application. ATTACHMENTS A. Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes of 11/29/00 B. Staff report to Planning and Transportation Commission of 11/29/00 C. Letter submitted by appellant’s attorney William Devine dated 12/11/00 Anna Camaraota, Planning Technician DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: G, EDWARD GAWF { Director of Planning and~Community Environment CMR:234:01 Page 3 of 4 EMIL~-HARRIS ON Assistant City Manager cc:Appellant Applicant CMR:234:01 Page 4 of 4 Attachment A PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION November 29, 2000 Verbatim Minutes DRAFT EXCERPT Chairman Bialson:. So the only item on the Commission agenda tonight that involves a public hearing is for 404 Lowell Avenue. Would staff like to make a presentation? NEW BUSINESS. Public Hearings: 404 Lowell Avenue* [00-AP-07]: Appeal of a Home Improvement Exception [00-HIE-18] application, submitted on behalf of Gideon and Bina Ben Efraim by William Devine, which was approved on September 29, 2000 by the decision of the Director. Approval was granted to allow the construction of a detached two-car garage within a rear-yard setback at a distance of 71.5 feet from the front property line and 30.6 feet from the street-side property line where 75 feet is the minimum distance required from any street facing property line. The property involved is an existing single-family residence (Zone District R-l), located at 404 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Zone District R-1 Single Family Residential. This item is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing with the City Council on December 11, 2000. ~ Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: Thank you Chair Bialson and Commissioners. This is an appeal of a home improvement exception which approved a 558 square foot detached garage in a rear setback when the detached garage was not at least 75 feet from a street-facing property line. The Zoning Ordinance does require any detached structure that is within a side or rear setback to be at least 75 feet from a street-facing either a street side property line or front property line. The structure replaces the original 360 square foot detached garage, which was aiso iocoted in the rear setback without being 75 feet from the street side property line which is paral!e! to Lo~vell Avenue. It was in a slightly different location than the proposed structure. The proposed structure was proposed at about 12.5 feet closer to Lowell Avenue and about 5 feet closer to the rear property line which is adjacent to the appellant’s property at 420 Lowell Avenue. The HIE was needed for the location only. The floor area ratio and the site coverage have not been exceeded on this site. We included some additional information at your places regarding the floor area on this site and also the site coverage allowed on the site as well as the size of one and two car garages for your consideration during your discussion of the project. However, the HIE was only needed for the location in that rear setback. The applicant’s stated purpose for the enlarged garage was to have a more reasonably sized garage for contemporarily sized vehicles such as SUVs and vans in order for people to exit and enter the vehicles comfortably and to have that room to maneuver within the garage. The location change was stated by the applicants as being needed to enable them to have an exterior rear yard of an equivalent size to other either corner lots or interior lots for backyard area. It is not unusual to see HIEs and variances approved on corner lots because it is typically difficult, more difficult, to obtain usable backyard space on a corner lot. So frequently, fences are approved for minor DRAFT EXCEP, PT of 11/29/2000 Minutes of the Paio Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Page 1 variances or HIEs to locate them closer to street property lines in order to free up area for private use. The appellants have stated four basic reasons for their appeal. The first is that there are no special circumstances on this site. StafFs position is that the special circumstances are: that it is a corner location, that the existing house on this site is a constraint for where any sized detached garage could be located, that there isn’t a conforming location within which a garage could be placed, and that that is a special circumstance that doesn’t exist on most sites. The appellants’ second point is that this would be an upgrade at the neighbors’ expense and that it could be achieved without impacting the neighbors. Staff’s position is that with the conditions of approval as attached to the original HIE approval it would not be at the neighbors’ expense. That the trees that would be planted in between the garage and the rear property line, that the seven foot high fence, that the flat roof, which are all conditions of approval, would adequately screen and protect the neighboring property from any impacts. The appellants’ third p~)int is that the location of the garage is architecturally irrelevant. Staff’s position is that the location of the garage is relevant in that there is a pattern of detached garages in the neighborhood not only on corner lots but on interior lots as well. Those garages range in size from 300 to 500 square feet and that to maintain the neighborhood character and quality that a detached garage in this location is needed. Finally, the appellants’ last argument is that the larger structure would be more prominent. Again, .with the conditions of approval as attached, originally Staff’s position is that it wouldn’t be prominent. It has been moved back from its original proposal to be flush with the face of the house to setback from the face of the house by three feet. So there would be an offset. There would be again this green planting between the garage and the rear property line. There would also be a fiat roof and a seven-foot high fence to separate the neighbor’s site from the subject site. So Staff is recommending that the appeal be denied and that the Director’s original approval be upheld. This will be forwarded on to the City Council on December 11. I believe ~,ou Staff report said December 18 but it has been moved to the December 11 City Council Hearing. I would like to introduce Anna Camaraota. She is the Project Planner on this. This is her first time in front of you. I would like to introduce her and say that we are both available for questions should you have them. That concludes the Staff report. Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Any questions from the Commission? I think we will hear from the appellant. Is Mr. Bill Devine going to present for the appellant? I believe you have 15 minutes. Mr. Bill Devine, Miller, Starr & Regalia, 545 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park: Not to be difficult, my understanding was that the applicant was going to go first. Chairman Bialson: I understand the appellant does at this point. Mr. Devine: Okay. On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Ben Efraim, the residents of 420 Lowell Street, I’d just like to say thank you very much to all of you for giving us this opportunity to speak on this matter. As you may have been able to glean from some of the materials that you have been presented with, there seems to be a certain amount of confusion that has surrounded this matter from the outset. For example, at the two public hearings in front of the Zoning Administrator in DRAFT EXCERPT of 11/29/2000 Minutes of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Page 2 August and September the applicant made a number of statements about allegations of things that had gone on in the past between the property owners and 404 Lowell and property owners at 420 Lowell. In fact, I think what is really relevant about this whole case is that it is a zoning matter it is not a popularity contest. My clients have other allegations that they might make but that pretty much is irrelevant under the circumstances. This is a zoning matter not a popularity contest. Anothdr matter of confusion, it seems to me, is that in the applicant’s letter of May 18 the applicant talks about the proposed structure would be located the same distance from the property line as the original garage was, six feet. That is at the bottom of that first page of the letter. In fact, that is pretty confusing because the relevant point is that the original garage was 11 feet from my client’s property not six feet. So the proposed garage would move the.garage five feet closer to my client’s property. In the applicant’s letter of July 24 again we have a statement that the original garage was six feet from the property line. In fact, again, it wasn’.t. The original garage was 11 feet from the property line. Then if you look at the plans that the applicant has submitted, even the ones that were submitted last week, they show a dotted line at. six feet from the property line between 404 and 420 Lowell. In fact that is notthe setback. The setback at that location is 20 feet because that is the rear part of the yard. So all of these issues tend to create a certain cloud of confusion about what is really going on here. In fact the case would seem to be that we just have a zoning case. There is a 20 foot setback and the original garage didn’t comply with it and the new garage comes five feet closer to the property of my clients and also moves forward by 15 feet. From there I think there are basically just three important points about this case. The first one is that this started out as a code enforcement case. The applicant tore down a garage tliat was existing without a permit. Prior to tearing down that garage the applicant had a conforming structure because the structure was built before the Zoning Code was put into use. So the applicant demolished their garage and then come to claim that they have no place to locate a garage within the existing zoning structure. It seems to me that where that puts us is that the applicant has created its own hardship, its own special circumstances. There were no special circumstances before. There was a garage and it worked as far as the City was concerned. What ! have inmy hand here is Longtins California Land Use which some of you may recognize as what many people consider to be the bible on land use matters in California for legal purposes. Under the heading of"Self Induced Hardship" it talks about the fact that self-induced hardship affords no grounds for grant of a variance. This is from acase of the Town of Atherton vs. Templeton in 1961. It seems to me that the applicant in this case has created the special circumstances which seem to puzzle everyone. They can’t put the garage far enough back, they can’t put it far enough away from the property line in order to comply, but they shouldn’t be able to profit from the fact that they are the ones who created this circumstance. It seems like the most reasonable thing to do would simply be to make them put the garage back where it was because that’s the way it was when they bought the property, that’s the way it was when my clients bought the property and it would be a very straightforward remedy to the whole code violation that they face. The second important point here, I think, is that we’ve been through two different zoning hearings now and a number of paper-type situations. We still haven’t heard any explanations of why it is a special circumstance to have the garage located in exactly the place where the DRAFT EXCERPT of 11/29/2000 Minutes of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Page 3 applicant wants to have it as Opposed to say back where it was before, or as opposed to back in the far comer of the lot. The applicant talks about they would like to have a place for modem cars. They’d like to have a larger sized yard. I don’t think any of these particular points would suffice as a standard for saying that that represents a legally relevant reason for putting the garage where they want to have it as opposed to putting it back where it was. Again, looking at what Longtins has to say about this in terms of what factors are relevant to meet the standard of unnecessary hardship. The fact for example that a subsoil condition constitutes a practical difficulty for development was held legally irrelevant in a case, Broadway, Laguna, etc. vs. Board of Permit Appeals, 1967. I don’t think that having a larger garage because we are looking at going 50% larger, from 360 square feet to 558 square feet, that’s not a reason to say that that’s a special circumstance. I don’t think that it’s a reason tO say that it is a special circumstance that they want to have a two car garage when in fact the City’s requirement is only that there be a one car garage. The City doesn’t require two cars it only requires one. There has been no justification for why the building has to be moved forward or in particular why it has to be moved closer to my clients. Much of the opinion that has been expressed to date has seemed to center on the fact that nobody thinks it is a detriment to have a garage closer to your house. I would actually submit that the applicant took care of that in the August hearing. When asked why she wanted to have the garage moved forward and away from the house her point was that they wanted to get light and air into a room at the back of the house. And, that if in doing so that impacted on someone else well, that only seemed fair that everybody be able to split the light and the air. So that seems to me to demonstrate first-hand that by and large nobody wants to have a garage next to their house. Commissioner Bialson, you left me a message with respect to the eight properties that the ¯ applicant submitted in the May 18 letter. I actually went by back in August and looked at each one of those properties. If you go by and look at them what you’ll find is that there is a garage within six feet of the property line. But on the adjacent property you’ve either got a garage right next to it and not a living area or you’ve got a house but it is set so far back that it is not really in any proximity to the garage.. For example, there is at least two of these where the lot next to the garage that is six feet away from the property line is a huge lot. So you’ve got ahuge house set way back. It has to be at least 50to 70 feet away from the garage. So the fact that the garage is only six feet from the property line is of no practical consequence to the people living next door. I just don’t think there has been any kind of a showing that there are real true special circumstances attaching to the fact that the garage has to be located here as opposed to back in its original placement. The third point we’d like to bring up is that the City has made as a condition of the application approval, I see on the plan where there are 13 trees or bushes or hedges of some type that are supposed to go in there. It seems to me that that only further infringes on the light and the air and the whole ambiance of the property next door and rather than helping the situation I think that actually hurts the situation. So my clients also object to that condition of the approval. In sum, we feel that there is a very reasonable alternative here rather than to approve a garage that is 50% larger than the one that was torn down and moving it forward and in closer proximity to my clients’ property. The alternative is simply to have the applicant to rebuild the garage on the location where .the original garage stood, in the same dimension, with brand new materials. DRAFT EXCERPT of 11/29/2000 Minutes of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Page 4 It would be nice, brand spanking new. It could be a huge one car garage. People would have plenty of room to get in and out of their car and it would more than satisfy the City’s requirements. We don’t feel that there is any legal foundation for the placement of the garage -forward on the lot and close to my clients’ property. So we would respectfully request that you require the applicant to place the garage back on the spot of the original demolished garage. Thank you very much. Chairman Bialson: Thank you: There is a question from a Commissioner. You will also have an opportunity to respond if you wish to later. Commissioner Cassel: You have a lot of.arguments about why a garage shouldn’t be six feet from the neighboring property. This happens to be a comer lot with preexisting conditions but the standard internal lot through most of town has a six foot wide setback and a significant numbers of houses have garages six feet from bedrooms, living rooms, patio areas all over town. It is a standard accepted distance. Why is that not applicable here? Mr. Devine: I think if you look at the properties that the applicant submitted, sevenof the eight do not have the garage which is six feet from the property line hip on hip to a house. I’m not saying that it doesn’t exist. Certainly it exists everywhere. I grew up on a comer house back in New Hampshire so I know exactly what it is like to have that dynamic. But why make that infringement on a neighboring property when there is no particular reason for doing it? Commissioner Cassel: I guess my question is, why is it detrimental when it is a standing procedure throughout most of town? There may be some other issues but why is this so dangerous or detrimental when it is allowed all over town on internal lots? Mr. Devine: I think if you look all over town, what you are talking about is the fact that there are a lot of situatioris which are preexisting structures and layouts and things like that. So again, I think the City has an opportunity here to not do that to a neighbor next door. So it just seems like there should be a larger rationale that has been presented thus far for making that sort of an infringement. To put it another way, a guy who used to live across the street from us and two doors down used to make bricks in his garage. He made a brick driveway and he. made every single one of the bricks in his garage. I have a client who built an airplane in his garage in a different city. People do all sorts of stuff in the garage in terms of generating fumes, noise, clutter, the whole thing. Personally, if I’d been living next door to the guy who was making the bricks in his garage I would have considered it a negative thing. Chairman Bialson: Yes? Conmaissioner Schink: Maybe you could give us some more specifics about, why this would impact and be injurious to the neighbors. I frankly don’t see a difference between a garage and a swimming pool. Everything has impacts~ Do you have specific impacts that you believe are going to occur because this garage is there? Are there views from the house that are going to be particularly affected by this building? Mr. Devine: I think there are four things. There is noise, there is clutter, there are fumes and there is the whole view from the house and the daylight that comes into it. By virtue of moving DRAFT EXCERPT,of I 1/29/2000 Minutes of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Page 5 the garage closer and further up toward the front it seemsto me that all of those four factors are going to be brought closer to the Ben Efraim’s residence. That, to my mind, constitutes a detriment. Commissioner Schink: Do you have anything to show us to support the position on the views or illustrations showing how the views would be affected by that? Mr. Devine: No. Chairman Bialson: Go ahead. Conmaissioner Packer: How does the difference of five feet effect the movement of the fumes and the noise? What you are complaining about, from what I hear, is the fact that the old garage was 11 feet away from the property line and this new garage will be six feet away. Mr. Devine: Right. Commissioner Packer: We are talking about 4.5 feet. Do the fumes stop at six feet? Mr. Devine: Obviously not. CommissiOner Packer: I’d like to ask another question. How far away is your clients’ house from the property line? Mr. Devine: It is somewhere between four and five feet. Conm~issioner Packer: Was the house that way when your client moved in? Mr. Devine: Yes it was. Comanissioner Packer: Thank you. Commissioner Byrd: You sure about the four or five feet? The reason I ask is I was out there and looked at it today. I’m also looking at the footprint on this parcel map that the City put out and it is right close to the property line.. Mr. Devine: Yes, I don’t disagree. In fact, there is a part where it kind of juts out and is probably close to three feet right there,, maybe even 2.5. Commissioner Byrd: Where that bay window is the closest. Mr. Devine: Exactly. That’s right. Commissioner Byrd: Okay. Chairman Bialson: Do you know how far your clients’ garage is from the side yard of their home? DRAFT EXCERPT of 11/29/2000 Minutes of the Page 6 Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Mr. Devine: I don’t. Chairman Bialson: Any other questions from the Commissioners at t.hispoint? Thank you. Mr. or Mrs. Lee, you have fifteen minutes. Ms. Betty Lee, 564 Santa Rita, Palo Alto: I’m here actually to represent nay brother. My name is Betty Lee and live on Santa Rita which is about three blocks away.. I just wanted to clarify a few things that were said. The first thing is around the circumstances of the garage having to come down. It is not an excuse but when my brother purchased the property based on the inspection that was done through the transaction it was identified that the garage was seismically unsound and it was termite infested. Therefore it had to come down, granted, it was done illegally. The circumstances around that were our grandfather passed away suddenly and all of us left the country. Next thing we know, we come back and the garage was torn down. We have since then fired the very irresponsible contractor and we apologize to the City for having let our contractor do that, I know ultimately we are responsible as the property owners. Another story is the garage had to come down because it had to have new footings and all the walls had all the termites living in it. We had to go through such a process anyhow. My brother didn’t want to spend all this money to rebuild a garage after he just bought a house. So it is not as described. It is a hardship that was put upon us and we try to take advantage of it. The second point about a larger backyard, that is something. My family having lived in Palo Alto for 20 years and we all wanted to move back. My husband and I just did this last year. It is also part of my brother’s dream to come back to Palo Alto because it has always been such a family oriented place for us. Frankly, in terms of the enlargement of the backyard, it is only three feet of more backyard that we are talking about if you look at the plan where the garage ends. Secondly, in terms ofimpac{ to the neighbor, as I said we grew up in Palo Alto, we knew our neighbors, we babysat each other. We very much respect our neighbors. In requesting that the garage be larger we definitely kept that in mind. That’s why we propose a 4.5 foot wider garage which would sort of comply with the six foot setback line although that’s not legally the setback here. if the lot were 100 x 100, 10 fe’et longer, that would be the norm. While its square footage comes out to be 50% more what we are really asking for is 4.5 feet wider so that two cars can fit in it. Actually even with the extra four feet, with two cars in there and I have a diagram here, you can’t open both car doors at the same time. It is 3.5 feet between one car and the wall, 3.5 feet between two cars, and 3.5 feet between the second car and the wall which frankly isn’t a lot of space especially when somebody is in my condition to try to get around a car. So it is only 4.5 feet wider and four feet longer. The reason for it to be longer than the original 20 feet was ideally, as you all know Palo Alto is a bicycle town, v,’e thought that would be a good use of space to store the bikes in the garage. The next point about impacting the neighbors in terms of their view and their light, based on the recommendation by the Zoning Administrator, we actually moved the front of the garage back such that there will not be any additional impact to the neighbor’s windows. So for example, the old garage already blocked one set of windows from the Ben Efraim’s. originally we thought DRAFT EXCERPT of 11/29/2000 Minutes of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Page 7 we would move the garage fo.rward 15 feet or so. That would have blocked a second window but we have refrained from that. We have actually pulled it back so that from their view, the same set of windows they would have been loo -king at a garage as before, where the existing garage was. I’m not sure if you have this material, I could hand this out. There are actually two pages here which I prepared for the last hearing: The first page actually is irrelevant because we have moved the garage back such that there is no impact to the first window. So you may flip to the second page but the message is the same. Let me try to take you through this diagram. On the left you see we guestimated where the Ben Efraim’s windows are. They are about three feet away from the property line. You see the seven-foot wall there and the Italian cypresses which grow to be three feet wide. Right now they are seven feet tall and they grow about two or three feet a year and they can up to 20 or 30 feet. Obviously we would ask the Ben Efraim’s in terms of what height limit they would like since I understand they like to get more light into their second floor windows. Especially given that there was a previous circumstance where trees where cut down so that they could get light in the window. We would be happy to cooperate with them to get the right height for the bushes. You see, as we move in six feet from the property line with a 10-foot garage, and another point is, instead of a 12-foot. garage we are happy to come down to a 10-foot garage to further minimize the size of it. As you can clearly see a 10-foot garage is much lower than the 15-foot tree that would be there. In terms of light impact, with the trees letting them grow a few years, there just isn’t. Lastly in terms of the eight examples of other houses around the neighborhood that have garages that are as close as six feet to the neighbors house, I also went around the neighborhood starting with my own house. Our living room window looks right next to our neighbor’s garage and we don’t really mind it because that’s the way it sort of is living in Palo Alto. We’re not living in -- Woodside where there is-plenty of space between houses. I can read off 10 other examples of where the garage is closer to the living quarters. The reason the eight examples that were cited earlier was because there were garages that were easy to take pictures of. They are on the comer of Emerson and Melville, my friend Rhea’s house, and I guess the ladies on the left who live at 103 Churchill, 150 t Bryant, 364 Churchill, the comer of Waverley and Coleridge, 505 Lowell and 502 Lowell which are two houses down from 404 Lowell, and actually back on Santa Rita as t look dox~m the street the people across the street at 551 and 590 Santa Rita. So what I’m saying is I don’t think we are asking alot and we’ve definitely minimized it if there is any impact at all to the neighbors. We’ve also gone up and down the street on Loweil and asked for the other neighbors in terms of whether or not they support seeing the garage four feet wider and about eight to ten feet forward including the neighbor who looks directly at the garage. She used to be a former member of the Architectural Review Board. She has been through the plans and we’ve talked about it. She is fine with it. This includes the other neighbors who really look at it versus living next to it across from a hedge and a wall. Thank you very much. Chairman Bialson: Could you fill out a card, please? Any questions for Ms. Lee? Hold on just a minute, we have one. Commissioner Burt: Is there a reason or could you explain the reason why it would be a hardship to move the proposed garage closer to the house? Ms. Lee: The proposed garage? DRAFT EXCERPT of i 1/29/2000 Minutes of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Page 8 Commissioner Butt: Yes, closer to the Lee residence.. Ms. Lee: You mean instead of going 4.5 feet towards the property line, going 4.5 feet towards the house? I think right now according to the plans I think that’s probably only six feet between the house and the garage. Commissioner Burt: Lisa, do you have the site plan? I couldn’t tell from the print. Ms. Lee: Right now it is about 5.5 feet between the house and the garage which I believe was the existing footprint. We thought moving it closer in may justnot look as good from the street and it would be hard to bring your garbage around ifI came in to 4.5 feet. That’s only a foot away. Commissioner Burt: If the garage were moved a couple of feet closer to the house and reduced in width by a couple feet, what would be the significant hardship there? You cited earlier a need to prospectively be able to open cardoors on two cars in the garage at the same time. Ms. Lee: No, !’m saying at 22.5 feet wide you can’t do that. Let me show you. I’m saying ideally that’s what you would like to do. In this case we’ve made it as wide as we can without encroaching more into the six feet.space. So to read this, for a proposed 20.5 feet wide garage taking out a foot on each side for the wall, you’ll see that six inches of wall allow 3.5 feet of door and a six-foot wide, our station wagon is six feet wide, and then 3.5 feet between the first car and the second car which I’m calling the commuting car, for example, I measured my husband’s Jetta, that’s five feet and then allowing another 3.5 feet on the side. This means you have to park carefully because that’s not much variance. Chairman Bialson: Any other questions? Yes, go ahead. Commissioner Cassel: Is there not a large tree at the front of your house right out by the garage area? How does that fit in here? It didn’t happen to be on the plans. Ms. Lee: The tree is actually in front of the house. Commissioner Cassel: And the roots, would they be impacted by something being closer to them? Ms. Lee: No. Actually, if we were to go back to Mr. Burt’s question, if we were to move the garage closer, to the house we would then have to impact the roots of a redwood tree which right now is very close to the existing driveway. That would mean that we would have to shift the existing driveway closer to this redwood tree which is about 40 to-50 feet tall. We would not want to losethe tree. Is that clear? Chairman Bialson: Any other questions? If there are no other questions we can go on. Thank you. Are there any comments that the appellant wishes to make, Mr, Devine? DRAFT EXCERPT of 11/29/2000 Minutes of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Page 9 Mr. Devine: Thank you. I just have one comment. The statement was just made that the neighbors support the movement of the garage 15 feet forward and five feet sideways. If you look at the letters that are in your packet, there are 13 letters, 12 of them say that they support the movement of the garage forward. They don’t say anything about th~ garage moving toward theproperty line. The 13th one just says we support the plans. It doesnt say anything about specifically supporting the fact that it moves toward the property next door. I just wanted to point that out. Thank you. Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Are there any speakers to this item number 1? Seeing none, I’ll close the public hearing and take this back to Commissioners. Commissioners, any questions? Jon. . Commissioner Schink: This is a question for Staff. If you could put back the site plan please. This question is more for perspective on what our Zoning Ordinance allows and doesn’t allow. If I understand the Zoning Ordinance, am I correct in believing that if the applicant had wanted to construct a 15 foot wide garage in the Southeast comer of the garage they could have done so right up against the property line? Ms. Grote: They would need to be at least 75 feet back. Commissioner Schink: For example, if they were 75 feet off of Lowell Avenue, that comer right there, could they have built? Ms. Grote: It would be a single car garage, that’s correct. Cornmissioner Schink: Correct. But they could have built, just like the one that is next to it if you move that, could have been o, onstructed right there? Ms. Grote: A single car garage could go in that location. Commissioner Cassel: How would you exit it? The only way to do it is to place it that way and how would you get out of it? Commissioner Schink: I’m not talking about whether it works, I’m just talking about from an impact standpoint. That’s what I’m trying to get a perspective on. Our Zoning Ordinance would in fact have allowed a garage right on the property line there? Ms. Grote: It would allow a structure in that location. Now, to really be considered a garage it would have to be shown to be usable. So you would have to be able to exit and enter it safely and conveniently. Commissioner Schink: Yes, okay. Commissioner Schmidt: I have a question for Staff too. I believe in the Building Code there is a requirement for a separation between a detached garage and the house. I cannot recall exactly what that is. It might be three feet but it might be more. DRAFT EXCERPT of 11/29/2000 Minutes of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Page 10 Ms. Grote: It is six feet in the Building Code as 10ng as there are no openings between the buildings. So you couldn’t have doors or windows.. But as you get closer than six feet you need to have fire protections. Depending on how close you get to another structure you need to upgrade the fire protection.. It would go from a one-hour firewall to a two-hour firewall to a three-hour firewall depending on how close you get.. Chairman Bialson: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I want to go back to what seems to be absurd zoning. The fact that the lot is 90 x 100 and therefore the longer part is considered the rear, the rear is really what is effectively the side, so the 20 foot setback is on what is a functional side of the lot. Whereas if the house, as Ms. Lee said, if it was a 100 x 100 lot it would be a six foot setback on the property that adjoins 420 Lowell. And the 20-foot setback would be on the other side, is that right? Msl Grote: Well, yes. The longer side is the street side and the shorter of the two sides is the front. So that which is opposite the front becomes the ~’ear for the Zo .ning Ordinance. So yes, if the Waverley side was longer than the Lowell side than the Lowell side would become the front and the area in question would become an interior, side setback. Commissioner Packer: Which came first? The house was built in the 1920’s I understand. I assume it has always faced Lowell. Ms. Grote: Yes, that is correct. It was built in 1925. Commissioner Packer: So was that zoning in effect at that time or was this imposed upon it? Ms. Grote: No, our zoning didn’t come into effect until I think 1954 was our first Zoning Ordinance. So there probably wasn’t a definition of front, side, rear setbacks in 1925. Commissioner Packer: So it seems absurd to apply zoning on top of a preexisting house andto call it illega!. Ms. Grote: We consider existing situations, existing nonconforming when zoning changes are made and something that had been conforming becomes nonconforming. It is allowed to stay in place as an existing nonconforming situation. So in other words, we try not to penalize people for that but it wouldn’t be something that would be approved at least without a variance or some sort of an exception under today’s standards. Commissioner Packer: So the purpose of this exception is just to get around this bizarre condition. The garage came down which would invoke looking at what the setbacks have to be but the whole house didn’t come down. So all you can do is maneuver within the space left because the house wasn’t going to change. So we have to have this exception in order to deal ~vith it. Ms. Grote: I would say that the exceptions are considered to deal with special circumstances. ’And that the special circumstances would be that it is a comer lodation, that it does have certain definitions of front side, rear setbacks, and that there is an existing house that is remaining on the DRAFT EXCERPT of 11/29/2000 Minutes of the Pa]o Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Page 11 site that presents a physical constraint to where any other kind of structure could be located. So it is to deal with special or unique circumstances. Chairman Bialson: In that regard I have a question. Is there any way we can define this lot or take it 6ut of the Zoning Ordinance we have not in terms of the definitions and apply for this lot and this lot alone a definition of side yard being along Wa~,erley and rear to be along Lowell? At that point we’d then make the house sitting too far back. Let me tell you what my concern is here. That is that we allow something to be done with regard to garage and next we have a permit application for the demolition of the house and rebuilding of the house. What I am most concerned with here is that we have a sequential growth of the improvements on this property line. While I’m very concerned about the Lee’s, I understand we have no ability to stop that sequential or that creeping change. I see Wynne has a way to stop it. Ms. Wynne Furth, Senior Assist. City Attorney: I think that what you are pointing out is, I wouldn’t call this bizarre because we frequently have situations where the zoning changes. That really arises from the fact that we don’t make people go out and comply when we change the zoning. It is an effort to accommodate changing realities. It is very common in Palo Alto, which has a rich and eclectic development history. I think that what you are responding to is that what really drives this desire to push this garage forward is the fact that the house itself is set back further from the sidelines than it would need to be under our present zoning. If that circumstance didn’t exist then you wouldn’t be as receptive, to this proposal. You are entitled to put conditions on an HIE which make it appropriate. If you want to say that the condition of this is that the balance of the structure observes the setback lines that are appropriate here when you look at the lot this way, you can do that. I’m not exactly sure what those setback lines are but Lisa and Anna probably know. Ms.. Grote: The interior side yard is six feet. A street side setback would be 16 feet. Chairman BialSon: I tried working it out this afternoon. It is very difficult to do with a house set as it presently is. I guess that is for us to wrestle with. Any other questions for Staff from the Commission? Yes, Phyllis. C,~,mmissioner Cassel: In that comment, having wrestled with this because my house is on a comer lot. there is no 20-foot setback in either backyard no matter which way you look at it. It is nonconforming and they are all nonconforming. So in theory you would demolish the house and build the house farther forward and there would be a 20-foot setback, in this case on the side of the appellant and a six-foot setback to the back. But none of that exists. Chairman Bialson: There is.a tension between redesigning the lot and having the house there. If the house for some reason is demolished then we have the existing foundation as something that can be built on. I’ve seen a lot of homes go up on existing foundations that are quite different than the house that was taken down. So yes, Phyllis, there is no answer there. Wynne. Ms. Furth: Is your concern that you wouldn’t want to approve this if the house is expanded further towards these other street sides or that you wouldn’t want this to stay here if the house moves out of its own backyard’as part .of that? DRAFT EXCERPT of 11/29/2000 Minutes of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Page 12 Chairman Bialson: I guess my issue is I’m not ready to say what ways it will change. Ms. Furth: I do believe the Planning Commission has, because you are considering being asked to grant this exceplion based on the existence of the existing house,it is reasonable to say that it doesnt survive demolition or transformation of that house, if you wish to do so. Chairman Bialson: Bonnie. Conmaissioner Packer: So many.of the homes in the immediate area are very, very close to the lot lines. There seems to be practically no setbacks. What isthe history of the zoning and the setbacks in the immediate area? Why is this particular lot treated.so differently? Ms. Grote: I think that a lot of the homes in the area were built in the 1920s or early 1930s. They were built before setback requirements came into place. This lot is one of those in that respect. What makes it further unique is that it is a comer location and that it does have this existing situation with the house and the garage is detached. They are trying to do something that is in conformance with what was there originally or similar to what was there originally, although not exactly. Ms. Furth: I think it is important to keep in mind that the burden is on the applicant, and the City if it elects to approv.e this, to show why the zoning shouldn’t apply. Whether the rest of the neighborhood has rebuilt or not, rebuilding is subject to current zoning. Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Is the Commission ready to discuss this matter? Okay, Jon, why don’t you start us off. , Commissioner Schink: I will support the Staff recommendation, I intend to do so for a number of reasons. I think that to start with this home improvement exception is kind of the model application of what we were looking for when we came up with the idea for a home improvement exception. We wanted to make it relatively straightforward for someone to come in and make improvements to their home working within the system. Realizing that when you make it too difficult the end result is that the existing home and existing garage gets torn down and we end up with a home of current character which is often in conflict with the existing character of the neighborhood. So we wanted to make it easy for people and encourage people to, renovate within the style of homes that are there. This is a perfect example. The house was built in the 1920s and stuff just doesn’t fit our new ordinance. So you need a little flexibility and here is the flexibility. So I’m encouraged to see that the ordinance as we saw it when we fashioned it is working. Then I s~ep back and look at the standards that they must meet to be granted this exception. I think that given the unusual character of the lot the importance of the house as far as a component df the neighborhood, it’s architectural style, it’s scale, the relationship to the large redwood tree, and how it works with the other homes on that block, it is significant and should be recognized as a little different. Really, the next big threshold question for me was, are we in fact going to impact the people at 420 Lowell, those closest to the development. I would look to what does our Zoning Ordinance presume? Our Zoning Ordinance already presumes that we can build a garage this close to the property line. So I don’t see that unless they .come forward with DRAFT EXCERPT of 11/29/2000 Minutes of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Page 13 some really clear evidence that there would be an injury created by putting a garage next the property, I just don’t think it exists. But I asked them to present some evidence and nothing was presented. I would add to that my personal experience in that I lived in the house at 420 Lowell for seven years, so I know the home well. I lived there from 1979 to 1986. I know the views from those rooms and can understand what they are going through. I just don’t think that the impact is personally going to be all that significant to the way those rooms work. So I think that this is a good solution for what is happening on this property and I Would be happy to support the Staff recormnendation. Chairman Bialson: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: We often consider comer lots unexceptional circumstance but we have a lot of comer lots so I was looking for things other than that.language. My feeling is that we have an existing.house on a lot that the alternative for placement of any kind of a garage and it is required that it be larger than it currently was, is just not possible..So for me, with the physical placement of this house and the physical placement of the trees and the restraints of the Ordinance, you can’t put the garage in the back comer. Besides the fact that there is a large tree back there and we’ve been trying to preserve large trees and which provide shading for the neighboring homes. Then I look at the fact that you are shy five to ten feet from our requirement because it is only 90 feet deep and it doesn’t work in both directions. You have a large tree on the property line. You have a large tree right next to the house and that puts in constraints to where the driveway can be placed. I didn’t see anything in the argument that made a difference as to whether this garage would go forward o~: back. So it is only the movement of the wall towards the neighbor that I felt they were talking about. My sense is that this fence is probably the most offending piece. I don’t know if there was a fence there originally. This large fence provides a great deal of blockage and feels uncomfortable. Yet, it isn’t discussed because it is legal and there is no argument whether a fence can be put up this close to the edge of the property line. I am ~zoing to support the motion. I feel that the extenuating circumstance here is that we have an e?~sting home. Unless the existing home were to come down that is the only place where a iar~er garage is appropriate. It is set back from the street in the ways we’ve been trying to cn~ourage it. The detrimental or injurious parts I cannot find. Although this is in what would have been a setback, there are houses going up all over town where garages are being sited next to living ~ooms and other rooms. No one seems to be objecting to those, even in the discussions -with the single fanlily neighborhood that particular issues has not been talked about. Two car garages are a way to keep all of the normal garage noises inside the garage. Chairman Bialson: Kathy. Commissioner Schmidt: I will also support Staff’s recommendations. I also support Jon’s comments about the use of the HIE. This is exactly what the HIE was brought into being for, to allow homeowners to improve the design of their home and accessory structures while maintaining the existing design features. I think that the findings can be met. I agree with some of Phyllis’ comments about this is an existing house that was built prior to the time when we had any of our current setbacks and it is just in the middle of the lot and it is difficult to fit a garage in. Those are my basic comments on this. I support the Staff recommendations. DRAFT EXCERPT of 11/29/2000 Minutes of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Page !4 Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I agree with what has been said so far. I would support the Staff recommendations to deny this appeal. I fail to see that the neighbors at 420 will really be injured and their lives would be affected in a greater way than it had been when the smaller garage had been there. The same noises may take place in the same small garage. ¯ What concerns me is that this appeal happened in the first place. It seems like an extraordinary expense of time and energy over 4.5 feet. I suspect there is something else going on there but that we can’t address. I would have hoped that there would have been a more neighborly resolution to any concerns that were going on rather than going through hiring law firms, etc., etc. Even though everyone has a right to make appeals I just feel like I had to make this comment because I could not see the grounds for the claims that they were making. I also was impressed with the efforts that the Lees were making to try and accommodate some of the concerns ~that were raised, in lowering the height of the gin?age, in moving it back three feet from what was originally planned, and trying to make those efforts, and offering to work with the neighbors on the height of the trees that would be planted there or are planted there. So I believe it sounds as though there are efforts from the Lee’s to try to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors. So .for those reasons I will support the Staff recdmmendations to deny this appeal. Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Owen. Commissioner Byrd: I think my fellow Commissioners have made some compelling arguments about why denying the appeal will result in the right physical result on the ground. I share some of Bonnie’s sentiments that we live in a city, we all live close to each other and there is a certain amount of impact. So while I find my personal sympathies with the Lee’s and my architectural sympathies with the Lee’s, I’m struggling with Wynne’s admonition that the City in granting the exception and in the Lee’s in requesting it bear the burden of making the compelling case as to why it should be granted. I’m sitting here looking at these three findings and it is an awfully close call. ~qfile I suppose I’m willing to go along with the motion that is on the floor, I think we always do well by lashing ourselves to the findings and not backing into them from physical results. Even if it makes real good architectural and planning .sense. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, well it is 90 x 100. There are lots of lots that are a hare’s breath off on a corner from being a side or a front. Desirable for preservation of an architectural style, I guess so because for all the reasons that have been said. Not be detrimental or injurious to property adjacent, again for the reasons that have been stated I don’t think it is a big imposition on 420 Lowell. But I think this one is a lot closer on the law than perhaps some of the comments have suggested. One final comment I’d like to make which I will direct at Staff. Because of the extraordinary sensitivities these days around these single family issues, I think the City would do well to require site plans for building permits and discretionary applications to outline the footprint of adjacent structures. So that we could better read how, for example in this case, the placement of the garage would have affected the adjacent structure. I don’t think that is an undue burden on an applicant to just call out that immediate building edge as well as whether there are windows or doors in it. Just for next time. DRAFT EXCERPT of 11/29/2000 Minutes of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Page 15 Chairman Bialson: Pat. Commissioner Burt: Just a couple of comments that I’d like to add. I do support a liberal use of the HIE exception. I do have a hard time supporting the finding that.there is an architectural benefit to moving a garage closer to the street. I’d like to see, in general, us try to discourage garages moving closer to the street and becoming more prominent features of the street face. Finally, there does seem to be one unusual circumstance and that is the adjacency of the 420 Lowell existing structure to the property line. I wanted to see whether fellow Commissioners would find it a reasonable compromise to reduce the width of the garage by two feet and thereby have the garage setback be eight feet from the property line. Thereby provide some accommodation for the appellant without eliminating the ability for the Lees to have a reasonable two-car garage. I think 20.5 feet is a reasonable width for a two-car garage. So that would be a suggestion I would make if there was support on the Commission for it. Chairman Bialson: Thank you Pat. A few comments. I too am a great supporter of the HIE process. I’m happy to see there being flexibility in the application of our laws with respect to zoning, etc. I think the reason notice is given to neighbors is for the purpose that we are seeing here. We want to neighbors to come in and indicate just what impact the HIE would have on their home and we are hearing that. I don’t want to make an independent judgment of the impact. We have a homeowner here who is saying they find the impact to be worth the effort to go through an appeal process and I have to say that subjectively for them it is something that merits this amount of effort. So I understand Bonnie’s point but clearly we have the. sentiment of the neighbor here loudly, expressed. I agree with Owen that we all would like to see the physical result of this building preserved. I think that would be wonderful but there is no way to guarantee it and I am concerned that all the burden of expanding this garage for purpose of providing more storage, making a nice two car garage is placed on the neighbor in so far as the garage moving towards their property line. I had thought of asking whether or not we could perhaps take the midpoint of the previously existing garage and have any increase in either length or width go from that midpoint so it would be shared by both the Lees and the neighbors. I think Pat has sort of addressed that. I think you can have a two-car garage and not have two full isles. People do it all the time, I for one have to back one car in and the other car comes in sc~ that we only need one isle. if you do that you’ll find that you have a very substantial isle with a narrower structure. I am finding it somewhat appealing to place a condition on this that should there be any transformation or demolition of the primary residence that the HIE no longer be in effect. I wonder how we could enforce, that however once the garage is built. I don’t want to see the garage built and then the house destroyed. The whole idea here is to try to save what is an architecturally appealing home. Yet, we have no way of doing it. Maybe Owen has some way . to ensure that. Commissioner Byrd: It seems to me that the findings that are articulated by Staff in Attachment E speak to, especially in finding two around architecture, the need to preserve the existing architectural style. That provides for a grant of an HIE to accomplish this physical result. If downstream the new garage and the old house were all to be leveled, I wouldn’t see the HIE allowing for the footprint of the new home to reach a six foot side setback under our zoning because a 20 foot setback would apply. I think the findings here are specific to the accessory structure. We can clarify that. Wynne can correct me if I’m wrong but I think that these DRAFT EXCERPT of 11/29/2000.Minutes of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Page 16 findings are specific because they refer back in Finding 2 to the existing home. In the absence of the existing home you lose the ability to make the finding. Ms. Grote: We can also, and have typically in the past, put a condition on an approval that states that the approval is related to a set of plans with a specific date that then show what the situation is. And when that situation changes, they HIE no longer applies, if it changes substantially. Chairman Bialson: So if the HIE no longer applies but the structure is already there? Ms. Furth: Then you condition issuing a building permit for whatever else they want, a demolition or relocation of that garage. Chairman Bialson: This would be in the mechanisms of the City at th~ time a permit came in? Ms. Furth: I have great hopes of GIS systems. Ms. Grote: And permit tracking, that’s correct. We would place this approval and these conditions into the permit tracking system so that when future building permits are applied for this then comes up as part of the project history and background. Ms. Furth: I think one of the problems here is that you don’t have the 20 foot setback on either side now, and how do you avoid having wiped it out more than is absolutely necessary. Chairman Bialson: We know what the problem is. Jon, you have a suggestion? Commissioner Schink: I was just going to add that I think that if you want to provide a condition that you might say something to effect that if more than 35% of the main structure is demolished that the HIE would be withdrawn. You. need to allow them some flexibility because people can come in for a demolition permit to redo the kitchen and big parts of the inside. So we need to set some brackets on that. Ms. Furth: I suspect it is more about modifying the footprint than about what you do or don’t demolish. Chairman Bialson: Absolutely. So what are you suggesting, Jon? That we approve the Staff recommendation with the addition~al condition? Commissioner Schink: Yes. Chairman Bialson: Thunderous applause greets that. Commissioner Schink: I don’t believe there is a motion on the floor. Would you like one of us to put a motion on the floor? Chairman Bialson: I would love to have you do so. Commissioner Schink: Pat, you look like you were ready to jump in. DRAFT EXCERPT of 11/29/2000 Minutes of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Page 17 Commissioner Burt: I was ready to modify. MOTION Commissioner Schink: I would move the Staff recommendation with an additional condition to the approval of the HIE, That being that if more than 35% of the home or the footprint of the main structure is modified, the HIE is withdrawn. Chairman Bialson: Do we have a modification on my right? SECOND Commlssioner Cassel: First, you have a second. Chairman Bialson: Okay, Phyllis seconds. Pat? AMENDMENT TO MOTION Commissioner Burt: Jon, would you be receptive to a modification that the setback be eight feet rather than the proposed six? Commissioner Schink: other Commissioners. of support. I would sure like to hear some support for.that idea from a few of the Initially, my inclination is not to go that way but if you’ve got a little bit~ Chairman Bialson: He does. I’m the little bit. Commissioner Cassel: My concern is that the fence is so restrictive that you’re not going to see the garage except directly from the front. The fence itself is very restrictive and there is nothing illegal about putting it there. In fact, we’ve been requiring it~ Chairman Bialson: I hear what you are saying about the fence. What I’m looking at is what is required here, part of the findings for the HIE would have us find that this 560 square foot garage is necessm2, and I don’t find that. Commissioner Byrd: I share Annette’s concern that it is a foot in the door that would lead to a radical change in footprint moving towards 420 Lowell. I think Jon was being gentlemanly iri attempting to address it through his modification to theStaff recommendation. But I think the modification, though well intentioned, is only going to muddy it up. If you go to the first sentence of the HIE, "It is hereby approved to allow the construction of a detached two car garage." I don’t see the most clever lav~2fering in the world enabling someone who bought this lot and scrapped the whole thing to ride this horse towards putting a footprint all the way back. So I’d rather not get into calculations about 35% and such because I’m comfortable that the concern that I share with Annette is adequately addressed through the current language of the HIE. DRAFT EXCERPT of l 1/29/2000 Minutes of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Page 18 Commissioner Schink: IfI can rebut. The reason that I was happy to include that provision is the change I see happening is the garage just being left standing and a new structure being built. Chairman Bialsoni I have to agree with Jon there. I’d rather have it up front. I’d rather have a condition to the HIE rather than it just located in the findings. With regard to the size of the garage, I feel stronglyand I think Pat does too, that we not impose upon the neighbor at 420 all the growth of this garage’in its width. So I would feel that the eight foot setback requirement is appropriate. AMENDED MOTION Commissioner Schink: Given your compelling arm-twisting I’m getting the message that it probably does make more sense to ask for the garage to be a little smaller or a little further away. So I wil! accept Mr. Burt’s amendment to the main motion. Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: Because I don’t see how a slightly narrower garage is going to change =tl~e perceived impact on the neighbors at 420, I don’t feel it necessary for us to get into that level of detail of redesigning it at that level. This, as you mentioned Jon, the HIE was here to provide and encourage homeowners to make the changes they need and for us to be flexible and accommodate when there are these special circumstances. I don’t see how a two foot narrower garage makes any difference. It is not going to change the perceived impact on the neighbors. I just don’t see that that’s our role here. So feel uncomfortable about imposing that additional condition. Chairman Bialson: Jon. Commissioner Schink: You know, Bonnie, as I Was sitting here trying to sort that issue out in mv mind it suddenly dawned on me that in some of our neighborhoods that have wider lots there ~, the requirement for an eight foot set back and as a matter of fact what flashed in my mind is I thir_,k your ve_r-v street has eight foot wide side setbacks because I built a house in your neighborhood. I was astonished that I had to take two feet out of the garage to accommodate puttin~ it in your neighborhood. It is happening in some parts of the community so I was willing to accept their recommendation. Chairman Bialson: .Thank you, Jon. Pat. Conamissioner Burr: The additional reason why I thought it was appropriate is that even when we don’t have ~he need for an exception such as this we have a six foot setback from each property line. In this case we have a preexisting structure that encroaches on that so the distance between the structures would be approximately 12 feet which would be our normal minimum distance that we would require. So that was a major part of the reasoning there. Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Kathy. DRAFT EXCERPT of 11/29/2000 Minutes of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Page 19 Commissioner Schmidt: I just want to comment about the garage width. With the proposed garage the homeowner will have I think adequate room to keep some of the clutter that the neighbors are concerned about in the garage versus potentially behind the garage or elsewhere. As we all know, many garages are used solely as storage rooms. If the garage as proposed is built I would think that it would actually work to keep two cars in it and be able to store things quite adequately around the sides of the garage. Chairman Bialson: Are we ready to take a vote? Commissioner Cassel: I want to make one off-the-wall comment that doesn’t change my vote in any way. One of the things that might be possible for these families is to work out some easement between the garage and the neighbors’ house so that the neighbor doesn’t have a fence in there and there is some kind of arrangement between the two so that there is a little more visual feeling than just that fence. That would have to be something that was cooperative between both but that side of a garage is often not used by anyone for anything. Chairman Bialson: Are we ready to take a vote? We have a motion and a second. Would we like to have a restatement of the motion? .Commissioner Schmidt: Yes. Chairman Bialson: Jon? Commissioner Schink: I have moved the Staff recommendation with the added condition that if 3 5% of the main structure is demolished or the footprint is changed the HIE for the garage is. withdrawn and the condition that the garage now be situated at least eight feet from the east property line. MOTION PASSED Chairman Bialson: Fine, that is the understanding I understand of the seconder. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those against say nay. That passed unanimously. I think we are through with this item. Thank you for the presentation. DRAFT EXCERPT of, 11/29/2000 Minutes of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Page 20 Attac_hment B TO: FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Anna Camaraota, Planning Technician November 29, 2000 " 404 Lowell Avenue [00-AP-07]: Application submitted by Bill Divine on behalf of Gideon and Bina Ben Efraim to appeal the September 29, 2000 decision of the Director of Planning and Cominunity Environment, in which Home Improvement Exception 00-HIE-18 submitted by William Lee was approved. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning mad Transportation Commission recommend denial of the appeal and uphold the Director’s approval of Home Improvement Exception 00-HIE-18. ~ r~" ~a-" DESCRIPTION: Const~ction of a two-car garage is required as part of an open Code Enforcement Case [0002-BLD=I]. The original 360 square foot garage was constructed at a distance of 71.5 ~,~,~t from the front property line, 43 feet from the street-side property line, and 11 feet from the rear property line. The non-complying structure was demolished without permits in February 2000. Approval was granted to allow the construction of a 558 square foot detached two-car garage within a rear-yard setback at a distance of 71.5 feet from the front property line, 30.5 feet from the street-side property, and 6 feet from the rear property line. PROJECT HISTORY: 2/9/2000 Code enforcement case opened due to garage demolition without permits Page 1 City of Palo Alto 5/30/2000 7/19/2000 8/17/2000 9/7/2000 ’ 9/29/2000 10/6/2000 HIE application submitted to replace two-car garage and resolve Code Enforcement violation Optional hearing requested Director’s Hearing Continuation of Director’s Hearing Approval of HIE granted by Director Appeal filed SITE INFORMATION: The subject property is a comer lot that is 90 feet wide and 100 feet deep. The narrow side is oriented toward Waverley Street and is defined as the front. The existing home built in 1925 is setback 24’ from the front property line and 27’ from street-side property line, significantly exceeding minimum setback requirements under current zoning. The location of the existing structure makes it impossible to construct required parking in a complying location. Additionally, the result is that virtually all of the undeveloped lot area is adjacent to public sidewalks, at the front and street-sides, leaving virtually no usable open space affording maximum privacy and opportunities for outdoor living and children’s play. A significant Redwood Tree situated along Lowell Avenue between the existing home and the existing driveway, and an existing pine tree located at the interior rear comer of the property pose added constraints. The proposed plan utilizes the existing driveway access across the street-side property line (bordering Lowell Avenue) that runs parallel to a shared property line that serves as both, the rear property line for 404 Lowell Avenue and the right side property line for the neighboring site at 420 Lowell Avenue. A seven-foot stucco fence separating the properties is permitted by right and is currently under constructio~a. Slight repositioning and enlargement of the proposed new garage decreases the setback from the street-side property line from the original 43 feet to 30.5 feet and the distance from the rear property line from 11 feet to 6 feet. In addition to the findings outlined below, Staff suppo~s the proposed garage despite the increased size and revised location for the following reasons: (1) The proposed structure is as small as is practical for contemporary use as a two-car garage and must encroach into the rear-yard setback given the proximity of the existing primary structure (2) By pushing the rear wall of the garage three feet toward Lowell Avenue, the property at 404 Lowell Avenue gains private open space in accordance with the purposes of R-1 Zoning and presents no greater impact to the adjacent.property located at 420 Lowell Avenue. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Required Findings:, (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable --- to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district: (2) Response:There .are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district. The property is a 90 by l O0-foot lot located on the corner of Lowell Avenue at Waverley Street. The required setbacks. are twenty feet at the front and rear, six feet at the interior side, and sixteen feet at the street-side property line. Location of accessory structures within setbacks requires a minimum distance of seventy-five feet from any street adjaeent property line. Due to limitations posed by required setbacks, dimensions of the lot, and the location of the existing primary structure, there is currently no complying location in which to construct required parking. The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood Character, or a protected tree as defined in Chapter 8.10 or other significant tree, which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of the regulations: Response:The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectura! style that may be. compromised with strict application of the R-I zoning regulations. The proposed detached garage will replace a previously existing two-ear garage in a similar location and will meet the City parking regulations while maintaining the existing single family home constructed circa 1925. The proposed garage is consistent with the architecture of the existing Spanish style house, consisting of a fiat roof and matching stucco walls. Use of a detached garage is characteristic of homes in the neighborhood. Private yard areas are a typical feature of homes in the neighborhood. City of Palo Alto Page 3 (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: Response:The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed garage will be minimally visible from the adjacent property located at 420 Lowell Avenue. The height of the proposed detached garage will be limited .by condition to an overall height of ten feet. A 7-foot stucco fence will provide a barrier for both visibility and sound along the common property line. Additional screening will be provided by condition through the requirement of trees planted on the subject property along the common property line adjacent to the proposed garage. Grounds For Appeal: In a letter dated October 5, 2000, Mr. William F. Devine (on behalf of the Ben Efraim family) outlined the following grounds for appeal 00-AP-07: The applicant confronts no exceptional circumstances, and can remedy his zoning code violation without impacting nearby pro.perty.. Response:As stated in findings above, Home Improvement Exception O0-HIE-18 does meet the findings for exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, ~afety, general welfare., or convenience. The applicant seeks an upgrade for his property at his neighbors’ expense. Response:Approval of Home Improvement O0-HIE-I8 does not constitute an Upgrade nor will it create an expense to the neighboring site. The proposed new detached two-car garage will replace a previously existing detached two- car garage and the increased size will more practically accommodate two modern-sized family cars without City of Palo Alto Page 4 t presenting any greater impacts to the neighboring property located at 420 Lowell Avenue. The placement of the garage is architecturally irrelevant. Response:Placement of the garage is relevant to the existing architecture, and neighborhood character. Strict application of R-1 zoning would preelude construction of a detached garage characteristic of 1920’s Spanish style homes and typical throughout the neighborhood. There is currently no complying location in which to site required parking without significantly altering or replacing the existing primary structure. It is therefore necessary to provide flexibility to the homeowner in providing City required parking in Order to maintain the existing primary structure in its current condition. The larger, more prominent garage will be detrimental and injurious to nearby property. Responsei While the proposed garage is larger, it will not be more prominent and will not be detrimental and injurious to nearby property. The new garage is increased in. width 4’6" and in depth 4’1". The height is reduced to ten feet. A 7-foot stucco fence and landscaping will provide a barrier for both visibility and sound along the common property line shared by 404 and 420 Lowell Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) NEXT STEPS: City Council Hearing scheduled for December 18, 2000. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Appeal Application Appeal Letter Letters of Opposition Letters of Support HomeImprovement Exception [00-HIE- 18] approval letter City of Palo Alto Page 5 Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Attachment I: Attachment J: Home Improvement Application Letter [00-HIE-18] Director’s Hearing verbatim minutes-September 7, 2000 PAMC Section 18.88.030 (Location of Accessory Buildings) Block Map, 404 Lowell Avenue Overhead view of Lowell Neighborhood with building locations COURTESY COPIES: Bill Devinel 545 Middlefield Road #545, Menlo Park, CA 94025 Robert Johnstone, 1144 Cedar Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Gideon & Bina Ben Efraim, 420 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL; Anna Camaraota, Planning Technician John Lusardi, Planning Manager Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Page 6 CITY’ OF PALO ALTO R E C E I V E D Office of the City Clerk CITY’ OF PA{~BP/~o,F~OM THE DECISION OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OCT 0 6 2000 , CI3"Y. CI..ZRt~:S OFE ICFI o ne t,eom oupllcare within ten day~ from date of decision of Zoning Administrator Application No,O0 - Name of Appellant Street City Zip Zone DistrictLOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel No. I~q’- O~ OrO~ Street Address ~O 4 ~~ .,~4.~£" ’~_0 ~ Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant) Property Owner’s Address Street "- City Zip The decision of the Zoning Administrator dated whereby the application of L~. (variance)’use permit) ’ for a ¯ .’(original applicant) ~:epp~r~., Is hereby appealed for the (apprb~ed/denied) reasons state~l in the attached letter (in duplicate). Date tO/~,!~O Signature of Appellant PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL: Date Approved Denied Remarks and/or Conditions: CITY COUNCIL DECISION: Date Remarks and/or Conditions: Approved Denied SUBMI’FI’AL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED: -4.Plans By: v’2:.Labels ~-By: w3.Appeal Application Forms ¢~L_By: ~4.Le~er " ~By: ~...~, ~5.Fee ~/By: ~_eN,~/ . . 12/89 MILLER STARR REGALIA A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION V~ILLIAM F, DEVINE 5’~S MIDDLZI~IELD RoA~ SmT~ 200 MENLO PAEE CALIFORNIA 94025 Fxcsmm~ (650) 462-1010 TELEPhOnE (650) 46~-7800 Attachment B WFD{~MSANDR.c0M (650) 463-7809 October 5, 2000 Planning Commission City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 285 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Appeal of Zon:ing Administrator’s Decision to Approve Application No. 00-HIE-1 $ for a Home Improvement Exception at 404 Lowell Avenue Ladies and Gentlemen: The Ben Efraim family, whose home sits a mere four feet from the property line separating it from the Lee property, hereby appeals to the Planning Commission and the City Council to o.vermm the Zoning Administrator’s decision on the Lee HIE Application. If not overturned, that decision will permit the applicant 1) to build a garage that is more than fifty percent (50%) larger than the one tom down by the applicant in violation of City zoning laws; 2) to improve the views and light to the applicant’s house while imposing numerous detrimental impacts on the Ben Efraim family home; 3) to capitalize on a hardship that the applicant created for himself; and 4) to ttma a Code enforcement, Case against the applicant into an invitation to build a garage that violates City setback requirements more than the original garage did. The specific grounds of the Ben Efraim family’s appeal are as follows; The applicant confronts no exceptional circumstances, and can remedy his zoning code violation without impacting nearby property. The Ben Efraim family understands the setback problems that the applicant confronts. The applicant’s inability to meet the setback requirements, however, should not give him license to move and expand his garage. Like many other structures on many other R-1 properties in the City, the garage that the applicant razed conformed to the City’s zoning laws because it was a structure that pre-dated the zoning code’s enactment. By rebuilding the garage where the original one stood, the applicant can comply with the City’s requirement for a covered parking space, put his garage back in. compliance with the zoning code, and remedy his zoning code violation in.a way that does not impact neighboring properties. BEFMi39019B97658.1 "WALNUT CREEK Planning-Commission October 5, 2000 Page 2 2.The applicant seeks an upgrade for his property at his neighbors’ expense. Ms. Lee admitted at the August 17 public hearing that the applicant’s motivation in moving the garage toward the street and toward the neighbor’.s house is not to solve an impossible setback dilemma. Rather, it is to give himself a bigger garage and to give one of the rooms in his house more daylight and a better view. 3.The placement of the proposed garage is architecturally irrelevant. The garage khat the applicant to.re down without the City’s permission was architecturally consistent with the applicant’s house. Similarly, the replacement garage, regardless of where it is located, can be built in a way that is architecturally consistent with the applicant’s house. No architectural style will be "compromised with strict application of the R-1 zoning regulations.". On the contrary, requiring the applicant to build an exact replacement of the original garage will keep the applicant’s property from growing into the sort of garage-dominated residential development that the City has sought to avoid. 4.The larger, more prominent garage will be detrimental and injurious to nearby property. The proposed garage will be approximately 544 square feet, whereas the original one was approximately 360 square feet. Just by being larger, the proposed garage will be more prominent and have a greater impact on neighboring prbperty than the original garage. As the attached correspondence indicates in great detail~ the proposed garage will also bring the noise, fumes and clutter associated with the garage closer to the Ben Efraim’s home, and will interrupt the air, view and daylight enjoyed by the Ben Efraim home. The Palo Alto Municipal Code states that the City enacted its zoning laws "...to ’ provide for adequate light, air, sunlight, and environmental amenities; [and] ...to prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of population, 18.01.020(b). As long-time Palo ¯ Alto residents, the Ben Efraim family believes that the City’s initial decision on the Lee Application achieves none of these objectives. They respectfully request that the Planning Commission and the City Council require Mr. Lee to build his new garage on the exact place on which his original one was located before he tore it down in violation of the City’s zoning law. Very truly yours, MILLER, STARR & REGALIA William F. Devine B EFIVIk3901913 97658.1 _ MILLER STARR REGALIA A pROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORAT.|ON 545 MIDnLEFIELD ROAD SUITE 200 MENLO PXnK, C,~LtFOSNI~ 94025 FxCSlmLE (650) 462-1010- T~-L~PHOUE (650) 463-7800 Attachment C WILLIAM F. DEVINE WFD{~MSxNDR,COM (650) 463-7809 September 8, 2000 Lisa Grote Chief Planning Official Department of Planning and Commtmity Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: ~Application No. 00-HIE-18 by William Lee for a Home Improvement Exception at 404 Lowell Avenue Dear Ms. Grote: In the wake of yesterday’s hearing on Mr. Lee’s application to move his garage, my client has requested that I write to you to underscore two points. First, my lients continue to believe that this application presents only two issues: (1) should the City let Mr. Lee move his garage because of"exceptional circumstances" applicable to his property, and (2)would the proposed garage be "detrimental or injurious" to neighboring properties? Palo Alto Municipal Code §18.90.055(a)(1) and (3). With respect to these two issues, Ms. Lee’s claims that the neighborhood’s appearance has improved because of upgrades to her brother’s property are immaterial. Her oft- repeated belief that her brother has "worked hard to satisfy the City’s requirements" is irrelevant. Her allegations that my clients cut down her brother’s trees are pointless hearsay, if not actionable libel. None of these detours add anything of import to the matters at issue. Second, Mr. Lee’s application l~cks all merit with respect to the issues that matter. The fact that he cannot place the new garage 75 feet from Lowell Avenue does not give him license to move it closer to the Ben Efraim residence or closer to the street than the old one was. Why should Mr. Lee be allowed to do anything other than replace the garage he tore down? Any deviation from that result allows his new garage to violate the City’s zoning ordinances even more severely than the old one did. His property exhibits no "exceptional circumstances" that warrant the City permitting him to enjoy this cr.eeping variance. .Lisa Grote September 8, 2000 Page 2 Awarding Mr. Lee a creeping variance gives him numerous benefits at Mr. and Mrs. Ben Efraim’s expense. It allows Mr. Lee to move the noise, fumes and clutter associated with a garage away from his home and closer to the Ben Efraims. It allows Mr. Lee to have a bigger, more deluxe stable for his SUVs, and saddles the Ben Efraims with the detrimental appearance and diminution in value that occurs when a garage is prominently jammed up against the property line on land next door. As Ms. Lee admitted at the August 17 public hearing, the Lees want to place the new garage closer to the street and clo~er to the property line so that they can improve the light and views associated with the Lee house, and they see no injustice in snatching this property upgrade for themselves, even if it compromises the appeal, market value, light and views associated with the Ben Efraim home and burdens that home with increased noise and auto exhaust. Mr. Lee’s proposed garage will be "detrimental and injurious" to neighboring propei-t-y in important and costly ways. I have detailed those detrimental effects in prior correspondence, copies of which are attached, but in light of the Lee’s site meeting with the City, my clients hereby request their own site meeting with City officials. My clients are concerned that they were not invited to attend that meeting. They feel that Mr. Lee is running roughshod over them, the City, and the zoning ordinance, and they will take all4egal measures necessary to prevent that from happening~ At this point in the process, they would like to have the opportunity to meet with you at the site so that they can demonstrate first-hand the detrimental effects of Mr. Lee’s proposed garage. I will call you on Monday to see whether we can arrange a time for the meeting to take place. Very truly yours, MILLER, STARR & REGALIA William F. Devine Attachments NIr, and Mrs. Gideon Ben Efraim Anna Camaraota, City of Palo Alto BEFh,g39019x394080.1 MILLER STAtttl REGALIA 200 FACStMIL£ (650) 462-1010 TELEPHOS~ (650) 463-7800 WILLIAM F, DEVINE -WFD@MSANoR,COM (6S0) 463-7809 September 6, 2000 Lisa Grote Chief Planning Official Department of Planning andCommunity.Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re:Application No. 00,HIE-18 by William Lee for a Home Improvement Exception at 404 Lowell Avertue Dear Msl Grote: As you requested at the public hearing on August 17, 2000, Mr. and Mrs. Ben Efraim have, taken time to consider further Mr. Lee’s Application to move his new garage closer to the street and deeper into the setback buffer that runs along their property line. Upon reflection, my clients continue to believe that the proposed garage constitutes a more substantial violation of the City’s zoning ordinances than the old garage, and that it would have a more detrimental effect than the old garage on property and improvements in the vicinits,. The closer that the garage moves to the Ben Efraim residence and the-street, the more likely that the garage will 1) block daylight that would otherwise flow into the Ben Efrairn residence; 2) obstruct views that would otherwise be available from the Ben Efraim residence, especiaiiy its front rooms; and 3) have a negative impact on the appearance of the Ben Efraim residence from the street. Furthermore, as the garage moves closer to the Ben Efraim residence and the street, man?, activities that could have a negative impact on the Ben Efraim residence will become connected more intimately with that residence. Automatic garage doors and the genies that open them generate noise. So do the activities that people conduct in their garages. Some folks build airplanes in their garages. Others cut bricks. Still others hold practice sessions for their rock bands in garages, or warm up their cars and their lawn mowers for fifteen minutes at a time in the driveways. Garages and driveways in which activities such as these take place tend to be low on the attractiveness scale. B EFMX39019k393746.1 WA 6 N u T CREEK ’MENLO P^ B K Lisa Grote September 6, 2000 Page 2 Blocked daylight, obstructed views, a lot-cramming architectural style and appearance, closer proximity to noisy, noxious or unattractive activities--any of the impacts pointed out in this letter or my correspondence on August 17, 2000 (attached hereto), could cause a potential purchaser of the Ben Efraim residence to spin on his or her heel and decide not to purchase that residence. As you know, the residential real estate market is currently full of impulse buyers who are willing to offer hundreds of thousands of dollars extra for properties that impress them. If Mr. Lee’s application was approved and the Ben Efraims subsequently put their residence on the market and potential buyers thought that the Lee garage was too close to that residence, then allowing the garage to move would have in effect cost the Ben Efraims hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mr. Lee’s property suffers from no hardship whose severity warrants allowing him to visit this possible loss on the Ben Efraims and their property. In sum, the closer the Lee garage moves to either the Ben Efraim residence or the street, the more closely tied it becomes; in use and in appearance, to that residence. Moreover, as Ms. Lee admitted at the August 17 hearing, the more the Lee garage moves in those directions, the more the Lee residence gains, at the expense of the Ben Efraim residence, in terms of sunlight, visual corridors and distance from less desirable activities. Such impacts and results defy the City’s zoning ordinances both in letter and in spirit. For these reasons, the Ben Efraims urge you to require Mr. Lee to rebuild his new garage where his old one was located before he tore it down.. Very truly yours, MILLER, STARR & REGALIA William F. Devine Attachment CC:Mr. and Mrs. Gideon Ben Efraim Anna Camaraota, City of PaloAlto B EFMk39019L393746.1 MILLER 545 MtOt~Lt:~lt:t-o Ro~,o SutvE ~-00 M~.m.o P~,RK, C~.~.trot~m~,.9409-5 F,~CSlmLE (650) 462-1010 Tt;LRI’ttONE (650) 463-7800 WFD(~MSANDR.coM (650) 463,"/809 August 17, 2000 Lisa Grote Chief Planning Official Department of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Application No. 00-HIE-18 by ¯William Lee for a Home Improvement Exception at 404 Lowell Avenue Dear Ms, Grote:. Mr. and Mrs. Gideon Ben Efraim, owners of the home on Lowell Avenue that is next door tO Mr. Lee’s proposed garage, have hired this law firm to represent their interests at the public hearing on Mr. Lee’s Home Improvement Exception Application. The Ben Aft:aims urge you to deny the Application because it meets none of the standards required for a home improvement exception or a variance: Compared to the garage that Mr. Lee tore down, the proposed garage would constitute a more substantial violation of the City’s zoning ordinances, and would have a more detrimental effect on property and improvements in the vicinity. See Palo Alto Municipal Code §18.90.055(a)(3), §18.90.050(a)(3). Rathe~than preserving an existing architectural style that is desirable, the proposed garage will reflect the sort of linear, .lifeless, lot-cramming architectural style that the City has worked so hard to avoid. See Palo Alto ¯Municipal Code § 18.90.055(a)(2). None of the circumstances or conditions applicable to Mr. Lee’s property (i) make that property exceptional or extraordinary in any way, as compared to property in the same district, (ii) deprive the owner of the preservation or enjoyment of substantial property rights, or (iii) cause the owner an unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. See Palo Alto Municipal Code §18.90,055(a)(1), §18.90.050(a)(1) & (2). W F D\99999k-391 .l 59. I ÷ WaLr~u’r CREEK ÷ MgcLO p~RK ÷ w w~ "MSA~ R. co M ÷ S A ¢ R & M E; I~ T 0 Lisa Grote August 17, 2000 Page 2 1.The proposed garage would constitute a more substantial violation of the City’s zoning ordinances, and would have a more detrimental effect on property, and improvements in the vicinity. The Palo Alto Municipal Code calls for any accessory building at 404 Lowell Avenue to be located twenty (20) feet from the rear property line, and to remain within the daylight plane envelope that commences at a height of sixteen (16) feet on that rear property line. Palo Alto Municipal Code § 18.12.050(e) & (j)(3). To break those requirements, the accessory building, must be located seventy-five (75) feet from any street line, and must remain within a daylight plane envelope that commences at a height of eight (8) feet at the rear property line and increases at a 1:3 slope. Palo Alto Municipal Code §18.88.030(b)(3) & (4). The garage that Mr. Lee tore down violated all these requirements, and the garage he proposes to build will violate them to an even greater degree. The proposed garage will be approximately six (6). feet from the rear property line instead of eleven (11) feet. It will be approximately fifteen (15) feet closer to Lowell Avenue than the old garage. The proposed garage will also be fifty percent (50%) larger than the old garage-- 570 square feet versus 364 square feet. It will provide covered parking for two cars in a zoning district which requires covered parking for only one car. The application thus proposes a structure that is larger than City zoning ordinances require and that intrudes even further than tl~ tom-down Structure into the daylight plane and setback areas that give adjacent property owners the respect that they deserve. For these reasons, the Application should be denied. 2.Rather than preserving an existing architectural style that is desirable, the proposed garage will reflect the sort of linear, lifeless, lot-cramming architectural style that the City has worked so hard to avoid. The Application implies that lining up the garage with the front door of the house wiil make the property more appealing. The Application also lists a number of nearby properties on which the garage door and front door are aligned. Just because the doors line up, however, does not mean that the design is desirable. Many people believe that a garage-door-dominated lot gives a neighborhood a plastic- fantastic feel that is unappealing. Moreover, on none of the nearby properties identified on the Application does the setback-vioiating garage impact the adjacent home the way that the proposed garage would impact the Ben Efraim residence. In most of the cases cited on the Application, the neighboring home is separated from the setback-violating garage by twelve to eighteen feet of side yard, or by the garage on that neighboring property. WFD\99999k391159.l Lisa.Grote August 17, 2000 Page 3 In this case, however, the proposed garage will sit approximately nine-feet from the Ben Efraim’s windows. Given the severity of this impact, the Application should be denied. ,3.None of the circumstances or conditions applicable to Mr. Lee’s property (i) make that property exceptional or extraordinary in any way, as compared to property in the same district, (ii) deprive the owner of the preservation or enjoyment of substantial property rights, or (iii) cause the owner an unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. By their very nature, comer lots such as 404 Lowell Avenue are front-yard- oriented. Theydo not tend to have large back yards. Many other comer lots in Old Palo. Alto have garages on them that do not dominate the neighboring property. The home at 1501 Bryant. provides a perfect example of how a garage can be set back deep enough to minimize its impact on neighboring properties. Also, note that Mr. Lee was well aware of the proximity of the Ben Efraim residence to the existing garage whenhe purchased the property last year. He could have researched the zoning ordinances at that time. He could have declined to purchase the house. Given the design alternatives available tO Mr. Lee, he cannot claim that either he gets the design that he proposed or he is lost. 4.Conclusion: The Application should be denied. The disappearance of the old garage should not lead to the conclusion that there will be no harm in letting a new garage creep toward Lowell Avenue and the Ben Efraim residence. In fact the proposed garage will have impacts on the Ben Eft’aim residence, in terms of violating daylight plane and setback buffers, that are far more detrimental than those presented by the old garage. On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Ben Eft’aim, we urge you to deny the Home h~provement Exception Application referenced above. Very truly yours, MILLER, STARR & REGALIA William F. Devine Mr. and Mrs. Gideon Ben Affaim Anna Camaraota, City of Palo Alto W FD\999 ,°9k391159.1 ,;/u~¢ /?, ~ooo Attachment D July 27, 2000 To:Lisa Grott and Anna Camaraota City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, Ca. 94301 From:Neighbors of 404 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto Subject:Home Improvement Exception Application #00-HIE-18 The purpose of this letter is to show our support, for William Lee’s application for a Home Improvement Exception to relocate the garage such that it lines up with the current house. We feel that the relocation .would be in keeping with the neighborhood characteristics and would not have any negative impacts on us neighbors. We thank you for taking our. opinions into your consideration as you decide whether or not to grant this exception. Sincerely, July 27, 2000 ~rom: S~bject: Lisa Grott and Anna Camaraota City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, Ca. 94301 Neighbors of 404 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto Home Improvement Exception Application #00-HIE-18 The purpose of this letter is to show our support for William Lee’s application for a Home Improvement Exception to relocate the garage such that it lines up with the current house. We thank you for taking our opinions into your consideration as you decide whether or not to grant this exception. Sincerely, August 10, 2000 Lisa Grott and Anna Camaraota City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment’ 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 From;Suzanne Voll 401 Lowell Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Hone Impro~,ement Exception Application #00-HIE- 18 The purpo’se of this letter is to show my support for William Lee’s application for a Home Improvement Exception to relocate the garage such.that it 1.ines up with the current house. I feel that the relocation would be in keeping with the neighborhood characteristics and would not have any negative impacts on neighbors. That& you for your consideration. SincereIy, Suzamae H. Voll 401 Lowelt Avenue Pal0 Alto, CA 94301 July 27, 2000 Prom: Subject: Lisa Grott and Anna Camaraota City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, Ca. 94301 Neighbors of 404 Lowell Avenue, Palo-Alto Home’improvement Exception Application #00-HIE-18 The purpose of this letter is to show our support for William Lee’s application for a Home Improvement Exception to relocate the garage such that it lines up with the current house. We feel that the relocation would be in keeping with the neighborhood characteristics and would not have any negative impacts on us neighbors. We thank you for taking our opinions into yo~ar consideration as you decide whether or not to grant this exception. Sincerely, July 27, 2000 From: Subject: Lisa Grott and Anna Camaraota City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, Ca. 94301 Neighbors of 404 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto Home Improvement Exception Application #00-HIE-3.8 The purpose of this letter is to show our. support for William Lee’s application for a Home Improvement Exception to relocate the garage such that it lines up with the current house. We feel that the relocation would be in keeping with the neighborhood characteristics and would not have any negative impacts on us neighbors. We thank you for taking our opinions into your consideration as you decide whether or not to grant this exception. Sincerely, July 27, 2000 From: Subject: Lisa Gro~t and Anna Camaraota City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, Ca~ 94301 Neighbors of 404 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto Home Improvement Exception Application #00-HIE-18 The purpose of [his letteris to show our support for William Lee’s application for a Home Improvement Exception to relocate the garage such that it lines up with the current house. We thank you for taking our opinions into your consideration as you decide whether or not to grant this exception. Sincerely, July 27, 2000 From: Subiect: Lisa Grott and Anna Camaraota City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, Ca. 94301 Neighbors of 404 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto ¯ Home Improvement Exception Application #00-HIE-18 The purpose of this letter is to show our support for William Lee’s application for a Home Improvement Exception to relocate the garage such that it lines up with the current house. We feel that the relocation would be in keeping with the neighborhood characteristics and would not have any negative impacts on us neighbors. We thank you for taking our opinions into your consideration as you decide whether or not to grant this exception. July 27,2000 TO: "Lisa Gro~t and Anna Camaraota City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Communi~ Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, Ca. 94301 From:Neighbors of 404 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto Subject:Home Improvement Exception Application#00-HIE-18 The purpose of this feller is to show our support for William Lee’s application for a Home Improvement Exception to relocate the garage such that it lines up with the current house. We feel that the relocalion would be in keeping with the neighborhood .characterislics and would not have any negal-ive impacts on us neighbors. We thank you for taking our opinions into your consideration as you decide whether or not to grant this exception. Sincerely,. ~£,w,_g7 ~. ~l~v~./ July 27, 2000 From: Subject: Lisa Grott and Anna Camaraota City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, Ca. 94301 ¯ Neighbors of 404 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto Home Improvement ExCeption Application #00-HIE-18 The purpose of this letter is to show our support for William Lee’s application for a Home Improvement Exception to relocate the garage such that it lines up with the current house. We thank you for taking our opinions into your consideration as you decide whether or not to grant this exception. Sincerely, July 27, 2000 .To: Prom: Subject: Lisa Grott and Anna Camaraota City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, Ca. 94301 Neighbors of 404 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto Home Improvement Excep tion Application #00-HIE-18 The purpose of this letter is to show our support for William Lee’s application for a Home Improvement Exception to relocate the garage such that it lines up with the current house. We feel that the relocation would be in keeping With the neighborhood characteristics and would not have any negative impacts on us neighbors. We thank you for taking our opinions into your consideration as you decide whether or not to -grant this exception. Sincerely, .... ~uly 27, 2000 To: From: Subject: Lisa Grott and Anna Camaraota City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, Ca. 94301 Neighbors of 404 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto Home Improvement Exception Application #00-HIE-18 The purpose of this letter is to show our support for William Lee’s application for a Home Improvement Exception to relocate the garage such that it lines up with the current house. We feel that the relocation would be in keeping with the neighborhood characteristics and would not have any negative impacts on us neighbors. We thank you for taking our opinions into your consideration as you decide whether-or not to grant this exception. Sincerely, July 27, 2000 From: Subject: Lisa Grott and A_rtrta Camaraota City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, Ca. 94301 Neighbors of 404 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto Home Improvement Exception Application #00-HIE-18 The purpose of this letter is to show our support for William Lee’s application for a Home Improvement Exception to relocate the garage such that it lines up with the current house. We thank you for taking our opinions into your consideration as you decide whether or not to grant this exception. Sincerely, Planning Division City of Palo Alto Department Of Planning and Community Environment Attachment E 404 Lowell Avenue (00-]~IIE-18) Home Improvement Exception application number .00-HIE-18 is hereby approved to allow the construction of a detached two-car garage. The proposed garage (as per conditions below) will be located 71.5 feet from the front property line and 30.6 feet from the street-side property line where 75 feet is the minimum distance required from any street facing property line. The property involved is an existing single-family residence (Zone District R-l), located at 404 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Approval is based on findings and subject to the conditions listed below. FINDINGS o There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the.property involved that do not apply generally to property_ in the same district. The property is a 90 by 100-foot lot located on the comer of Lowell Avenue at Waverly Street. The required setbacks are twenty feet at the front and rear, six feet at the interior side, and sixteen .feet at the street-side property line. Location of acceSs.0ry structures within setbacks requires a minimum distance of seventy:five feet from any street adjaCen~ property line. Due to limitations posed by required setbacks, dimensions of the lot, and the location 6f the existing primary structure, there is currently no complying location in which to construct required parNng. The granting of the application is desirable i’fOr the preservation of an existing architectural style that may be compromised with strict application of the R-1 zoning regulatiogg: The proposed detached garage wil! replace a previously e_xisting two-.car garage in a similar location and Will meet the City parking regulations while maintaining the existing single family home constructed circa 1925. The proposed garage is consistent with the architecture of the existing Spanish style house, consisting of a flat roof and matching stucco walls. Use of a detached.gar~ige is characteristic of homes in the neighborhood. The granting of the application, with conditions .set forth below, will not be detrimental or injurious to .proper}y or improvements ~in the vicinity. The proposed garage, will be minimally visible from the adjacent property located at 420 Lowell Avenue. The height of the proposed detached garage will be limited by condition to an overall height of ten feet. A 7-foot stucco fence that is currently under 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 fax construction will provide a barrier for both visibility and sound along the common property line. Additional screening shall be provided by condition, through the requirement of trees planted on the subject property-along the. common property line adjacent to the proposed garage. CONDITIONS Planning: 1.A copy of this approval shall be incorporated into the blueprints and submitted with all permit applications related to this project. The following revisions shall be made to plans submitted on July 31, 2000 in conjunction with Home Improvement Application #00-HIE- 18: L ¯The proposed garage shall be relocated tO a distance of 30.6 feet from the street-side property line. ¯The proposed garage shall be reduced in height to ten feet. ¯The proposed garage shall be screened from the view of rear neighbors through, the planting of trees. A landscape plan, including irrigation, shall be included on the site plan. The fence, currently under construction along the rear property line, shall be four feet in height as measured from the intersection of the street side property line and the rear property line for a distance of sixteen feet. The remainder of the fence shall be increased to seven feet in height. The fence shall be included on the site plan. Maintenance of trees provided for screening shall be the sole responsibility of the property owners at 404 Lowell Avenue. Maintenance of the rear fence shall be the sole responsibility of the property owners at 404 Lowell Avenue. 5.The existing curb cut off Lowell Avenue shall remain unaltered. Lisa Grote ’ Chief Planning Official September 29, 2000 NOTE This Home Improvement Exception is granted in aecordanee with and subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.90 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. This permit will become effective ten days Subsequent to the date of this letter, unless an appeal is filed as provided by Chapter 18.92 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. A copy of this letter shall accompany all future requests for City permits relating to this approval. In the event that this approval is appealed, an additional letter will be mailed with information regarding the scheduled hearing dates before the Planning Commission and the City Council. A Home Improvement Exception that has not been used within one year of the date issued becomes void. The Zoning Administrator may, without a hearing, extend the time for an addition~il year if an application to this effect is filed prio~ to the expiration date of September 25, 2001. Applicant!Owner: William Lee William Devine Mr. and Mrs. Gideon Ben Efrim Robert Johnstone Attachment F FROM:William Lee 404 Lowell Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 TO:City of Palo Alto Zoning Administrator 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 5/18/00 Application for Home Improvement Exception to replace garage 404 Lowell Avenue Palo Alto, CA History In 1999, I hired a contractor to remodel my home. In the process of this work, the contractor took down the existing garage because it was badly damaged by termites and settling. This was done without a permit, however, and when plans were drawn up for a replacement garage in the original location we discovered that the new structure would be sitting within the rear setback for this particular corner lot. We are now asking for a Home Improvement Exception to allow for the construction of a new garage. Exceptional Circumstances This property sits on the corner of Lowell and Waverley streets. Palo Alto zoning defines the front of the property as that which has the narrowest street frontage. By that definition, the front of this property is facing Waverley Street, and the side yard is Lowell Avenue.’ This residence, however, was built facing Lowell Avenue (not Waverley). The front door and the garage face Lowell, and the driveway empties onto Lowell. If this were considered the "front" of the property, the garage would comply with current codes because there would be a 6-foot side yard setback and the left side of the garage sits six l’eet off of the property line. Unfortunately, by current zoning, the garage is sitting in the back yard - not the side yard - and is therefore subject to a 20’ "rear" setback. Property Rights ¯ The City of Palo Alto requires two parking spaces for a single-family dwelling, one of which must be covered. We feel that the proposed two-car garage meets the city requirements and the homeowners needs in the most logical fashion. We have explored alternate garage locations on the property and this location will cause the least amount of encroachment on setback requirements-and changes in street access. Injury to Adj aeent Properties We are proposing to use the existing driveway entrance and driveway so there will be no changes with respect to street access or traffic. Regarding the setback encroachment, the proposed structure would be located the same distance from the property line as the original garage was (six feet). Home Improvement Exception Application 404 Lowell Avenue Page 2 Conformity with Neighborhood Character The arrangement of buildings on this c6mer lot, with the garage and driveway oriented towards the long side of the property, is quite common in this neighborhood. This is because the narrow side of these properties is very limiting in terms of space. The setbacks in this situation, 6 feet on the fence side yard and 16 feet on the street side yard, make it very difficult to fit both the front of a home and the garage on this side. In most cases either one or both face the street on the long axis of the property. We have enclosed pictures and addresses of comer properties in tlfis neighborhood that have similar comer lots and have garages facing the long (side yard) street. In all cases these garages are within the 20-foot rear setback. We feel it would be entirely in keeping with the neighborhood character for us to rebuild the garage in its original location, facing Lowell Street. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Wi!liam Lee -404 Lowell Street Palo Alto, CA Application For Home Improvement Exception 404 Lowe~ Avenue Pale Alto, CORNER PROPERTIES WITH SIMILAR GARAGE LOCATIONS This is a partial listing of comer properties in this area that have garages similarly located. There are m~y more examples. In. fact, we found very few comer lots that comply with current regulations as far as garage setback is concerned. 569 LOWELL (corner of Lowell and Webster) Front door." faces Lowell - front (narrow) side of lot. Garage: faces Webster -side yard (long) side of lot, within 20’ rear yard setback 300 COLERIDGE (corner of Coleridge and Bryant) Front door." faces Coleridge Avenue - front (narrow) side of lot. Garage: faces Bryant - side yard (long) side oflot, within 20’ rear yard setback 1708 COWPER (corner of Cowper and Lowell) Front door and Garage: face Cowper - side yard (long) side of lot. Garage sits within 20’ rear yard setback. 1500 BRYANT (corner of Bryant and Churchill) Front d~or: faces Bryant Street - front (narrow) side of lot. Garage: faces Churchill Avemle - side yard (long) side of lot, within 20’ rear yard setback. 1680 BRYANT (corner of Bryant and Lowell) Front door & garage." face Bryant - side yard (long) side of lot. Garage ~its within 20’ rear yard setback. 502 LOWELL (corner of Lowell and Cowper) Front door." faces Lowell - front (narrow) side of lot. Garage." faces Cowper - side yard (long) side of lot, within 20’ rear yard setback 1617 WAVERLEY (corner of Coleridge & Waverley) Front door & garage." face Waverley - side yard (long) side of lot. Garage sits within 20’ rear yard setback. 380 COLERIDGE (corner of Coleridge & Waverley) Front door & garage: face Waverley - .side yard (long) side of lot. Garage sitswithin 20’ rear yard setback. July 24, 2000 To: From: Subject: .City of Palo Alto Zoning Administrator 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, Ca. 94301 William Lee 404 Lowell Avenue Palo Alto, Ca. 94301 Addendum to Application for Home Improvement Exception to replace gar. age at 404 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto, Ca. The purpose of this addendum is to address the homeowner’s best effort to mitigate negative impact to direct neighbors when choosing the exact location for the new garage. The front of ~e garage will l~e up with ~e ma~ house along Lowell¯ Avenue Size of the garage will be 22’- 6"w by 24’-1"1 Design of the garage is to replicate the original garage Back of the garage will move forward from the original garage The intent is to locate the garage where it will be most aesthetically pleasing. It will line up with the house vs. being located as far forward as possible from the street. Tl’ds hopefully will conform to the neighborhood -character and make for a nicer garage for the neighbors to look at. The intention is to have a two car garage that will comfortably accom_rnodate two "modem size" cars that are larger than what cars used to be. This is to encourage occupants to park their cars inside the garage versus on the street. It is also meant to be a low garage to keep the size small and mitigate arty impact to the adjacent neighbor. The intention is to maintain the architectural integrify of the house / neighborhood and to help preserve the old-world feeling of the neighborhood. This will allow the property to have a’larger backyard, which will be nice for the kids to play in (vs. the street) and enhance the view from the adjacent neighbor’s second floor addition whose row of windows look right into the back of the house. cont’d RECE VEi Page 2 cont’d The garage will be located the This is intended to mitigate any impact to the ¯ same distance from the property neighbor as the garage will not "sit right on top of line as the original garage was them". (six feet) Please let me know if there are any additional issues that we need to address in our application. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, William Lee Attachment G ZONING ADMINISTtLATOR HEARING Thursday, September 7, 2000 Verbatim Minutes 404 Lowell Avenue (00-H!E-18): Application submitted by William Lee for a Home Improvement Exception to allow the construction of a detached, two-car garage at a distance of 27 feet from the street sideyard property line adjacent to Lowell Avenue and at a distance of 71 feet from the front property line.adjacent to Waverley Street where 75 feet is the minimum distance required under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.88.030(b)(3). Environmental Assessment: Exempt _f!-om the provisions of t!-ie California Environmental Quality Act. Zone District: -~,_-~ Smgie-i~ am~!y Resmen:la~. Note: ~-,,- ",’~ seemed to be underway already at start of tape. There were testimonies that were trot recorded, therefore, tto transcription for that portion. Applicant: There are two things I forgot to mention in terms of our subsequent conversations since the last hearing. We also agreed, although I guess I did not understand that it was hypothetically, that we would sign some sort of a legal document that would bind the current owners and an?" future owners to keep the tree situation the way it is so that it will not reverse back to their staring at a wall, so that the trees will always be there. other thing about other examples of properties around the neighborhood, where the garage is ~,.r~he,- forward than the 75-foot zoning requirement, which in this case we would have a l-,ardsMp because we could not put 75 feet and allow for an 18-foot required length garage. We ~.~,~-,’~ ~ound the neighborhood to see other examples of situations like this where the house d~c,r has the tiring quarters very much close to it. I could read offsome of them, mad one of hbo,. We live about three blocks away. Also 590 Santa Rita, and I have a ar~ c,f it~ -his roof here is their garage, and this is our front door, and our living room is right ~: ~_’: r~,:~_~abors across the street at 551 Santa Rita have a two-car garage, and next door to it : ::c~r:~er of E~_-_.erson and Melville, 364 Churchill, comer of Waverley and Coleridge, ai:i.:~g!~ ! ~.~id r;ot get the exact address because I could not find the number, but it is across the ~v:ee~ ~roz~ ? ;;~ ~_~;_,~endge, also 505 Lowell and 502 Lowell. Again, I did not do a comprehensive ~,:~-cK b~t tha~ ;a the list of seven others that I was able to. view just walking around the " ~, !xborhoori. M~.. Grote: in sur~mao’, let me try to stmamarize what I have heard. The applicant believes or agrees to p~t tlne garage 32 l~et back from the front property line and lower it two feet so that .it w~uld be i0 tset high rather than !2 feet in height, and that you were also v, dlling to sig~_ some sort. of agreement or have a iegai document that states that any trees that you plant between the g~age -mad the propert;~i line would remain there and would not be removed for an?’ reason and would be replaced, should the)’ die ofnaturai causes. What ! am not clear on is whether you are willing to paint and stucco both sides of the fence? Okay. I think that was it. My understanding of the neighbors’ position is that you are essentially restating what you stated originally, and that is that the garage should be built back in the same width and length and in the same location as the original. Does that mean, then, that you would not be willing to consider the just mentioned changes that the Lees are willing to make? Member of the Public: I think that is correct. Ms. Grote: So that lowering the garage, painting both sides offence, stuccoing it, none of those things go any distance with you in.reducing impacts or perceived impacts. Member of the Public: No. Ms. Grote: That being the case, how do the applicants then feel about conditions that would hold. you to these changes that you say you are willing to make? I don’t know if this is going to lead to an appeal or not, but if there were conditions on an approval that held you to the things you just stated, would that be satisfactory to you? Is there anyone else who like to comment on this application or ask questions? Sol Moore: I live three doors down along Waverley. I just have a couple of points to make. One is, whatever improvements on the comer property, 404 Lowell, we just feel so good about that property being improved and make the neighborhood look so good. It is really commendable. The second thing is, for the objective of the neighborhood and harmony, I think the Lees are really bending backward to accommodate. I think that just for a harmonious relationship, I think it is up to your judgment. We are actually very comfortable with it. ?,.~s. Grote: !s there anyone else who would like to comment on this application? (None) That bei~t~ the casc~ ! want to thank you both for taking the extra time to think about this further and t~ im;;e conversations with each other. I appreciate that. I will close the public hearing and issue a written determination in ten working days. 2 Attachment H 18.88.030 Location of accessory buildings. (a) Except as otherwise provided inthis section, accessory buildings shall at all times be located in conformance With requirements for principal buildings, and shall not be located in any required front, side, or rear yard. (b) In residential zones, accessory buildings may be located in a required interior’yard subject to the following limitations:. (1) An accessory-building shall not be used for living and/or sleeping purposes unless the building was legally constructed for or legally converted to living and/or sleeping purposes prior to October 13, 1983. (2) An accessory building shall not be located in a required front yard, a required street yard, or a required rear yard of a through lot. (3) An accessory building shall not be located in a required interior side or rear yard unless the building is at least 22.9 meters (seventy-five feet) from any stree~ line, measured along the respective lot line. (4) Accessory buildings located within a required interior yard as permitted by this section shall be subject to a maximumheight established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of 2.44 meters (eight feet) at the property line and increasing at a slope of one meter for each three meters of distance from the property line, to a maximum height of 3.66 meters (twelve feet). (5)No such accessory building shall have more than two plumbing fixtures. (c)No swimming pool, hot tub,. spa or similar accessory facility shall be located in any portion of a required front or street side yard. (Ord. 3905 § 16, 1989: Ord. 3577 § 3, 1984: Ord. 3536 § 37, 1984: Ord. 3465 § 21, 1983: Ord. 3340 § 15, 1982: Ord. 3255 .§ 12, 1981: Ord. 3130 § 12, 1979: Ord. 3108 § 19, 1979: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) IO Attachment I "~.~ /~"~. /...~,, "2,~~.~ ~.~ / k~/.~ ,~. ~ I .,,~,.~/,..,, .. " ... ¯." ,;,, "’,.X, ~.~¯ Attachment J / ",::.,, | \-, ;, ¯.. This map Is a product, df the City of Palo Atto GIS ." "~,,. ,- ’-’,: °~"~ ....,’~;- ~i’;~,~\~;,~:=~ --:~’4~-::~ -.~,:,~,; ~ , , ~: "~",-. - .....-,. -~.-. ~L~--’ -,. ’ :" ;-,’, "~ -,~,,:,~,: .f" ~:,~- . D~=emb~ 11, :2000 Attachment C VIA ~ACSIMILE 6S0.329-26;46 Ariel Calonne City Attorney City of Pale Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Pale Alto, CA 9~01 This Eve~in_~’~ ~tv Crmmoil He’arln_~ on the Home Improve~nent Exc~on_ A_npHcs~on’ at 404 Lowe|l ¯ Dear Mr. Calonn¢: .- Mr, and Mrs,Gideon Ben Efrdm have ~ived in Pale; Alto for almost five years. Tl~ey.have a son and ~randdst~ghter who Eve in P~1o Alto, Tlieir second son is cun.ent~y looking for a home in town. -They mak.e significant eon~btitions to the communltyin both tangible and intangible ways. Liv.~.g herr is not an investmr.nl for them, ~ it is for M~. Lee, who apparently ¯ resides in Taiwan, and his tenets, .l~or the Ben Ef~m family, llvlng herr is their life. The Ben ]Ifralms have two reasons for believing that n~ court’~f law will .uphold ¯approval of Mr. Lce’s l-liE,, an4 that the City should reqttire him to bt~ild the new g~mage on ~e Io~ation of the one he darnel{shed without a permit. 1:~t, Mr, Lee has applied.for ih~ wrong zoning relief. "The I-~ Frocsss...was ~rea~ed for situation~ wl~ere relief from the -’:cuing regulations is desirable for sustaining the ~Itegrity of an existing design concept or neighborhood oharacter...To qualify for consideration of an .H~, stleast 75% of the existing exterior wslls linear feet) and 25% of the e.xisttng roof(in squaro feet) of~t stmctur~ must bemaintained," Guid~1inss Boo~ei, p, 3, Yet this i~ a eas~ abot~t a setback dilemma th~tt.M~, Lee confronts, nc,t about design integrity or neighborhood character, Moreover, none of the walls or roof of Lhe’struoture in qnrstion can bs mainta~ed because Mr. Le~ has already demolished the entire st:,oture. Mr. Lee should not be granted art ~ becmme he should be applying for a varia~¢, not. for an HTE. Second, Mr.’Lee’s application does not meet the City’s two ke~, requirements ~’or granting relief from zoninl~ (~rdinances, The n~w garage will be closer to the Ben B ~raim DEC-II-O0 MON B:C4 PM 2 Do, ember 11, 2000 o In fact Mr, Lee has croatedhis own setback di~culties by demolls~ng ~s old g~ge, w~oh w~ a Isgal} non-oompl~g faoili~, ~ i1 is w~11-se~od l~w ~at "soIf-hduosd h~p ~oMs no ~o~. for ~1 era v~mc~," Lon~’s C~{fo~a Lind Uss, 3,70(~), p, 357, ~. L=e ~ no Is~I fo~d~fidn for r~i~g ~o right ~ b~Id abigger garal~ ~d-~ b~g ¯ ~o nois~, clu~/furors ~d daylight plms ~nt~ptions ~Soclated ~ it closer U) ~ s~m~t ~d ~los~r to ~o B~ E~ ~m~. ~, Los s~uld be roq~od to put ~s ne~ g~r~g~ on ~ spot whsm ~o old one stood, , ’ ’ While the Ben Efraims fool strongly about the la~k of legal support for IVgr. Lce’s " application and. a~ committed to s~anding up for their fights, theyaro also o~mmi~1~ to bring . good c.itizcns of th.s finest order. Accordingly, inthe inttr~ts of bringing this mailer to a close, they proposed the folhwlng modifications to thvPlanning Commission’s finding (j~roposed modifications und~rlinod): . ’ I. ¯ "~fmoro than 35% ofth~ main ~t~~s is demolished, m.ff the footprint is cnang’ed, or if the ma~n s~ca~e i~ ~nereased {n si~e by 3S% or mor~ ~h~i~ the ~ ~ll b~ ~th&awn and the, ~amge wil! be rebuilt in itq off,ins1 l~csdon.. 2, "Th~ garage shill bo si~at~d ~tt l~ast.9, feet from the.east property lins, ~ at l~ast 40,5 f~st fcom th~ street s~do pr~pm’ty line, 3."The garag~ s_~a!! have no window 9n its east rids. Ths f~nos sha]~ bs ~ 3~¢-II-00 MOR 6’C5 PM If the City will approve these motifieations, my clients will ~.~w objection to ~e eo~fion of~. Leo’s . V~ ~ly yo~s, ~LE~ ST~ & ~OALIA ~il~ ~, De~n~ cc:Wyrme ~h, Soni~ Assist~t City Att0m~y EEl~M~dg01D\406d09,1 hE¢-ll-O0 MON 6rC5 PM ?,4