Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-06 City Council (6)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER AUGUST 6, 2001 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR:332:01 2340 BRYANT STREET [01-HIE-02]: APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY ROGER KOHLER TO APPEAL THE MAY 3, 2001 DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT, IN WHICH HOME IMPROVEMENT EXCEPTION 01-HIE-02 WAS DENIED. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, support the recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Commission, and deny the appeal of Home Improvement Exception 01-HIE-02. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property is an interior lot that measures 50 feet wide and 112.5 feet deep, for a total of 5,625 square feet in area. The existing two-story home was built in 1925 and currently exceeds the maximum allowable floor area ratio by 187 feet. The proposed project involves the enclosure and expansion of an existing second story balcony at the rear of the house in order to add a bathroom (the project would result in two second floor bathrooms, for a total of three bathrooms in the house). The proposed project would increase the square footage of the house by an additional 99.8 square feet, causing the house to exceed its maximum allowable floor area ratio by a total of 287 square feet. A Home Improvement Exception (HIE) is required for this application in order to allow the expansion of floor area ratio beyond the limits contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The applicant’s architect, Mr. Roger Kohler, has stated that the additional square footage is necessary to improve the architecture of a recent addition to the house. However, staff believes the appearance of that portion of the house can be improved without enclosing the balcony or requiring an HIE. CMR:332:01 Page 1 of 4 BOARD AND COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Director of Planning and Community Environment reviewed the project at a public hearing on April 19, 2001. The Director denied the application on May 3, 2001, citing insufficient evidence to support the required findings. The applicant appealed the Director’s denial of the project on May 14, 2001. The reasons for the denial, grounds for appeal, and staff’s response to the appeal issues are fully discussed in the Planning and Transportation Commission dated July 11, 2001 (Attachment A). The Planning and Transportation Commission held a public hearing on the appeal on July 11, 2001. Mr. Kohler, representing the applicant, presented his basis for the appeal to the commission. Mr. Kohler stated that he was principally seeking policy guidance with the appeal; he felt that everyhouse should be entitled to one HIE for additional floor area. In addition, Mr. Kohler also requested that the Planning and Transportation Commission help him to establish a guideline for applicants regarding the amount of additional floor area that an applicant could be expected to receive through the HIE process. One member of the public spoke to the item, stating that she was interested in clarifying staff’s position regarding using the HIE process to allow residential floor area beyond what is normally allowed by the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Correspondence was also received from a member of the public supporting the Director’s decision to deny the HIE, which is attached to this report (Attachment C). The Planning and Transportation Commission voted 3-2-2 (Commissioners Bialson and Schink, absent) to recommend that the Council uphold the Director’s decision and deny the appeal. Commissioner Cassel stated her belief that not every existing home is entitled to additional floor area beyond what is normally allowed, and that every application for exceptions must be evaluated on its own merits. In her opinion, the additional floorarea for a full bathroom could not be considered incidental space and would not qualify for an HIE. Commissioner Packer stated that she didn’t think that the exception should be approved as a reaction to the fear that the house would be torn down. She also didn’t support the bulk that would be added to the back of the house by extending the proposed addition beyond the confines of the existing balcony. Commissioner Schmidt stated that she failed to find anything extraordinary about the property or house. She also thought that the project would not preserve the existing architectural style of the house because the entire back half of the house was a later addition to the original 1925 structure and did not currently match. Finally, she stated that the extra CMR:332:01 Page 2 of 4 bulk on the back of the house would be detrimental to the surrounding properties due to the shallowness of the lots in the neighborhood. Commissioners Byrd and Burt stated their support for the HIE, finding that the proposed project would improve the rear fa9ade of the house. The commissioners thought that tile project would not be detrimental or injurious to the surrounding property owners since the enclosure of the existing second story balcony could increase privacy for the neighbors, and noted that there was no evidence of neighbor opposition to the project. However, both commissioners also stated that granting the requested HIE would not set a precedent or result in an obligation to approve other HIEs for additional floor area: The staff report for the meeting and verbatim meeting minutes are appended to this report (Attachments A and B, respectively). POLICY IMPLICATIONS Staff’s recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies. The granting of an HIE for additional floor area, however moderate the request, must be supported by the findings set forth in PAMC Section 18.90.055. Over the past few years, Palo Alto residents have voiced increasing concern regarding the size, bulk, and scale of residential structures. In response to this concern, staff has discouraged applications for additional floor area where houses already exceed the maximum floor area ratio and where the architectural style of the house can be maintained and improved by other means. If the HIE for additional floor area were granted by the City Council, it would be. only the second HIE in eight years where additional floor area was approved for a house that already exceeded the maximum allowed floor area ratio. ATTACHMENTS A. Planning and Transportation Commission Report dated July 11, 2001 B. Verbatim minutes of July 11, 2001 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting C. Approval letter and findings for 93-HIE-20, 320 Kellogg Avenue D. Correspondence from Tom Ashton, dated July 11, 2001 Plans (Council Members only) PREPARED BY: Rachel Adcox, Serfior Planner CMR:332:01 Page 3 of 4 DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ~’~eEcDtorWo~ PR~a~gtand Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Assistant City Manager CC:Roger Kohler, 721 Colorado Avenue, Suite 102, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Ann Younker, 2340 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tom Ashton, 2747 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 CMR:332:01 Page 4 of 4 Attachment A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT 1 TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Bhavna Mistry, Planning Technician DEPARTMENT: Planning and CommuniD’Environment AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: July 11, 2001 2340 Bryant Street [01-HIE-02]: Application submitted by Roger Kohler to appeal the May 3, 2001 decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, in which Home Improvement Exception 01-HIE-02 was denied. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend denial of the appeal to the City Council and uphold the Director’s denial of Home Improvement Exception 01-HIE-02. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property is an interior lot that is 50 feet wide and 112.5 feet deep for a total lot area of 5625 square feet. The existing home, built in 1925, is a two-story single-family residence with a detached garage located at the rear of the property. The existing house is set back 23 ’2" from the front property line, 45’ from the rear property line, 4’ from the right side property line, and 11’ from the left side property line. The existing lot coverage is 1793 square feet where 1968 square feet is allowable and the existing floor area is 2624 square feet where 2437 square feet is allowable. The existing house currently exceeds the allowable floor area by 187 square feet. The proposed project involves the enclosure of the rear balcony with a gabled roof that meets the existing shed roof. The purpose of the proposed HIE application is to add a second bathroom on the second floor for a total of 3 bathrooms in the house. The City of Palo Alto Page 1 proposal would increase the existing square footage by 99.8 square feet for a total floor area of 2724 square feet. The proposal would cause the house to exceed the allowable floor area by 287 square feet. In addition to the exception for the floor area bathroom, the applicant is also proposing the addition of an eyebrow roof over the existing French door~ at the rear elevation, the- replacement of a window on the second story rear elevation, and a new window on the second story rear elevation. The proposal for the eyebrow roof and two new windows do not require exceptions from the zoning regulations.- DISCUSSION Director’s Determination At the Director’s Hearing of April 19, 2001 Mr. Kohler represented the applicant. No other public comment was received. The Director of Planning denied the project on May 3,2001 based on insufficient evidence to support the required findings. An appeal to the Director’s decision was filed on May 14, 2001. The following are the required findings for a HIE application and the Director’s determination regarding the findings. Required Findings (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involve that do not apply generally to property in the same district: Director’s Determination: There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances in that the majority of the neighboring lots are the same size and configuration, therefore the site is not unusual and does not meet the finding. Furthermore, the existing house does not have any extraordinary circumstances that would prohibit the possibility of improving the architecture of the rear elevation without requiring exceptions from the R- 1 zoning regulations (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.12). (2)The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character, which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of the regulations: Director’s Determination: The granting of the application is not required for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character, which would not otherwise be accomplished through the application of the R-1 zoning regulations (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18. I2). The preservation of the existing architectural style and neighborhood character can be accomplished within the application of the code and without increasing the existing square footage. City of Palo Alto Page 2 (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: Director’s Determination: While the application is for a relatively minor addition, it will add bulk: and mass to an existing non-conforming structure. The existing hoine currendy exceeds the maximum allowable floor area by 187 square feet per Section 18.12.050(0. By allowing the additional square footage of 99.8 square feet, the house will be over the allowable limit by 287 square feet and will present a larger, bull~’er fagade to the adjacent neighbors to ihe left and rear of the property. Grounds For Appeal The sole document submitted in support of the appeal is a letter dated May 11, 2001 from Mr. Roger Kohler. He appeals on the grounds that 1) the intent of the HIE is to provide relief to owners of non-complying homes planning additions, and 2) an HIE which permitted an additional 100 square feet for an already oversized home at 320 Kellogg Avenue was previously granted in 1993. Mr. Kohler is correct in his statement that the HIE process is of benefit to older homes that were built before current zoning standards were adopted. However, an HIE can only be granted if the three findings required by Section 18.90.055 can be made,, based upon substantial evidence. It is staff’s conclusion that in this case the findings cannot be made. Granting an HIE for 320 Kellogg Avenue is not binding precedent for later HIE decisions. The Kellogg Avenue application involved a different set of facts than those presented here. In particular: go No exceptional or extraordinary circumstances exist. The lot in the current application is of a size typical for the neighborhood, and the house is larger than the present code permits. The proposed condition is not constrained by setbacks, daylight plane, or existing trees, or the existing development on the property. The existing house is not an exceptionally or extraordinarily inefficient design. The HIE is not needed to preserve an existing architectural style, or neighborhood character, or protected or si,a-nificant tree. The requested HIE does not seek to alter setbacks, height restrictions, or similar building envelope constraints that make it difficult or impossible to add to a building without doing damage to its architectural integrity. Neither does it maintain any particular neighborhood character or preserve significant trees. The HIE would be detrimental or injurious to property or improvement in the vicinity and could be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience because the enclosure of an outside area does increase the bulk and mass of the house. City of Palo Alto Page 3 do The HIE ~anted to 320 Kellogg Avenue was for a house large than 6.000 square feet on an oversized lot. not permission to exceed the allowed FAR. The application for 320 Kellogg Avenue was based on the findings that the lot was extraordinarily large (22,500 square feet) for a lot in the R-1(929) district where 10,000 square feet is the typical lot size. Furthermore, the limitation of a 6,000 square foot home restricted the development potential of the large lot. Though the house at 320 Kellogg already exceeded the 6,000 square feet maximum, with the addition of 100 square feet it had a floor area ratio of 0.31 where a floor area ratio of 0.33 would be allowed without the 6,000 square foot limitation. On a typical R-1(929) iot size of 10,000, a floor area ratio of 0.38 would be allowed. In comparison, 2340 Bryant Street has a lot size of 5,625 square feet, which is a typical size for the neighborhood. The existing floor area ratio for the subject property is 0.47 and with the proposed addition, the floor area ratio would be 0.48. The maximum floor area ratio allowed for homes on this street is 0.43. The lot area of the subject property is only 25% of the lot area of the Kellogg property and these floor area ratios are substantially greater than what was allowed for 320 Kellogg Avenue. Therefore the findings for the HIE at 320 Kellogg Avenue are not a justification for the findings that would be required for the proposal at 2340 Bryant Street. Research of past HIE applications for additional floor area was conducted to determine why the exceptions were granted. In situations where floor area was granted, the homes were either historic or utilizing existing interior space. In terms of historic houses, there are limitations on placement of new additions because of the necessity to preserve the existing architecture. In the case of homes utilizing existing space, such as in a third floor attic, the conversion of this space to living area does not create additional bulk and mass. Therefore, the applications that did receive the additional floor area had the findings for unusual or unique extreme circumstances and for not creating any detrimental impacts. The proposal at 320 Kellogg Avenue (93-HIE-20), was the only application in the last eight years where additional floor area was approved where the maximum was already exceeded, In the past few years there has been an increasing concern from Palo Alto residents regarding size, bulk, and scale of residential structures. In response to this concern, the City has discouraged applications for additional floor area for homes that already exceed the maximum allowable floor area and when other options are available for maintaining or improving architectural style or character of an existing structure. PROJECT TIMELINE 1/18/2001 4/19/2001 5/3/2001 5/14/2001 7/11/2001 HIE application submitted for additional floor area of 99.8 square feet Director’s Hearing Denial of HIE by Director of Planning and Community Environment Appeal filed by Roger Kohler Planning and Transportation Commission Hearing City of Palo Alto Page 4 8/6/2001 City Council Hearing ENWIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301. NEXT STEPS City Council Hearing scheduled for August 6, 2001. ATTACHMENWS/EXHIBITS: Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: A~tachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Appeal Application Appeal Letter Home Improvement Exception [01-HIE-02] Denial Letter Home Improvement Exception Application Letter [01-HIE-02] Director’s Hearing Verbatim Minutes - April 19, 2001 PAMC Section 18.90.055 Block Map, 2340 Bryant Street Proposed Plans and Pictures COURTESY COPIES: Roger Kohler, 721 Colorado Avenue, Suite 102, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Ann Younker, 2340 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Prepared by" Bhavna Mistry, Planning Technician Reviewed by: John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager Department/Division Head Approval: Lisa Grote, Chi~Official City of Palo Alto Page 5 MAY-O3-2001 THU 11:44 RM DEVELOPMENT OENTER FaX NO. 660 329 2240 P. Ol CITY OF PALO ALTO Attachment A CiTY ..--,r .’-~.,, ,~/-L.Z-~. " u ~T Y u ~-~’,,. ~APPE~ ~OM ~ DECISION OF D~OR OF PL Oi PH 3:28 " lhTo be filed ~ duplicate ~tn 15 days from the date of decision ~-~e D~r Pl~i~ ~d Comm~$~ LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s ParceI No. Name of Property Owner (if other lha~ appella~) $~q~. ~-d~ "f".~_~J,~ Zone District Property Owner’s address (if other ~an appellant) Street The decision of the Director of Planning md Community Environment dated ~A<y :22, ~ whcr~bythezpplicationof ILOH{..,5~2_~__A-~.<~Od;I~.~ID-~.~ /4. "’ "" "-- ,, H" \ ~ "------------------~" "was ~ ~SJ,,L~" I~, is hereby appea~I for the reason.s ~tatcd in the attached (parcel maplsul~livision)(approved!denied) D~Approved Denied Remarks and/or Conditions: ~ ~¥~-o u N’~’iL DEdlSION:’’ ...... Dst¢Approved Denied Remarks an~/or Conditions: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SA;FiSFIED: I.Plans (Applicmt) P,..7 ~’T~~By: 2.Labels (Applicant). ~,.~,By: 3.Appeal Application Fo~ms . t-’"By:. 4.L~ter ~By: KOHLER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS Attachment B May 11, 2001 John Lousardi Zoning Administrator City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, Ca 94301 RE:HIE - 2340 BRYANT STREET. Appeal of HIE Denial Dear Mr. Lousardi, On behalf of my client, Dr. Ann Younker, this letter is to formally appeal your decision regarding her Home Improvement Exception application. During the 1980’s, the City Council of Palo Alto was inundated with requests for Variances of a very minor nature. The majority of these requests were for side and rear yard setbacks, lot coverage and other relatively insignificant exceptions to the zoning ordinance. After the new R-1 zoning regulations became law in 1989, the request for variances included many exceptions for floor area and daylight plane.Under direction from the City Council, planning staff developed the Home Improvement Exception (HIE). The intent of the HIE program was to provide relief to owners of non-complying .homes planning additions. Unlike new homes, older homes have not been designed efficiently to comply with the new regulations.. The HIEhas become valuable tool for the Palo Attan home owner. When we first considered applying for this HIE, I met with staff at the counter and explained the proposed project to them. Although they were not overly enthusiastic, they also were not especially negative. We decided to proceed based on our experience with previous HIE submittals. In 1993, we submitted an HIE for a 100 SF expansion to an existing 6889 SFhome at 320 Kellogg Avenue. That home had many of the same characteristics of this HIE request, an existing flat roof facing the rear yard 721 COLORADO AVENUE, SUITE 102 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 TEL (650) 328 1086 FAX (650) 321 2860 KOHLER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS Page 2 over an existing first floor. We essentially added 100 square feet to the second floor over an existing flat roof area. On this project, we’re proposing a master bathroom/second bathroom over an existing flat roofed balcony area. The HIE request on Kellogg passed without much comment. The similarities between these two projects are so striking, that it was hard for me to believe that the Bryant Street request was denied. As I stated in the public hearing, HIE requests are intended to provide relief .from zoning regulations for existing homes, especially homes constructed prior to 1989. Although this HIE appears to be granting excessive floor area beyond the maximum, it’s all a matter of degree. The original guidelines used by staff in the past, had to do more with the practical aspect of the home construction, not just square footage numbers. Using today’s interpretation by staff, the 1993 HIE would not have been granted since the existing floor area exceeded the maximum by 889 square feet. So either the 2001 staff or the 1993 planning staff are in error in their policy intereptation HIE guidelines. I am enclosing copies of portions of the Kellogg Avenue HIE documents for your review and comparison. We will present visual aids at the public hearing to further support our appeal. The basic premise of this HIE request is to add a small amount of square footage to an existing older home that improves the exterior design and does not negatively impact neighbors privacy. This is truly an example of exactly why the Home Improvement Exception was created. It should not have been denied. If the HIE approval process continues to be administered on such a limited basis, the whole HIE concept will be of little use to the majority of Palo Alto homeowners. Sincerely, Roger K. hler, Architect 721 COLORADO AVENUE, SUITE 102 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 TEL (650) 328 1086 FAX (650) 321 2860 KOHLER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 721 COLORADO AVENUE, SUITE 102 PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303 City of Palo Alto Department of P Icmnin g ard Community Environment Application NO. 93-HIE-20: 320 KELLOGG AVENUF Home Improvement Exception 93-HIE-20 is hereby issued for the location and construction of a 100-square-foot, second-story addition on a site where the existing house exceeds the 6,000-square-foot maximum house size, as per attached plans, at 320 Kellogg Avenue, Zone District R-1(929) Palo Alto, California. ’ NANCY MADDOX LYTLE Chief Planning.Official June 21, 1993 NOTE This Home Improvement Exception is granted in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.90 of .the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. Any Home Improvement Exception is transferable unless otherwise provided at the time of granting. In any case in which the conditions to the granting of a Home Improvement Exception have not been or are not complied with, the Zoning Administrator shall give notice to the permittee of intention to revoke such Home Improvement Exception at least ten (10) days prior to a hearing thereon. Following such hearing and if good cause exists therefore, the Zoning Administrator may revoke the Home Improvement Exception. A Home Improvement Exception which has not been used within one (I) year after the date of granting becomes void, a~though..~he Zoning’Administrator may, without a hearing, extend the time for an additional year if an application to thiseffect is filed with him before the expiration of the first year. Joseph M. Colo, nna, Planner Roger Kohler, 378 Cambridge Avenue, Suite A, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Don and Sylvia Way, 320 Kellogg Avenue: Palo Alto, CA 94306 HIE9320.jc 250 Hamilt~nAvenu~ P.O. Box 10250 Pa!o Alto, CA 943(B 415.329.2441 415.329.2240 Fax 6/9/93 Page I KOHLER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 721 COLORADO AVENUE, SUITE 102. PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303 TOTAL F.A.IL 608.0 SQ. F~: 3043.O. SQ: FT.. 2467~O SQ. FT. 651.0 SQ.’FT. lO&O .SQ. FT, 120.0 SQ~ FT. 6989.0 SQ. :~r’. 5000.0 SQ. FT. KOHLER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 378 CAMBRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE A PALO ALTO, CALFORN!A 94306 (415) 328-1086 . FAX(415) 321-2860 PROJECT: DATE: NOTES BY SHEET w/ /\ I Attachment C City Palo Alto Department of Planning and Communi~/ Environment Application No. 01-I-HE-02 (2340 Bryant Street): Home Improvement Exception 01-HIE-02 is hereby denied for a floor area increase9~ of 99 square feet over the existing 2624 square feet. The project is located at _~40 Bryant Street, within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. This project was reviewed at the April 19, 200! Director’s Hearing. Project denial is based on the following findings. Planning Division FINDINGS FOR DEN~IAL OF TIlE IRTE 1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable lo the property involved that do not apply generally to property - in the same district in that the majority of the neighboring lots are the same size and configuration; all of the lots on the same side of the block are 50’ x 112.5’ and all of the lots across the street onthe same block are 60’ x 105’. Furthermore, the existing site does not have any extraordinary circumstances that would prohibit the possibility of remodeling in order to address the applicant’ s desire to improve the exterior rear elevation to the hou s e without the enclo sure. The granting of the application is not desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character, which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict application of the _R-1 zoning regulations (PaIo Alto Municipal Code 18. !2). The preservation of the existing architectural style and neighborhood character can be accomplished within the strict application of the codel The improvement of the rear elevation by replacing windows and adding architectural features could be accomplished without an exception from the R-1 zoning rega~lations. The granting of the application ",,ill be de~7"imentaI or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that that the existing home is already over the maximum allowable square zoota~e by 187 square feet, and the addition of 99 square feet will only add additional bulk and mass to the existing non-conforming structure. Current~ng Mana=er May 3,2001 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 fax NOTE If you wish to appeal this item, contact the Planning Division (329-244I) regarding time and fee. This decision will become effective ten days following the date of this letter, unless an appeal is flied as provided by Chapter 18.92 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. A copy of this letter sha!l accompany all future requests for City permits relating to this decision. In the event that this decision is appealed, an additional letter will be mailed with information regarding the scheduled hearing dates before the Planning Commission and the .City Council. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of PaIo Alto, at or prior to public hearing. Applicant: Kohler Associates Architects 721 Colorado Avenue, Suke 102 Palo Alto, Ca 94303 Property Owner: Ann Younker 2340 Bryant Street Palo Alto, Ca 94301 Applicant Request Architectural Review Board Design Enhancement Exception Environmental Impact Assessment Comprehensive Plan Amendment ’ Protected Tree Removal Home Improvement Exception t4’r~ uw,, ,~ D#.O~-.-dJti-cA’~rLise Permit Variance Site and Design Zone Change Subdivision ~ Parcel Map Property Location Address of Subject Property’ Zone District ",, , ~ ~ I,Assessor’s Parcel Number : ’"~ Re"quest~d" Action .....’ ....... Description of requested action: ~,1.~. ~p~~ r~ ~. ~ ~¢ Applicant NOTE:The APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submitted mailing list in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings or action taken. ......I Phone: _~~ 1~ Property Owner NOTk: The APPLICANT & PROPERT~ OWN’&~ must be placed on the submi~ed mailing list in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings or action taken. I t~ereby cedify that I am the owner of record of the prope~ described in Box #2 above a~d that I approve of the requested action herein. this appfication(s) is subject to 100% recove~ of planning costs, I understand that charges for staff time spent processing this application(s will be based on the Policy and Procedures document provided to me. 1 understand thai my initial deposit is an estimate of these chargesandnotafee, andlagreetoabidebythebillingpolicystated. [~’ ):,. "~., ATTACHMENT E VERBATIM MINUTES DIRECTOR’S HEARING APRIL 19, 2001 VERBATIM MINUTES IS BEING PREPARED. WILL BE SUBMITTED AS ATTACHMENT TO THE CITY MANAGER’S REPORT FOR CITY COUNCIL HEARING ON AUGUST 6, 2001 Attachment F Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18 ZONING* 18.90" VARIANCES, HOME IMPROVEMENT EXCEPTIONS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERNETS Chapter 18.90" VARIANCES, HOME IMPROVE1VHgNT EXCEPTIONS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMYrS 18.90.010 18.90.020 18.90.025 18.90.030 18.90.035 18.90.040 18.90.050 18.90.055 18.90.060 18.90.070 18.90.080 18.90.085 18.90.090 18.90.100 18.90.105 Sections: Duties of zoning administrator. Application for variance, home improvement exception, or conditional use permit. Home improvement exception - Optional heating request notice. Public heating notice. Public hearing Action by zoning administrator. Variance - Findings and conditions. Home improvement exception - Findings and conditions. Conditional use permit - Findings and conditions. Effective date. Revocation, extension, transferability, and duration. Expansion of conditional uses. Reports. Variances in conjunction with subdivision. Variances and use permits in conjunction with planned community zone changes, sit and design applications and applications for approvals requiring review of an environmental impac report. 18.90.110 Temporary uses. 18.90.111 Reserved. 18.90.120 Sales of alcoholic beverages. Editor’s Note: The content of Chapter 18.90 was superseded in its entirety by Ordinance~o. 4081. P rdinances, or parts of ordinances, codified herein include Ordinances Nos. 3048, 3064, 3070, ~ 130, 3255 273, 3340, 3345, 3373, 3465, 3519, 3536, 3583, 3754, 3850 mad 4016. 18.90.010 Duties of zoning administrator. Subject to the provisions of this chapter and the general purpose and intent of this title, the zoning administrator may grant the following: (a) A variance from the site development regulations (except limitations on residential density and size of establishment) and parking and loading regulations (except those accessible parking regulations mandated by state and/or federal law and contained in Chapter 18.83) applicable within any district established by this title; (b) A variance from the special requirements that apply to site development and parking and loading regulations applicable within any district established by this title, except provisions which restrict expansion of grandfathered uses that are subject to the special requirements of a specific zoning district. Special requirements in any district do not include special provisions and exceptions as set forth in Chapter 18.88 except for the location of accessory buildings; .../om_isapi.dll? clientID=514&hitsp erheading=on&infobase=pro co de-3 &record={ 1000691 } &soft7/21/99 (c)A variance from the requirements of Title 20; (d)A variance from the requirements of Chapter .1.6.24 except Sections 16.24.040 and 16.24.070; (e) In the RE, R-I, RMI), or R-2 zone districts, an exception to the site development regulations for construction of home improvements and minor additions; (f) A conditional use. permit for any use or purpose for which such permit is required or permitted by the provisions of this title. (Ord. 4081 {} (part), I992) 18.90.020 permit. Application for variance, home improvement exception, or conditional use (a) Application for a variance, home improvement exception, or a conditional use permit may be made by the owner of record of property for which the variance, home improvement exception, or conditional use permit is sought, or by one of the following: (1) A purchaser of property for which the variance, home improvement exception, or conditional use permit is sought, when acting pursuant to a contract in writing duly executed and acknowledged by both the buyer and the owner of record; (2) A lessee in possession of property for which a variance, home improvement exception, or conditional use permit is sought, when acting with the written consent of the owner of record; ~ (3) An agent of the owner of record of property for which a variance, home improvement exception, or conditional use permit is sought, when duly authorized by the owner in writing. (b) Application shall be made to the zoning administrator on a form prescribed by the zoning administrator, and shall contain the following: (1) A description and map showing the location of the property for which the variance, home improvement exception, or conditional use permit is sought, and indicating the location of all parcels or properties within a distance of 91.4 meters (300 feet) from the exterior boundary of the property involved in the application; (2) If the application is for a variance or conditional use permit, the name and address of the applicant, and the names and addresses of all persons shown in the last equalized assessment roll (as updated by the semi-annual real estate update information) as owning real property within 91.4 meters (300 feet) of the exterior boundary of the property which is the subject of the application; (3) If the application is for a home improvement exception, the name and address of the applicant, and the names and addresses of all persons shown in the last equalized assessment roll (as updated by the semi-annual real estate update information) as owning real prop erty within 45.73 meters (150 feet) of the exterior boundary of the prop erty which is the subject of the application; (4) If the application is for a variance or home improvement exception, plans and!or descriptions of existing and proposed construction on the property involved, together with a statement of the circumstances which justify the application; (5) If the application is for a conditional use permit, plans and/or descriptions of existing and proposed uses on the property, and describing in detail the nature of the use proposed to be conducted on the property; (6) Such additional information as the zoning administrator may deem pertinent and essential to the application. (c) Application for a variance, home improvement exception, or conditional use .../orn_isapi.dll7 clientID=514&hitsp erheading=on&infobase=procode-3 &record={ 1000691 } &sofa7/21/99 permit shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed by the municipal fee schedule, no part of which shall be returnable to the applicant. (0rd. 4081 § 3 (pa~), 1992) 18.90.025 Home improvement exception - Optional hearing request notice. (a) Upon receipt of an application for a home improvement exception, the zoning administrator shall send an optional hearing request notice to all persons described in Section 18.90.020(b)(3). (b)The optional hearing request notice shall contain the following: (1)The exact address of the property for which the home improvement exception is sought; (2)A brief description of the home improvement exception sought; (3)Reference to the application on file for particulars; (4)A statement that the zoning administrator will act upon the application on a date certain, which is at least ten working days from the date of mailing of the notice, if no written request for a hearing is filed prior to such date. (c) Any person may request a hearing on an application for a home improvement exception by filing a written request therefor with the zoning administrator prior to the proposed date of zoning administratoraction as set forth in the notice described in subsection (b)(4) of this section. (Ord. 4081 § 3 (part), 1992) 18.90.030 Public heating notice. (a) Upon receipt of an application for a variance or a condkional use permit, the zoning administrator shall set a date for a public hearing, which hearing shall be held within forty-five days of the date of filing of the application or request for hearing. (b) Notice of such hearing shall be given by publication once in a local newspaper of general circulation not less than twelve days prior to the date of hearing. Additionally, notice of such hearing shall be mailed at least twelve days prior to the date of the hearing to the applicant, and to owners of record of real property within 91.4 meters (300 feet) of the exterior boundary of the property involved, as such owners of record are shown in the last equalized assessment roll, and to owners or occupants of the property within 91.4 meters (300 feet) as shown on the city.utility customer file. Compliance with the procedures set forth in this section shall constitute a good faith effort to provide notice, and the failure of any owner or occupant to receive notice shall not prevent the city from proceeding with the hearing or from taking any action or affect the validity of any action. (c)The notice of public hearing shall contain the following: (1)The exact address of the property, if known, or the location of the property, if the exact address is not known, and the nature or purpose of the application. (2)The time, place, and purpose of the hearing; (3)A brief description, the content of which shall be in the sole discretion of the city, of the variance, home improvement exception, or conditional use permit sought; (4) Reference to the application on file for particulars; and (5)A statement that any interested person, or agent thereof, may appear and be heard. Typographical and/or publishing errors shall not invalidate the notice nor any city .../om_isapi.dll?clientID=514&hitsperheading=on&infobase=procode-3 &record= { 1000691 } &soft7/21/99 action. (Ord. 4081 § 3 (,part), 1992) 18.90.035 Public hearing. At the time and place set for the hearing, the zoning administrator shall hear evidence for and against the application. Each heating shall be open to the public. The zoning administrator may continue any heating from time to time. (Ord. 4081 § 3 (part), 1992) 18.90.040 Action by zoning administrator. Within a reasonable time, but not more than ten working days after the conclusion of the heating, or in the case of a home improvement exception where no request for hearing has been filed, no .more than ten working days after the date proposed for zoning administrator action as set forth in the optional heating request notice, the zoning administrator shall make findings and shall render a decision on the application. The decision shall be supported by the evidence contained in the application and/or presented at the heating. Notice of the decision of the zoning administrator shall be mailed to the applicant and to any other person requesting such notice. Upon the request of the recipient of a variance or the city, the variance, and the conditions applicable thereto, shall be recorded with the county recorder. (Ord. 4081 § 3 (part), 1992) 18.90.050 Variance - Findings and conditions. (a) The zoning administrator may grant a variance from the site development regulations, the parking and loading regulations, or the special requirements of this title applicable within any district if, from the application of the facts presented at the public hearing, he or she finds: (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) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property fight of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. (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. (4) In addition to the above listed findings, in the case of a flag lot, the zoning administrator may grant a variance only if he or she makes all of the following additional findings: (A) The granting of the application will not disrupt established neighborhood character and aesthetics, and will not affect the health of the residents by significantly blocking out light and air; 03) The granting of the application will not result in excessive paving, parking, potential traffic conflicts on busy streets, street tree removal or loss of private landscaping; (C) The granting of the application will not negatively impact the privacy and quiet enjoyment of adjoining single-family residences, for both indoor and outdoor use. .../om_isapi.dll?clientID=514&hitsperheading=on&infobase--procode-3 &record= { 1000691 } &soff7/21/99 (b) In granting such variance, the zoning administrator may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as he or she deems appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purposes of this title. (Ord. 4081 § 3 (part), 1992) 18.90.055 Home improvement exception - Findings and conditions. (a) The zoning administrator may grant a home improvement exception if, at~er consideration of the application and all testimony offered at the public hearing (if any), he or she finds: (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) 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. (3) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. In determining whether or not to grant exceptions pursuant to this section, the zoning administrator shall consider such applicable residential design guidelines as may be adopted and published by the city council from time to time. (b) In granting such home improvement exceptions, the zoning administrator may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as he or she deems appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purposes of this title. (Ord. 4385 § 2, 1996: Ord. 4081 § 3 (part), 1992) 18.90.060 Conditional use permit - Findings and conditions. (a) The zoning administrator may grant a conditional use permit in accord with this title if, from the application or the facts presented at the public hearing, he or she finds: (1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, 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. (2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title. (3) In addition to the above-listed findings, in the case of a use in the GF ground floor combining district, the zoning administrator may grant a conditional use permit only if he or she made the following additional finding: The location, access or design of the ground floor space of the building proposed to house the use, creates exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district. (b) The zoning administrator may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as he or she deems necessary to secure the purpose of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining properties and in the general vicinity. .../om_isapi. dIt? clientID=514&hitsperheading=on&infobase=procode-3 &record= { 1000691 } &soft7/21/99 (Ord. 4098 § 3, 1992: Ord. 4081 § 3 @art), 1992) 18.90.070 Effective date. A variance, home improvement exception, or conditional use permit granted by the zoning administrator shall take effect ten days following the mailing of the notice of the .decision of the zoning administrator, unless an appeal is filed as provided in Chapter 18.92. (Oral. 4081 § 3 (part) 1992: Ord. 3048_ (part), 1978) 18.90.080 Revocation, extension, transferability, and duration. (a) In any case where the condkions of a variance, home improvement exception, or conditional use permit have not been or are not being complied with, the zoning administrator shall set a date for public heating and notice the public hearing in accordance with Section 18.90.030. Following such heating, but not more than ten working days after conclusion of the heating, the zoning administrator shall make findings of whether the conditions of the variance, home improvement exception, or conditional use permit have not been or are not being complied with and render his decision to revoke or modify such variance, home improvement exception, or conditional use permit. (b) In any case where, in the judgment of the zoning administrator, substantial evidence indicates that the use conducted pursuant to a conditional use permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, the zoning administrator shall set a date for a public hearing and notice the public heating in accordance with Section 18.90.030. Following such heating, but not more than ten working days after the conclusion of the hearing, the zoning administrator shall make findings of whether the use has been conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and render his or her decision whether or not to modify the conditional use permit. In determining whether the use is conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, the zoning administrator shall consider, but not be limited to, the following: increased traffic, insufficient parking, increased hours of operation, increased noise level and increased capacity. (c) A variance, home improvement exception, or conditional use permit which has not been used within one year following the effective date thereof, shall become null and void and of no effect unless a shorter time period shall specifically be prescribed by the conditions of such variance, home improvement exception, or conditional use permit. The zoning administrator may; without a hearing, extend such time for a maximum period of one additional year only, upon application filed with him or her before the expiration of the one-year limit, or the expiration of such limit as may be specified by the conditions of the variance, home improvement exception, or conditional use permit. (d) A use permit which has not been used for any period of one year or more shall become null and void. (e) A variance granted pursuant to this chapter shall exist for the life of the existing structure or such structure as may be constructed pursuant to the variance approval unless a different time period is specified in the issuance of the variance. A variance from the parking and loading regulations shall be valid only during the period of continued operation of the use and/or structure for which the variance was granted. (f) A home improvement exception granted pursuant to this chapter shall exist for the life of the structure for which the exception was granted. .../om_isapi.dll?clientID=514&hitsperheading=on&infobase--procode-3 &record= { 1000691 }&soPt7/21/99 (Ord. 4081 § 3 (part), 1992) 18.90.085 Expansion of conditional uses. (a) Any expansion in the building size or site area of a conditional use shall necessitate the issuance of a conditional use permit for the expansion in accord With the provisions of this chapter. This use permit for expansion of a conditional use shatl have no effect on any existing use permit previously issued for the subject property. (b) No application for a conditional use permit shall be necessary for existing uses which were lawful conforming permitted uses and which were rendered conditional by reason ofrezoning or changes to this title, provided that any expansion in the building site or site area of such a use shall be subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with this chapter. (Ord. 4081 § 3 (part), 1992) 18.90.090 Reports. The zoning administrator shall make a monthly report to the city manager of the action taken on all applications for variances and conditional use permits. A copy of such report also shall be forwarded to the city council and the planning commission. (Ord. 4081 § 3 (part), 1992) 18.90.100 Variances in conjunction with subdivision. In cases of major or minor subdivisions, the subdivider may, in conjunction with the filing of a tentative map or a preliminary parcel map and additional data pursuant to Title 21, also file an application under this chapter for one or more variances set forth in Section 18.90.010. In such event, the variance application shall be processed concurrently with the major or minor subdivision, in lieu of under the provisions of this title, in accord with the following procedure: (a) In such cases the tentative map or preliminary parcel map under Section 21.12.040 shall include the dimensions and locations of all proposed buildings and structures for which variances are sought under this section, and the subdivider’s application shall contain justification and reasons for such variances. (b) In the case of a tentative map, the planning commission may recommend and the city council may approve, and in the case of a preliminary parcel map the director of planning and community environment may approve, the granting of one or more variances where the findings for variances set forth in Section 18.90.050 are made. No separate public hearing need be held for the granting of variances under this section. (c) In the granting of variances under this section, in the case of a maj or subdivision, the planning commission may recommend and the city council may require, and in the case of a minor subdMsion the director of planning and community environment may require, the imposition of such conditions or restrictions as are deemed necessary or appropriate to protect the public health, safety or welfare. (d) Any variance granted under this section shall, unless otherwise stated, be transferable with the lot upon which it is granted and any condition or restriction imposed in conjunction therewith shall be deemed to be binding on the lot in the hands of transferees for the duration of the variance or the enjoyment of the benefits granted thereby. .../om_isapi. dll?clientID=514&hit sperheading=on&infobase=procode-3 &record= ( 1000691 } &soft7/21/99 (e) In addition to the matters set forth in Chapter 21.16~ the final map or parcel map shall include thereon a statement substantially as follows: "Lots (listing them by number or other appropriate designation) are transferable subject to certain conditional variances as to setback and/or yard requirements which are shown on the record of variances and conditions for this subdivision on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment, City of Palo Alto, California." (f) At the time of the filing of the final map or parcel map with the director of public works/city engineer, the subdivider applying for variances under this section shall also file therewith a map or maps, in duplicate, drawn to scale, showing the lots in the subdivision upon which such variances are sought and showing clearly by dotted lines drawn parallel to the property line affected, with dimension marks and numbers in each case, such altered setbacks and yards as may have been approved and imposed on the tentative map or preliminary parce! map. The map or maps accompanying the final map or parcel map shall be captioned, "Record of Variances and Conditions Thereof Granted in Conjunction with Subdivision of (state tract name and number)," and shall contain thereon a statement substantially as follows: (1) In the case of a final map: "The variances and conditions or restrictions as to setback and/or yard requirements shown hereon were granted and imposed by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto on [date] . Such variances shall be transferable with the respective lots on which they were granted and such conditions or restrictions shall be binding on such lots in the hands of transferees for the duration of said variance or the enjoyment of the benefits granted thereby." (2) In the case of a parcel map: "The variances and conditions or restrictions as to setback and/or yard requirements shown hereon were granted and imposed by the Director of Planning and Community Environment of the City of Palo Alto on [date] . Such variances shall be transferable with the respective lots on which they are granted and such conditions or restrictions shall be binding on such lots in the hands of transferees for the duration of said variance or the enjoyment of the benefits granted thereby." (g) The approval by the city council of such final map, or the approval by the director of plannir~.g and community environment of such parcel map, and the accompanying map or maps showing variances and conditions, shall constitute the granting of such variances subject to any such conditions or restrictions. (Ord. 4081 § 3 (part), 1992) 18.90.105 Variances and use permits in conjunction with planned community zone chan site and design applications and applications for approvals requiring review of an environmental impact report. (a) Whenever application is made for a planned community zone change pursuant to Chapter 18.68, site and design review pursuant to Chapter 18.82, or any approval for which an environmental impact report is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and the plans for such application also require approval of a use permit or variance, the person making such application may accompany such application.with an application under this chapter for a use permit or one or more variances, as the case may be. In such event, the variance or use permit application shall be processed concurrently with the accompanying application, in accordance with the procedures established for review of the application for planned community zone change, .../orn_isapi.dll? clientID=514&hitsperheading=on&infobase--procode.3 &record= { 1000691 } &soft7/21/99 site and design review and!or environmental impact report review, as the case may be. (b) Where the accompanying application is for a planned community zone change the applicable public hearing and notice provisions in such case shall be those required for a planned community zone change. In the case where the accompanying application is for site and design review, the applicable public heating and notice provisions shall be those set forth in Section 18.90.03.0, and shall apply prior to planning common review of the applications. (c) All provisions of this chapter shall continue to apply in such case, except that the zoning administrator shall not act on either application. (Ord. 4081 § 3 (part), 1992) 18.90.110 Temporary uses. The zoning administrator may grant a conditional use permit authorizing the use of a site in any district for a temporary use, subject to the following provisions: (a) Application shall be made to the zoning administrator and shall be subject to the fee prescribed by the municipal fee schedule. (b) The permit may be granted by the zoning administrator without a requirement for public heating and notice as otherwise required by Section 18.90.030. (c) The permit may include authorization tO vary from specific requirements of this title as may be solely related to the requested temporary use. (d) A conditional use permit for a temporary use, if granted by the zoning administrator, shall be valid for a specifically stated time period not to exceed forty-five days. The zoning administrator may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as he or she deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining properties and in the general vicinity. (e) A conditional use permit for a temporary use may be granted by the zoning administrator if, from the application or the facts presented to him, he finds: (1) 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. (2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto comprehensive plan and the purposes of this title. (f) Any person who obtains a temporary use permit as provided by this section and fails to abide by its conditions is guilty of a misdemeanor. (g) Any person who uses a site for a temporary use in violation of Title 18 and fails to obtain a temporary use permit as required by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Ord. 4453 § 68, 1997: Ord. 4081 § 3 (part), 1992) 18.90.111 Reserved.’~ ~rEditor’s Note: Former Section 18.90.111 pertaining to temporary, uses at the World Cup Soccer Gain d containing portions of Ordinance No. 4181 was repeaIed July 18, 1994 in accordance with Section 7 o dinance No. 4181.- 18.90.120 Sales of alcoholic beverages. (a)In any district where otherwise permitted by this title, any eating and drinking .../om_isapi. dll?clientID=514&hitsperheading=on&infobase=procode-3 &record= { 1000691 } &sorT/21/99 establ~shment or other use having any part of its operation subject to an on-sale license required by the state of California shall be subject to securing a conditional use permit. (b) A conditional use permit shall be obtained in the case of premises for which no conditional use permit is in force, whenever a new on-sale license is required by the state of California. (c) In the case of premises for which a conditional use permit is in force, which permits the sale of alcohol, an amendment to such permit shall be required whenever such use is intensified or is expanded in square footage. (d) In the case of premises for which a conditional use permit is in force, but such use permit does not permit sales of alcohol, an amendment to such permit shall be required whenever a new on-sale license is required by the state of California. (e) The maximum number of permits for on-sale general (liquor, beer and wine) and for on-sale beer and wine licenses which may be issued in any single block where any portion of the block is classified in one or more districts in which an eating and drinking establishment is a permitted or a conditional use shall be governed by the followingtable, and no applications for.a conditional use permit for the sale of alcoholic beverages under an on-sale license from the state of California shall be accepted unless the standards in this section are met. In any block having residentially zoned site area equal to or greater than twenty-five percent of the total block area: or Maximum Number of Square Feet of Zoned Site Area in District(s) Conditional Use Permits Allowing Eating and Drinking Use as a Permitted Which May Be Authorized Conditional Use No permit 0 - 1,858.0 sq. m. (0-19,999 sq. ft.) 1 permit 1,8581 -3,716.0 sq. m. (20,000-39,999 sq. ft.) 2 permits 3,716.1 sq. m. and above (40,000 sq. ft. and above) 3 or more In the same progression. In any block having residentially zoned site area less than twenty-five percent of total block area: Maximum Number of Square Feet of Zoned Site Area in District(s) Allowing Conditional Use Permits Eating and Drinking Use as a Permitted or Conditional Which May Be Authorized Use 4 permits 5 permits 6 permits 7 permits 8 or more 0 - 14,864.4 sq. m. (0 - 159,999 sq. ft.) 14,864.5 -29,728.9 sq. m. (160,000- 319,999 sq. f~.) 29,729.0 - 59,457.9 sq. m. (320,000 - 639,999 sq. f~.) 59,458.0- 118,915.8 sq. m. (640,000- 1,279,999 sq. ft.) In the same progression. .../om_isapi. dll?clientID=514&hitsperheading=on&infobase=procode-3 &record= { 1000691 } &soft7/21/99 (f) Additional conditional use permits may be authorized for establishments for on-sale beer and wine licen.ses. The total number of such additional permits shall be equal to half the number of on-sale general licenses permitted in the tables contained in subsection (c) of this section. (Ord. 4081 § 3 (part), 1992) .../om_isapi. dll? clientID=514&hitsp erheading=on&infobase=pro co de-3 &record= { 1000691 } &so£7/21/99 Attachment G 2’46.30 2,46.16 Z"~5"Z8 4.. 13t PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION July 11, 2001 Verbatim Minutes DRAFT EXCERPT Attachment B NEW BUSINESS. Public Hearings: 2340 Bryant Street*: Appeal submitted by Roger Kohler on the May 3, 2001 decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment in which Home Improvement Exception application submitted by Roger Kohler was denied. EnvironmentalAssessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. File No. 01-HIE-02. This item has been tentatively scheduled for a City Council hearing on August 6, 2001. Commissioner Burt: Do we have a Staff report on this subject? Mr. John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the item before you is an appeal of the Director’s Decision to deny a home improvement exception for a single-family house. The Commission has received a Staff report addressing the reasons for denying the application as well as responding to the appellant’s discussion points. Staff would like to briefly reiterate three points from the Staff report. Although this represents a moderate addition to an existing single family structure the review is based on the City’s requirement to make specific findings as delineated in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. These findings could not be made for this project’s increased floor area where the structure exceeds existing allowance for floor area. Secondly there is no standard increase in floor area, however moderate that can be, it can not automatically be granted without making proper findings. Thirdly, the granting of an HIE for one project does not set any precedent to grant a similar HIEs for other structures. However, the granting of an HIE for a floor area, even small, without being able to make the findings could in fact establish a_difficult precedent to administer the Home Improvement Exception process. The appeal is scheduled to go to the City Council on August 6. Prior to this evening’s meeting the Commission received one letter from a member of the community. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council that they uphold the Director’s Decision to deny the HIE and deny the appeal. This concludes Staff presentation. Mr. Roger Kohler is here to represent the applicant. Thank you. Commissioner Burt: Are there any questions from the Commission for Staff at this time? Then the applicant has up to 15 minutes to speak. Mr. Roger Kohler, Kohler Associates Architects, 721 Colorado Avenue, Suite 102, Palo Alto: Good evening Planning Commissioners. I’m Roger Kohler, architect for the Younker’s. I came prepared to use the other machine and apparently it is not working tonight. I’ll have to use handouts and hopefully it will help. This is kind of a policy check in my mind as to the process of the Home Improvement Exception. As I noted in my letter the Home Improvement Exception came about in the early 1990’s after the enactment of the single-family regulations in 1989. It became apparent to the Council that they were getting a lot of requests for variances for small incremental corrections to existing houses because the existing homes were built prior to the 1989 regulations. Existing homes in the past, as an architect, if the house looked better when you squared off a bedroom and add square feet then that’s what we did. There was no regard to floor area, we just did that. In the older homes typically the rooms are larger and they are not designed really efficiently. So the Council was getting requests for extra square feet, lot coverage, setbacks, daylight plane intrusions and actually I think somewhat became annoyed because these kept coming before them and using their valuable time. So with Staff and Planning Commission the HIE was developed as an option outlet to provide relief from the stringent requirements of the single family regulations and to provide an extra incentive for people to keep older homes when a lot of them were being torn dov~x~. If a developer was to look at a project with an older house on a site and the house had three bedrooms and he needed a fourth that might make the house more saleable, or the homeowner wanted a fourth bedroom without doing major reconstruction of the existing house, they would not find a three-bedroom house as valuable as a four-bedroom. With this Home Improvement Exception, one of the options was that you might get that extra bedroom or the extra relief for the existing house such that it became a usable house and would encourage older homeowners to keep their older home in place rather than tearing it down and building a new one. When you build a new one a lot of times the plans improve efficiency with reduced hallway lights, room sizes, stairwells that are efficient and it goes on and on. Some room sizes are reduced to get the number of rooms and everything like that. This is a house plan that to me that is exactly why the Home Improvement Exception was created. As I said in my letter to the Commission, it is very similar to a house that was granted an HIE in 1992 where the existing house was 6800 square feet and they applied for a Home Improvement Exception for 100 extra square feet and it was granted. The house is now at 6900, 900 square feet over the allowable floor area limit. This is an older home which has some high ceilings and large stairwells and some large rooms but it was considered incidental to the house. So it was granted without much comment. Now we have a similar situation. I’ll pass this around. It is a photograph I took yesterday from the rear yard showing the existing balcony with the three-foot high stucco wall around this balcony. So currently the homeowners can walk out onto this balcony and look around into all the neighbors’ yards and houses. So essentially almost half the walls are existing. So it is existing usable space that is uncovered. Essentially what we are asking to do is cover this space and use it for a bathroom which in the end will reduce the amount of floor area privacy that is incurred by the neighbors because you are less likely to be standing in your bathroom looking out at your neighbors’ yards. So I took that photograph and enlarged it then I did a pencil overlay of this to show how this addition is going to work. I only have a couple copies of these. This is the area that we are talking about of adding on this existing balcony. I then took the Staff sketch and embellished it. I have several copies of that. I’m not a professional artist but I’ve tried to indicate how the addition would look with the new tile roof, the new roof over the existing window at the lower level. The new window is installed on the second floor, and to show how we filled in this area where the balcony is. In reviewing this with Staff apparently the issue became a matter that this was not incidental space. That, in fact, existing house was already over on square feet and that there didn’t seem to be any way that you could grant an extra hundred square feet. As I read through the HIE ordinance there doesn’t seem to be any limit to the amount of square feet that can be granted by the HIE. It just talks about incidental space and it doesn’t say that if you are already over 100 square feet there is no way you could be granted another 100 square feet. So my question to Staff was when does too much FAR become too much FAR? Is it 50 feet, 100 feet or 125 feet? There was no real answer to that and I don’t think there is an answer because in this case we are halfway there to floor area right now and so a usable balcony with no roof is useable space that you can walk out and look- into. All we are asking for is to enclose it as a bathroom. This existing house has an awkward plan on the first floor. You walk through the living room to go through the dining room and the kitchen is off to one side and there is a stairwell and an awkward room. When you go upstairs there is one small bathroom that you kind of have to maneuver around to get into. They are just trying to create a master bathroom, which almost every new house that we would design today would have. I guess that you could argue that we could rework the existing house and get this master bedroom. We would have to reduce somewhere else on the house. Now you are talking a major renovation compared to a fairly straightforward addition on this residence. I guess when I read the ordinance it talks about incidental space. To me, this is a prime example of what that space is asking for. Except for extraordinary circumstances that apply to this property that generally do not apply to the properties in the same district, well, that is a very difficult exception to meet for any home improvement exception. All of the homes are going to have extraordinary circumstances because they are already beyond the floor area. Any existing two- story house on existing smallish lots are going to be beyond allowable floor area. There is. a brand new house that was just constructed next door to this house. It is a Craftsman style home andit really blends in nicely with the neighborhood. If you go around to the back it has some severe two-story walls and a very large garden structure out in the back. It talks about granting of the preservation style of the neighborhood. Well, we are not facing the street so that is a hard one to come up with. What we are doing is improving the rear of the structure of this house, continuing existing tile roof that has been added, and improving the rear elevation so visually it is going to look more appealing to most of the neighbors. As for it will not be detrimental or injurious to the neighbors, well, they reviewed this application with the neighbors from day one over a year ago when they first started this project. They all were very pleased that they were doing something and encouraged them to go forward with it. So I’m not exactly sure what else to say. In general, home improvements of this type in the past were encouraged by Staff and by people in the business to take this to the Council because this is, to my mind, exactly why the Home Improvement Exception came about. This is an old home, it was not designed to conform to zoning regulations that are in place right now. I would say that if this is denied and the City Council denies it then we will all know exactly where we stand on this. At the moment my feeling is that in the past, since the several Home Improvement sessions that I’ve gone through for the extra 100 square feet, there are probably four or five or six of them, well three without question, I was a little taken aback that this was denied so vehemently by Staff because the last examples did not hold the same case. I understand there has been a change in philosophy in the approach to the HIEs. If that is the case we should have been notified so everybody knew that there were changes coming about. So that’s where we are. Do you have any questions? Commissioner Burt: Thank you Mr. Kohler. Are there any speakers from the public? Seeing none, do the Commissioners have questions for the Staff?. Commissioner Cassel: I have one. In the material that I read it indicated that you had not been granting HIEs simply to add square footage. Do you have any examples that you were able to look up where you granted an HIE simply because someone felt they should add to the square footage of their unit and they were already at the maximum FAR? Mr. Lusardi: The only occasions that we found in our research of granting additional square footage outside of the footprint of the structure is in the cases where they were historic structures. The granting of the HIE or the square footage was to preserve the architectural integrity of the historic structure and the placement of that additional square footage can only be in such a situation that it would not diminish or destroy the integrity of that structure.’ Commissioner Cassel: This was already above the FAR or was this that they had the right to have the FAR, it just had to be placed in a different position? Mr. Lusardi: I believe in a couple of cases this was over and above the FAR. This was consistent also with the incentive that was also being talked about or discussed in the Historic Preservation Ordinance also. Ms. Lisa Grote. Chief Planning Official: To add to that, most of the time in the past we have used about 100 to 125 square feet as a rule of thumb or a general guideline for additional FAR. In some of the cases that John was referring to for historic houses it was a little bit bigger because they had some other limitations and they had to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards so it got a little more complicated. Most of the time we use 100 square feet to 125 as a rule of thumb when considering additional FAR. Also most of the time when that has been approved it has been under an existing roofline. It has been attic space that was there but wasn’t finished, wasn’t usable and the owners of the home wanted to make it useable. So they were slightly different circumstances than the one that is before you tonight. Commissioner Burt: Owen. Commissioner Byrd: The first of the three required findings speaks to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the word "property." The analysis goes on to speak to the characteristics of both the lot and the house. What does the word property mean? Does it mean lot or house or does it mean lot and house? Ms. Grote: It has meant lot or house, lot and house actually especially for an HIE. Since it is a home improvement exception we assume that there is an existing structure on the site, an existing home. If there is something unique about that house that requires either an encroachment into a setback or a little bit of extra height because the house is already at 33 or 34 feet tall, or additional FAR, there is something unique about that house. So we have looked at both the property and the house. Commissioner Byrd: So ifI think that the lot is ordinary but the house has extraordinary circumstances I have a basis for making that finding? Ms. Grote: You would, yes. ¯ Commissioner Byrd: Thanks. Commissioner Burt: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I have a question. Does this addition goes beyond the back wall of the house because there is a cantilevering that is going on so that it is sticking out beyond where the existing balcony is? Mr. Lusardi: I don’t know. Maybe Roger can clarify that but it is our understanding that it does not extend beyond the existing rear wall of the house. This drawing that he presented here is a new drawing that we have not seen before. Commissioner Packer: The blueprints indicate a cantilevering over that tile roof. Mr. Lusardi: It does increase part of it in the back. Commissioner Burt: Bonnie, do you have your answer? I have just received a request to speak from the public. Unfortunately the public hearing segment of this issue is closed at this time and we cannot reopen it. Mr. Lusardi: Mr. Chair i understand that you can reopen it if you choose to. Commissioner Burt: Is that correct Ms. City Attorney? Ms. Wvnne Furth. Senior Assistant City Attorney: Because everybody is still here and because you are still in the middle of the discussion if you wish to reopen it you can. That is a matter for vote of the Commission. Commissioner Burt: In that case with the consent of the Commission we have one public speaker, Karen Holman. You have five minutes. Ms. Karen Holman. 725 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto: Thank you. You got to this much faster than anticipated so thank you for hearing me. I just have a couple of comments and questions. What is the size of the other houses in the area because context is an issue? I know that Roger brought up the issue of home improvement exceptions are going into houses because they are minor and hopefully keep houses from being torn down because there are all kinds of environmental consequences to that including built environment but that is not the only issue. Also a concern that I have is a consistency in application of exceptions. It seems to me that in the community we are seeing an awful lot of exceptions, much greater than this, granted to developers but they are not granted to individual applicants. While I am not lobbying for exceptions of any particular scale I’m saying that there needs to be a consistency in application of exceptions. The other thing is a consistency with what has happened in the past. If home improvement exceptions are being based on a different grade than they were before then what’s changed and why wasn’t there some kind of notice made to that affect to the community. Those are my comments and thank you very much I appreciate it. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Commissioners at this time we are ready for discussion or a motion. Commissioner Byrd: I think I’d better lay out a couple of comments before I provide a motion. I approach this issue trying as hard as I can to make the findings because this is just the sort of tinkering with marginal change to single family homes that I think sends us down a path that alienates the community from the government. So I think we should try to grant the exception if the findings can be made. Because it is on my mind because Ms. Holman spoke last I would say that both the law and the custom is that exceptions are granted for property not people. When we start making distinctions between homeowners and developers in this community about any subject that too is a very slippery slope. So where I am on the findings is number one, I don’t think there is anything exceptional about this lot but I do think there is about this house. You look at its design and it has a reasonably coherent design all around it except for this bizarre sliding glass door second floor balcony sticking out of one corner. We have heard a lot from the single family group about privacy being of great concern in this community and the existing condition, I think, is more invasive of privacy than what is proposed to change. So the extraordinary circumstance of it being in its current condition invasive .of privacy and of poor design I think allows me to make number one. Number two, preservation of an existing architecturalstyle and neighborhood character. Again I think the style of the house which is out of synch in this one corner is made complete and whole by the proposed addition. So in that sense it serves preservationist goals throughout the community. Third, given that it is not detrimental or injurious, no I think it is easier. If I lived next to this thing I would say abgolutely, please close this in so people aren’t sitting out there looking down on me and my lot next door. So while I don’t think we should grant exceptions lightly or easily or for personal or political reasons, I think they should be policy based, in this case I think the policy of completing or making the design of this house whole combined with preserving privacy adjacent enables me to make the findings to grant the exception. MOTION So I will move that we uphold the appeal and recommend to Council that the exception be granted. I would look for a second on that motion. Ms. Furth: I just wanted to say that because you are recommending overturning the previous decision you need to articulate your findings explicitly for each of the three criteria, the facts leading to your conclusions as part of you motion. SECOND Commissioner Burt: Do we have a second to the motion? I’ll make the second. I don’t have anything to add to Owen’s comments on it. Commissioner Cassel: I’ll tell you why I’ll disagree with it. I think there is a very basic policy issue here. It is an interesting question for Mr. Kohler to have brought forward to us. It was not my understanding that HIEs were being made specifically because any house which reached the FAR automatically got a granted right to have an additional 100 square feet or so added to it. So I think that if we make the exception here we can presume that anyone else who’s house is at the maximum FAR will come in and say I have a right to have another 100 square feet to my house as long as it meets all the setback, etc., requirements which is what we were asked to do here. In this particular case the addition that is being added has a great deal of windows in it. It is going to be just as easy to see into this house with all of these windows overlooking the bathtub as it is to see into a patio area. So I think there is a major policy issue that we need to clarify. That is, are we going to grant exceptions for people whose only reason for adding it on is that they want FAR? When I read what it says in our Applying for Home Improvement Exception booklet it - says, "An HIE cannot grant relief from the following site development regulations: the FAR limit unless the additional square footage is deemed to be incidental and is less than 100 square feet." I read that in reading the whole piece that incidental means subservient to other recommendations or other reasons for granting it. You are taking down the garage and you need to replace it and the garage is 16 feet deep, the law now requires that it be 20 feet deep and you need 60 extra square feet to move to compliance. So I will oppose your motion, Owen. Commissioner Byrd: I just want to briefly respond. The Staff report makes clear that any grant of an exception does not create a precedent, each one stands on its own. Secondly, the basis of the findings that I expressed was not that they are at the limit, we give exceptions so functionally the limit is what it is plus 150 for everybody. No, very difficult findings need to be made and I think they can be made here especially on the issue of privacy. It is just not geometry to say that something that has no built structure in front of it and therefore you have a view of every millimeter in front of you is the same as a view with even lots of windows because you have hard structure in there that is at least partly obscuring that view. So this design, in my view, improves a bad privacy situation modestly. It is not the same. There is hard stuff that is blocking you-view in at least portions of those square inches. Commissioner Burt: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I agree with Phyllis. I also don’t feel that this exception needs to be made because there is a risk that this home will be torn down if the exception is not granted. I went by there today. The home is on a lovely street that is very well maintained. There are other large homes nearby and close by. I’m concerned that this addition of the bulk of those windows cantilevered out will create a very bulky back that will be injurious to the neighbors who are on the back. I think it would be detrimental or injurious to those who live fight next door. That counterbalances Owen’s concerns about privacy. ! agree with Phyllis that it is just glass windows and there are lots of them so it may not be that much different from the balcony. I would guess the balcony doesn’t get used for peeping tom purposes at the moment. So I would oppose the motion. Commissioner Burt: Kathy. Commissioner Schmidt: I agree with the basic concepts that Phyllis and Bonnie are setting forth. I also fail to find this an extraordinary property either the lot or the house. I should have asked the architect, but speaking as an architect, it looks very much to me like this was originally either a one-story house or a house with a small second story and has had an addition on the back that doesn’t match the style at all. So the whole addition across the back doesn’t look like it goes with the existing style. So we are not really preserving an existing consistent home style. Also to add to what Bonnie said, I also visited the neighborhood. Other homes around it are similar size. They probably all are maxed out or close to maxing out on the sites in much of that block and also around the block on the other side. They are very small lots and you can easily see the backs of other houses from the street on the other side. So adding more with big windows that would see a lot more use in back I think would feel not only more bulky but like it is more invasive in a neighborhood where the lots are short and there are already pretty good sized houses for the lots there. MOTION WITHDRAWN Commissioner Byrd: I can count to two, I withdraw my motion. Commissioner Burt: I will go along with Owen. I would like to just respond to a couple of the Commissioners comments for the record. First I don’t believe that granting this HIE would automatically result in an obligation to grant HIEs for circumstances that lacked meeting the other findings. When I read the packet I was not inclined to support the appellant but upon seeing the photos and the renderings it really became convincing to me that it really would add to the architectm’al character.of the rear of the home. That balcony stood out like a sore thumb and this would be an improvement. I was also struck that the neighbors appear to not be opposed to this addition and that carries weight. If the appellant were to pursue this to Council a design that was more in conformance with the proposed R-1 guidelines for privacy it might carry more weight. They are not binding guidelines I simply think that the concept of observing the privacy would be beneficial. So with the motion having been withdrawn do we have a substitute motion? SUBSTITUTE MOTION Commissioner Cassel: I will move that we uphold the Staff recommendation and deny the appeal sending this on to City Council with a recommendation for denial. I would like to thank Mr. Kohler for bringing this issue forward. I think we have had a lot of questions about how extensive our HIE should be and what exceptions should be made and there have been a lot of questions in the community about this. I think it was well worth bringing this forward to us to help us out with this explanation. Commissioner Burt: Do I have a second? SECOND Commissioner Schmidt: Second. I will also say that I am fully supportive of the HIE process. I think we have used it a lot over the years. It is necessary and a good thing to have. It allows for all the things that Roger talked about but this just doesn’t quite fit. It is a good process. Thank you. Commissioner Burt: Any other comments? Commissioner Cassel: I have to indicate I walked down that street and around the block. MOTION PASSED Commissioner Burt: All in favor? (ayes) All opposed? (nays) That was passed on a 3-2 vote. Cityof Alto Attachment C Application No. 93-HIE-20: 320 KELLOGG AVENUE Home Improvement Exception 93-HIE-20 is approved for the location and construction of a lO0-square-foot, second-story addition on a site where the existing house exceeds the 6,000-square-foot maxteum house size, as per attached plans, at 320 Kellogg Avenue, Zone District R-1(929), Palo Alto, California. There .are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the property is 12,500 square feet, more than double the I0,000 square feet required by the R-I(gIg) zone district. Additionally, the existing house currently exceeds the maximum allowable house size of 6,000 square feet; The granting of the application is desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood character, which would not otherwise .be accomplished through the strict application of this chapter in that the small addition is architecturally compatible with the existing residence, and balances the rear facade which currently has a similar element at the south side of the rear elevation. The project will result in a .31 floor area ratio, where a typical lO,O00-square-foot lot in the same zone district would be allowed a .38 ratio; and D The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that the addition complies with all R-1(929) zone district site development regulations with regard to location of structures, and the site provides a dense landscapebuffer for the rear yard, therefore, the addition will not impact ’the privacy, views, or access to daylight of the adjacent neighbors. Chief Planning Official June 9, 1993 HIE93ZO.Jc 6/9/93 Page i Thts fo~’m does not. constt~,ut.e the variance for ~htch app]tcat.ton was made, ~.f the application ~s ~pp~oved ~ ~f no f~om ~h~s decision ~s f~]ed by any person, f~, o~ corporation aff~:Led by Lhe decision on or Dy aune 19, 1993, you w111 ~ecetve a copy of your pe~t~ Jn the mat]. If thts appltcatlon Js no~ dectded to your satisfaction, ~he decision may be appealed ~o the Planntng Com~ssJon by ftllng an appea] applJcaLJon w~Lh the P]anntng Depa~L~nL and C~ty Clerk on or before the ~bove-men~oned date. aoseph H. Colonna, Planner Roger Koh]er, 378 Cambridge Avenue, Suit.e A, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Don and Sy]vta Way, 320 Kellog9 Avenue, Pa]o Alto, CA 94306 HIE9320.Jc 6/9/93Page 2 Adcox, Rachel From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachment D Lusardi, John Thursday, July 12, 2001 3:54 PM Adcox, Rachel FW: 2340 Bryant Street [01-HIE-02] ----Original Message--- From: Tom Ashton [maiito:tomashton@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 11,200! 5:27 PM To: pat_burt@acteron.com; BemusBurt@peoplepc.com; phycassel@aol.com; owen@owenbyrd.com; keschmidt@aol.com; jdschink@aol.com; bbpacker@macol.net; abialson@yahoo.com Cc: city_council@city.palo-alto.ca.us; Frank Benest@city.palo-alto.ca.us; ariel_calonne@city.palo-alto.ca.us;wynn~_furth@city.palo-alto.ca.us; Ed_Gawf@city.pa!o-alto-ca-us; Lisa_Grote@city.palo-alto.ca.us; john_lusardi@city.palo-alto.ca.us; Bhavna_Mistry@city. palo_alto.ca.us Subject: 2340 Bryant Street [01-HIE-02] Dear Commissioners, The Planning Commission should quickly deny the appeal from the applicant and recommend the same action to council. The Planning Technician, Bhana Mistry, presents an excellent staff report and rebuttal to the applicant’s appeal. The staff recommendation follows the zoning code to a "T". There is no possible reason to allow an additional 100 sq ft of FAR on this lot, especially since the house is already over the allowable by 187 square feet. If the city were to begin entertaining similar HIEs or Variances, there would be a flood of applications and a wholesale abuse of the current FAR formula. The commissioners should unanimously reject this appeal and recommend the same to council Thanks. Tom Ashton 650-321-1280