HomeMy WebLinkAbout0555.092I ; n t'i
,
,
1
I ,
~-
. ,
".~," " ~ , '
December 10: 1992
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto: California
SINGLE-STORY HEIGHT COMBINING DISTRICT (5) GUIpELINES
Members of the council:
Report in Brief
12
At their meeting on July 13, 1992, the City Council adopted the
Single-Story Height Combining District (S) regulations. When
combinei! 'With the R-l or R-l special residential building site
combininq districts, the (5) overlay zone limits the height of
structures to a maximum of 17 feet and one h~bitable flo~rr and
increases the allowable lOt", coverage to 40 percent of lot area. As
a follow-up measure, the Council directed staff to develop a set of
guidelines for use in assisting City staff and decisionmakers in
the consideration of future (5) overlay zone change requests.
These guidelines, in effect, seek to address specific concerns
e~~essed by the counciJ at the time of their adoption o~ the (5)
overlay zone district.
Planning COmmission Discuesion
The Planning COlMlission, in discussion of the item at their October
28, 1992 and. November 18, 1992 meetings, reco:nmended minor
~evi5ions to the staff-prepared guidelines. Most importantly~ the
co~ission suggested a "t~o-tiered" appro~ch to the enforcement of
guideline criteria, depending upon the existence of, and adherence
to, si-ngle-story deed restrictions wi thin a neighborhood. This
approach &ttempts to clarify that in neighborhoods where there are
no single-story deed restrictions, or where such restrictions exist
yet have not been strictly adhered to, applications would be
evaluated through more rigorolls use of the quidelines~ However,
neighborhoods wllich contain and have been developed consiEitent ... i th
a sinqle-story deed restriction, the guidelinas would be treated
with a greater degree of flexibility~
The quideljnes are proposed to read as follows:
CHR:555:92
,'~'.r:a.t
12/10/92
Page 1
o
Single-Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zo~§c_uidel~
The following q\Oidelines are intended. to guide City staff and
deC'isiorunakers in the corisideration of zone change requests for
application of '-!he single-Story Height Combining District (S)
ove~lay zone. For neighborhoods in which there are no single-story
deed restrictions, or where such restrictions exist yet have not
be~n strictly adhered to~ applications are to ~ evaluated through
llQre rigorous use of these q'.J.i de 1 ir:.es . However, neighborhoods
which contain ana have been developed consist.ent with It &ingle
story deed restriction, these q~idelines are treated with a q~eater
degree of flexibility.
~. Level ~nd Format Qf Resident pupport
An application for an {5j overlay zone map amend~ent should
meet tiith "oveNhelminq"" support by residents of affected
propertie$~ These residents must de~onstrate, ~y providing
d~umentation that includes a written list of signatures I an
understanding that they are co-applicants in a z.,)ne :map
amandment request~
2. Appropriate BOUndaries
An application for an (5) overlay zone map amendment should be
accompanied by a map indicating the address location of those
residents who are co-applicants for 'the rezoning request.
Boundaries which may correspond with certain natural or man
made features (i.e~ road~ays, ~aterweys, tract boundaries,
etc.) should define a~ identi.fiable neighborhood or
develop:mer..t~ These boundaries will be reC"-onuoended to the
Planning Commission and City Council by the City's Zoning
Administrator~
3. Preva.~liDg single-l=l.tQ1:y Character
An area proposed for an (5) overlay zone ~ap a~endment should
be of a prevailing sjn91e-stcry character ... here the vast
majority of existing homes are single-story, thus limiting the
number of structures rel\dered noncomplying by the (5) ovarlay.
Neiqhborhoods currently subject to single-story deed
re.strictions should be currently d.eve~Clped in a manner
consistent with those deed restrictions. Furthermore~ it is
desirable that homes be similar in age, design and character I
ensuring that residents of an area proposed for rezoning
possess like desires for neighborhood preservation and face
COl!l.JDon hOll'l_e remodeling constraints.
CMR:5,5:92
,:~,CIW
12{10192
Page 2
J , j
L,'
" .,
.',
4.
:., '.
o
Moderate Lot Sizes
In order to maintain equitable property developmer.t rights
within an (S) overlay area compared to other sites within the
R-l zone district, an area proposed for an {S) cve~lay zone
map amendment should be char~cterizeG by ~oderate lot sizes
with a ge~erally consistent lotting pattern. A moderate lot
size is to be defined as 7,000-3,000 square feet.
staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Planning
Commission's recommendation to approve t,he above criteria for use
as quidelines in the cons-idl!!ration of future (5) overlay zone
change requests.
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL W. BILLS
Planning Technician
KENNETH R. SCHREIBE~
Director of Planning t'I.nd
CcmmunityEnvironment
Interim City Manager
Attachments:
Planning Commission staff Report dated october 23, 1992
Minutes of October 28, 1992 Planning Commission meeting
Minutes of November 19, 1992 Planninq Commission meeting
CC: Creenmeadow Community Association, 303 Parxside Drive. Palo
Alto, CA 94306
Litsie Ind~rqand, c/o Walnut Czove Horn2owners' Association.
336 Ely Place, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Mr. and Mrs. Hugh Tussman, 3743 Redwood Circle, Palo Alto, CA
94306
stave Jeske, 300 W. Charleston Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306
CMR:555:92
p:~cmr
12/10/92
Page 3
•
October Z3, 1992
PlANNING COMMISSION
Palo Aito, CalifCJl'nia
Cu~ ofYalo )lito
p ( B()~ 10~5-:l
~..\~,J ~~10. C,~ i..::lC"J
SINGLE-STORY HE!GHT COMBINING PISTRICT IS! GUIDELINES
Hemb!rs of the (omission:
Project p,scr1ptipn
T~is staff report has been prepared at the request of the City Countil in
order to establish a set of guidelines for future application of the Single
Story Height Combining District (S} overlay z~ne, ~hen combined with t~e R-I
or R-l ~pecial residential building site combining districts, the (S) ov~rlay
z~ne limits the height of structures to a maximum of 17 feet and one habitable
f]oor~ iTid intreases the allowable lot c!lverage to 40 percent of Tet area.
Bukground
At their meeting on July 13, ]992 1 the City Council adopted ordinances wnicn:
il) established the Single-Story HeIght Combining District (5) regulations,
and (2) amended the zone map to apply the (S) o,.rlay zone in the Walnut Grov.
n~ighborhoqd. However. t~e Council expressed co~cer~ regarding the lack of
specifit guidelines whicn m~ght aid in the conSideration of future (51 overlay
lone change requests. Therefore, staff was djrected tQ develop and return
such gUidelines to the Planning Commission for apprQval.
Proposed ($) Overlay Zone Guideline$
In tkeir discussion of the item, (ounci1 members Andersen and falzi~o prc~ided
a reasonable 5~mrnary of criteria against which future applications of the (S)
overlay zone mi9ht be encDuraged, These criteria are rl~scribed a~ fol1D~~:
1. Level and format of ResidCMt Support
An application for an (SJ overlay L~ne map amendment should meet with
·Dyerwhelmi~g· su~port by fesidents ~f affected properties. These
r!sidents ~ust demonstrat~, by providing documentation that includes a
written list of signat~res, an understanding that they are co-appllcants
in a zone map amendment request. Staff suggests that a support 1'e'Je1 of
75 perce~t be loosely regarded as an lpplicat;on ·threshold~. The City
Attorney nas pOinted out that anything less tha~ 100 percent resident
support wi11 reqUire a Planning C0lM1iSS10!'1 or c.ity Caul'cil vot.e to
initiate tne requested zone change, and th~t failure to obtain a 75
.---~"--,----»
10/23/92
Pag, I
/ •. . '
o
percent level ~f support should ~ot bf use~ IS th! sole basis upon wnicn
to rej!ct (S) o¥erlay applications.
2. Apprgprjate Boyndaries
An application for a~ (S) o¥etlay zone map amendment should be
accompanied by a map ind;catlng: the address location of those residents
which ire c04appl1cants for the rezcning request. Using this map,
rezoning boundaries may be drawn to reasonably correspond ~itn certain
natural or m~nmade features {i.e. roadways~ waterways, tract boundaries.
etc.), T~e$e boundaries will be recommended to the Commission and
Council by th~ Cityls Zoning Admi~istrator.
As is true in the Walnut Grove neighborhooG, an area proposed far an (5)
overlay zone map amendment should Pe of a preya;ltn~ si~gle-story
character, where tne vast ~~jority of existing homes are single-story
(thUS limiting the number of structures rendered noncomplying by the (5)
o~erhy). Furthermore, it is desirable that homes be sirr.ilar in age,
design and c~aracter. ensuring that residents of on area proposed for
rezoning possess like desires feT neighborhood preservation and f&ce
connon home remodel ing constraints.
4. Modtrilte lot Sizes
In order to m~intain e~uitabl! property devtlopment rights wit~ir. an {S)
overlay area compared to other sites within the R-l zo~e district, an
area proposed for an (5) ovtrllY zont map amendment should be
characterized by mode~ate lot sizes. for our purposes here. a
·.aderate-lQt size is to be d~fined as 1,000-6,000 square feet. This
range is chosen because it represents a site area upon which a property
owner ean bUild, regardless of whether applying the current R-l floor
area ratio formula or the (5) overlay regulations, approxi~ately the
SI!lE' size house (in SQlJare fu·t).
Staff Recommendation
Staff recomends that the Planning (.olflTlission appro ..... 2 the abOVE criteria for
use as guidelines in the consideration of future (5) overliY zone change
requests.
Respectfully submitted,
7Y..0-.J. ~tY. &-I.k
MICHAEL W. BILLS
Pl'nni~9 lethn~tian
ffi :#W~~ NAN~Q()X LYTLE
Chief Planning Offici,l
10/13/92
Page 2
:
'.':~. "..
--;"'."0:
"r .-:-
Attac:hlltE!nts: Minutes of July 13, 1992 Citj CouneO meeting
'.
cc: Green.meadow COnll'lunit,Y Association, 303 Parkside Drivel Palo ,'~lto. CA
;4306
titsie Indergancf, c/o Walnut Grove Home~'Nners' I'.~so.ciation. 336 Ely
Place, rale Alte, CA 943~6
Mr. and Mrs. Hugh Tussman, 3743 Redwood Circle 1 Palo A~to. {A 94306
Steve Jeske, 30Q W. Charleston Road, Palo Alto, CA 943D6
10/23/92
Page 3
I.]' ,
f'
I
\
\ ,
8.
CITY COUNCIL MllI!-uTES
T '';'1 ,3" If f J..
PUBLIC. ~NG: Planning Commission recommendation re
neqative declaration and ordinances for a text amendment to
establish a Single-story Height Combining District (S) and.
zone map amendment to change th~ .2:o-ning within Tracts 1128 and
1135 of the Walnut Grove neighborhood
Council Member Cobb ",'ould not participate in t.l].e item :2ue to a
conflict of interest.
Plannin9 Technician Michael Bills said staff proposed a tart
amendment to establish a single-story height combininq district
ovErlay zone district. The "5· overlay would limit the height of
st.uctures to a maximum ot 17 feet and one inhabitable floor and
increase the allowable lot coverage to 40 percent or the lot area~
Tbe proposed zone map a:endment responded ~o a February 10, 1992,
Council assignment for staff to consider a request by residents of
the Walnut Grove neighbo4hood for establishment of a single-story
height restriction for Tracts ~128 and 113S~ At its :meeting on
June 1.0, 1992, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended
approval of the text amendments and voted 5-~ to approve the zone
:map a::lumrulumt with one :map revision based on the staff's findings
contained in the statf' 5 Planning commission staff .report dated
J;,me 5, .1,992.
council Member Wheeler said the impetus ~or applying the overlay
zone was a request fro~ a majcrity of a specific neighborhood. Sh~
queried what happened i~ circums~ances changed in 10 or 20 years
and ~ere YBS a movement to relIlove the overlay zone~
Zonin9 Administrator Nancy Lytle said once an overlay district ~as
established, the Palo Alto Mur.icipal Code (PAMC) provided an avenue
for property owners to apply for map amendments. If anyone applied
to have the overlay zone removed, staff would look for at least a
simple majority of the property owners Ioo'ithir. the district before
initiating the endeavor~
7/13/92 69-33
•
:;,
council K~r Wheeler clarified a si~ple ~ajority would be
required to remove the zone.
Ms. Lytle s~id that was correct.
Council Member Andersen queried the process a neighborhood vould
have to 1'olloW" in makinq an application in terms of the number of
peo~le that would have to be involved and the restrictions or
luutations which might prevent :1eighbors in a cul-de-sao from
making the 8~ application under a proposed overlay zone.
Ms. Lytle said the process would involve a~ application for a zone
chanqe. yf the application inv~lve~ a single piece ot p~operty,
then it would require the property owner's signature. If multiple
properties were involved# staff would look for the majority of ~~e
property owners to be in aqreeJ:!ent w~th the boundaries being
pro,posed. In guiding the applicants# staff woula encourage a
loqical division of properties, e. g., phys ieal reasons why proposed
boundaries mad~ sense, and staff would also look for a consistent
Single-story character in the neighborhood 4 The ordinance was
intended to apply in neigtucorhoods where single stories prevailed.
In the case of the subject application, there was only one two
story hcuse in the entire area proposed.
Planning Commissioner Pam Marsh said while the Pla~~ing Commission
discussed the need to establish policies of how the :toning text
miqht JSpply in the f11ture, it did not specifically state what they
miqht be. An additional criterion miqht be some uniformity of lot
size. There might be a problem applying the overlay zone if a
neighborhood was split betveen .5,000 square foot lots and much
larger lots because the site coveraqe figure would re,'3ult in a :auch
different ability to build out.
council Mem.ber Andersen queried whether geographic size-of the area
would be considered as a criterion.
Commissioner KArsh referred back to MS4 Lytle's comments regarding
Yell-defined boundaries. If the boundaries ma~e sense, she
belie'.red the zone coulCS be applied to a relatively small area as
long as the boundaries 'Were .... ell understood and set ~part from
adjacent neiqhborhoods in some fashion.
~s. Lytle agreed.
Council Member Rosenbaum asked about the extent of support for a
project in a neighborhood.
Ms. LYtle said staff's recomma:ndation to:." accepting an application
would include the fact that the boundaries surrounded a situation
where the majority of pr.operty owners were interested in the
application's moyinq forward. The Change would be eva14ated
through the Planning Commission and City council processes and
~ould include consistency of neighborhood patterns and whether the
choice was a good one.
7/13/92 69-34
Council Member Kniss was interested in What kind of precedent was
balnq set. She asked how many houses might fall into tracts which
were built in large n~rs.
Ms. Lytle said most of th~ development after World War II o=curred
south ot Oreqon Expressway and was single-story construction.
considerable modi~ications had taken place in many areas, and ~any
of the post World War II trect houses we=e developed hi99ledy
pi991edy within older nei9'r.barhoods~ SOlDe homes lest t.heir sinqle
story identity and some retained it. At least half of the City was
developed with a prevailing single-story pattern, b~t m~ch ot it
VIIS Jlodiried~ She quessed a third of the houses remained as
Bingle-story.
council Kember .Kniss said the lots beinq adciresBed: that: evening
tended to be relatively large.
Ms. Lytle said the lots being considered that evening were about
',000 squr..re foot 2Ilinim1..lAS and ranged between ',000 and B, 000
square feet, which were biqq~r than much of t~e city but common in
the sout~west area of the City.
council Member Knis.s clarified the average lot in Palo Alto vas
between 5,000 and 5,000 square feet.
Ks. Lytle believed the median lot si&& was probably 6,000 .~~are
teet. Lot si~es went down to about 5,000 aquare feet in substan
dard parcels and then up to about 8, 000 squar:e feet. SOlie rare
lots exceeded 8,000 square feet.
commissioner .Marsh believed the question about lot size 'Was
~rtant because it vas a relatively easy ~ecision to apply the
single-story limitation on a neighborhood in which the lot size was
big enough so that the square footaqe alloyed to be built vas
CODDIensurate with wbat would otherwise be permitted~ If a
neighborhood included a Significant proportion ot homes .ith lots
under 6,000 square feet, the scenario would be much different.
council Member V.niss queried whether-th.ere would be a number of
other neighborhoods waitin9 to apply the proposed overlay zone. It
appeared that many other neiqhborhoods already had made a decision
to alter their confiquretion much more dramatically.
Ks. Lytle sensed there vere not a lot of other neiqhborhoods
clamoring to .epply the overlay zone. The Cr-eenmea<!ow neighborhood
bad expressed some interest. Nf'!ighborhoods which expressed
interest in the overlay zone were those which consistently tried to
uphold their conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R)
liaitation of sinqle story. She tended to agree that many of the
neighbor-hoods had already committed to allowing two stories.
council Me~r Huber clarified if the overlay zone passed, at some
point staff would develop written guidelines.
Ks. Lytle said other thal, the three criteria she raised, it would
not be her intent to develop any written quidelines. Unless
7/13/92 69-35
, I
Council directed otherwise, the proposal was a zoning ordi:'1;ance
text amendment fer which people could apply. staff would only
ad.vise those where there were logical boundaries, t.."ere 'Was a
prevailing single-story character and where a majority of property
owners signed the application.
Council Member Wheeler said thE Planning Commissio~ r-e.commended
removing from consideration five properties which ~ere nominally
eonsi4ered a part of the subciiviEicn but ~hich were bet .... ·een Adobe
Creek and Nelson Drive, fronting on Charleston Road and baoking up
to the Greenmeadow neighborhood. Presuming the Greenmeadow
neighborhood in the future requested that the single-storJ overlay
z~ne be applied to it, she queried whether staff would change it5
5uqqestion abou~ the five parcels or whether they would be
incorporated into the application.
Commissioner Karsh seid the Planning Commission discussed removinq
the five parcels trom the application and was aware that the
neiqhborhooda to the south of the: proposed neighborhood anticipated
applying for the overl~y zone. The Planning commission believed
When that occurred, it would .be appropriate to discuss incor
poratlnq those five properties. One reason the Planninq Commissicn
was comfortable with pullinq the five properties out was that the
survey ~fare the Planning Commission had very little rasponse, and
scae af it was negative fr~ owners of the five par=els~ She would
not be comfortable includinq the five properties unless some
outreach had occurred.
Mayor Fazzino asked the City Attorney for turther comment reqarding
his decision not to include in the ordinance spp.cific criteria
offered by an assistar.~ in his office.
City Attorney Ariel calonne p~eferred that such criteria be bandIed
through Planning Department policies or guidelines short of being
codified because it left some flexibility in implementation that
was val uabl e.
Council Member Andersen queried whether it would be ~tter for the
Council to include specific criteria in the ordinance or to follow
Council Member Huber's suggestion that written guidelines be
developed by staff.
Ms. Lytle said staff coulc3 either develop form"l guidelines or
utilize tbe advice received tha~ evening in directing applications~
An applicant could not be precluded from tiling an amendment once
a zone chapter was in place. The quidelines were intended to help
appli,cants kilo ... what would likely happen before they spent the
dollars in the application process 0 Staff's intent was to keep
implementation of the ordinance flexible because statf could not
anticipate in what neiqhhorhoods the ordinance might apply or what
neiqbbo~hoods would identify themselves. '
Mayor Fazzino declared the Public Hearing open.
william Morrison, 3902 Duncan Place J urged Council to pass the
5ingle-story overlay zone. The houses were Eichler type vith lots
7/13/92 69-:36
-"-~,,~~;-".
,
'\
:.; ,
, .
o
ot qlass, and people could live outside and inside. With a tvo
story house next door, the priv&cy ~as loat. The houses were of
post and ~am cC')ns'truction which meant a lot of changes could OCc\1.r
inside the house. with the extra percen~aqe on the land, people
who want~d to enlarqe their homes could still do 80.
Gwen Eells, 3~88 Duncan Place, urged sup?O=t of the sta£f recom
mendatlofl.
Louise Herring, 3945 Nelson Driv&, spoke as the Chairperson of the
civic Affairs COlmDitt!!:e of 'the Greenmeadow Associat~ion. The
Greenmeadow neighborhood consisted of 270 homes, and 243 of those
homes had CC&Rs ~hich reflected a one-stcry heiqht limitation. The
Greenmeadow Association was currently conduc~inq a survey of the
2'0 hoae~ to see whether it should follow the Walnut Grove area in
applying for the single-story overlay. The Greenmeadow neighbor
hood was fairly intact 4 Two home o:.mers in the past year con
structe4 cathedral ceilings Which were not second stories, and one
home ovner constructed a loft in its living room. She believed the
single-story ov~lay zone concept was popular in areas adjacent to
the walnut Grove neighborhood. She urged council support of the
recom::mendat ion 4
Litsie Indergand, 336 Ely Place, was President of the Walnut Grove
H~eowners' Association. She urged approval of the overlay zone.
CC'Rs were in place for every property in the application. She
believed many of the people who lived in the walnut Gryve neighbor
hood did so because it was It homogenous t'Ieighoorhood which had
retained its oriqinal character~ The privacy in their backyards
vas just about perfect. Two yea.rs ago the Walnut Grove Homeowners'
Association retained an attorney to prevent som~one fram building
a tvo-story house that would have been well over 4,000 s~~re ~eet
and which would have overwbelllled the neighborhood and looked into
at least three backyards. They did not want to have to ask the
neighborhood for money every time someone wanted to build a two
story house. It would be much nicer to enjoy the privacy of their
yards and not hava to worry about someone trying to build a two
story house in a neighborhood where it would not fit.
John Indergand, 336 Ely Place, said
Grove neighborhood Were very small4
quiet, and stability.
the differences in the Walnut
The residents &ouqht privacy,
Ted Jenkins, 3864 Duncan Place, vas concerned abo~t applyinq
overlay zones without proper defillitions4 'l'he discussion abo\,;t
flexibility concerned hi~ because it sounded as if aLmost anything
would. be allowed without any accountability. If he wer-l!' to be
restricted diff2rently from his neiqhbcr across the street because
they ware in different zones, he wanted the restrictions d6fined
.before the fact. He did. not MO'" what was meant :by a defined.
boundary. In terms of consistency in a neighborhood, there were
often many reasons why an area did not change4 In the Fair Meadow
area, there were two-story houses everywhere because thoee houses
were not built as well and were not quite the quality as those in
the Walnut Grove ~rea. Tne houses in the Fair Meadow area were not
as expansive as those in the walnut Grove area, and the houses in
7/13/92 69-37
'L
o
the. walnut Grove area 'Were not as expeZlsive as those in the
Greenmeadow 4rea~ One would expect change to occur in the cheaper
houGes meving toyard ~~e more ~xpEnsive houses. with the overlay
zone, Walnut Grove would be precluded from change. He urged
Council tQ qo back to the entire concept of an overlay zone and qet
some definitions. He submitted e: letter fr-om Evelyn Preston (on
file in the City Clerk's Office).
Mary Xyle, 3856 Duncan Place; chose to live in her neiqt~rhood
because of its ambiance, and the one-stery hO!lSe was a part ot the
neighborhood feeling. The neighborhood could be changed bec:!luse of
the allowance of the 40 percent, and the one-story re.stri:::tion
would maintain the privacy of the neighbors. She urged council
support.
~~yor Fazzino declared the Public Hearing closed.
~IQKl Council Member Huber movea, seconded by Kniss, to approve
the Planning Commission re~ommendation to: 1) approve tae Negative
Ceclaration; 2) introduce the ordinance amending the zoning
requlations to establish the (S) overlay zone district; and J 1
introauce the ordinanl::e amending the zone map ~
ordinange 1st Reading entitled ROrdinance cf the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending Section ~8~08~040 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Add the Single-Story
Height Combining District (SJ Designation to certain Property
in the walnut Crave Neighborhood
ordinaNce 1st _F:ea~ ing entitled "'Ordinance of the Council of
the City or Palo Alto Amending Title l8 [Zoning] of the Palo
Alto Municipal code to odd the Single-Story Height (S)
Combining District
Council Me..mber Huber noted that commissioner !'!arsh was the only
surviving member of the subcommittee that looked at large houses,
lot patterns, etc~ ~ e few YE"ars ago. He "as a me~r of that
committee which spent about a year going through the City looking
at many different neighborhoods primarily from concerns about large
house5. In the interest of trying t¢ preserve the variouf:;
neighborhood qualities which existed in the co~unity--and there
'Were me.ny--consideration 'Was given to a restriction on second
stories. Insteaa, the recommendation 'Was that it rleighborhoods
were interested in such a restriction, they should come forward. He
believed the subject application was appropriate. The Waln~t Grove
project was 40 year~ old. and lot patterns were defined and houses
were ~uilt tu be single-story~ The original CC&Rs suggested there
'Were good reasons -tor the single storr in te.rms of the nature of
the building and the creation of privacy areas~ The single-story
restriction still existed in the CC&Rs~ If someone fr-om the
neighborhood went to the City's Planning or Buildi~9 Departments
with two stories planned~ those Departments probably would not know
those CC'Ra existed and 1I1ould lixely approve the plans and then rUn
into a neighborhood battle. In an effort to preserve the character
of a neighborhood, it was appropriate to set up guidelines or
zoning controls~ The Walnut Grove neiq~borhood and others in the
7/13/92 69-38
Ii!' -
•
PI, .M
community vere well worth preserving in a single-story situation as
they were currently. He 'Would be less inclined to support the
application but tor the tact that by Inc,easinq the lot coveraqe to
40 percent, in effect an}'one who o'Wnec:S property was virtually able
to get the same amount of square footage if the overlay zone passed
as they would without it, which was important to p~oteot property
rights. "'ith that 40 percent increase plus the still ~xisti1l9
housing improvC!:ment exemption (HIE), one could qet on a design
factor even with the 40 per~~nt increase, and the City was in the
pos! tion to accommodate any unique circumstances '.hieh could exist
by imposition of the single-story overlay.
council Member lJIiss associated with the comments of Council Member
Huber. While it vas a precedent setting action. she did not
believe there would be a st~~pede in the City~ At one point she
lived slightly south of the Greenm.eadow neiqhborhcod,. and even
though tnere vere CC&Rs there. they vere far less recognized a One
of the problems yhich occurred when the houses in an area were very
similar and second stories were built was the neighborhood tendad
to chanqe dramatically. She believed the situation in the Walnut
Grove neiqhborhood w~s carefully considered, and with A .4 floor
area ratio (FAR), one was ell~wed to build almost the maximum one
could build vith A twc-story home. She believed it was important
to protect those property rights. She supported th~ motiona
council Member Rosenbaum associated with Planning commissj oner Bill
Glezi~r's comments in the Planninq Commission minutes dated June
10, 1992, in ter-ms of questioning trle point. For a City which
normally engaged in a fair amount of process and tried to do things
in an orderly man::1er, he found the proposal su-'PJ)rising~ Qu.estions
vere i!lDked about the criteria and the answer reflecteQ staff would
'Worry about it as things went on. He 'Was uncomfortable with that~
In the Walnut Grove neighborhood the lots were 7,000 and 8,000
square fee~, and a single-story would provide as many square feet
as a tvo-&to~ would with the current FAR restrictions a Some of
the neiqhborhoods huilt atter the Walnut Grove project had smaller
lots,. and if there were Eichlers on smaller lots, then there vculd
be a significant disadvantage to adopting the p~opcsal. He queried
the size of the neighborhood to be consid.ered. Befcre council
approved the action# 9Uid~lines should be in place. He did not see
any hurr)" with respect to the particular neiqhborhood since they
were willinq to enforce the CC&:Rs. Before applyinq the overlay
zone, he wanted to see some guidelines developed by the staff and
Planninq Commission to provide some confidence that the action was
sensible. He opposed the motion.
Council Member Andersen said While he supported the motion, he was
concerned about the criteria issue. He was comfortable if council
vas specific enough in its own direction that staff would restrain
those who :miqht be enthusiastic about applying for the overlay
zone.. He believed any appl ication needed to demonstrate an
overwhelming majority of the affected homeowners. He could never
support an overlay z.one if a neighborhood was divided 49 to 51.
The responses from the Greenmeadow Association and the Walnut Grove
Association suqgested to him an appropriate overwhelming majority.
There had to be logical contiguous boundaries, and there needed to
7/13/92 69-39
~'~~i~L
<....y., :. )".'f.
-.-
. ·r.,
i
1
I.
-I
~
-
o ,---"
.be a clear prevailing ne-ighborhood pattern to be protected. He
agreed with commissioner Harsh ~ith regard CO the ~ni[ormity of lot
site. It" staff would direct those who ml.qht ~ interested in
applying fer such an overlay with the foregoing criteria, the zone
would not be abused.
Cou.ncil Me:n.ber Wheeler associated 'With the comments of Council
Members Huber and Knif:s~ Regarding council Member RosenbaUUl's
concern, Council Me~r Huber referred to t~~ ~9a9 study in which
the various neighborhoods 'Were review~d in depth. ThO? findings
indicated a great deal of diversity among those neighborhoods which
she believed spoke of .en inability to develop in advance more
specific criteria than 'What council Me-mber-An1.ersen enunciated.
She also lived in an Eichler neighborhood, and the issue of privacy
.. as parUlount. The people lived in the original glass houses-
entire valls were made of qlass--and to have second stories
overlooking those homes would be extremely sensitive an~ intrusive.
However, the same criteri~ could not be applied citywide because
the circumstance did not occur citywide. Another substantially
single-story neiqhbo~hood ~ight have other equally valid reasons.
She did not want to see Council a:tte!C.pt to. dra .... up rigid criteria
that 1111 neighborhoods would have to meet because she did not
believe the varied neighborhoods could be treated fairly. She
belieVed the Walnut Crove neighborhood was an excellent candidate
for the application of ~~e proposed overlay zone, and she supported
the motion.
Kayor Fazzino said the ov~rwhelming public support of the propo$al
was important to him. While there was a question about criteria,
he believed the existence of the CC&Rs was an i~portant criteria
itself. He saw the proposal as simply the placinq of the City's
imprilllatur on the CC&Rs which would be an ertremely important
criterion for future similar proposals. The housing developed in
the walnut Grove neighborhood was specifically intended to reflect
a particular style of living which for Palo Alto was very unique in
the 1940's and 1.950 t 6, and it 'Was also representative of a
significant change in the City's development. The council needed
to continue to support that style cf living that was developed at
such an important time in the cityrs history. He also believ~d lot
size was an important factor, and property owners could indeed
enjoy a significant property right with the single-story overlay as
well as the 40 percent proposal offered by the Planning Commission.
wt,ile he was sympathE:tic to some of the concerns raised by
Mr. Jenkins about the tyranny of the majority, he weighed that
issue carefully before making hLs decision. Based upon the 4 a-year
old CC&Rs, he believed it was entirely appropriate for the council
to support the single-story overlay nistrict in the Walnut Grove
area.
Council Member Rosenbaum did not necessarily disagree that at some
point the single-story overlay zone might net be 8 good thing for
the particular neighborhood.
Mr. calonne clarified the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) was very
&pecific that a property o~ner could apply on hi£ or her behalf and
o~ ~half of people for ~hom that property owner h~d authority, but
7/13/92 69-40
•
. .
I
I
o
an individual property owner could not initiate a zoning change on
&o~eone elsers property. In the evant of a split--less than 100
percent of the property o~ners agreeing--staff would go before the
Planning commi~sion or City Council, and the Planning Commission or
the city council 'Would use its authority to initiate the zoning
'=banqe. Before the council 'Would ever ~ in a position of voting on
a zoning ordinance .. either the Planning commission or the city
council would hav"! voted to initiate it if all of the property
owners W1!re net in agreement. The 5i tuatiorl vas not one in which
neighbors could impose on other neighbors 'Without action of the
~ity.
XOTrOM PASSED 6-1, Rosenbaum "no,· Cobb "not participating,· McCown
ab<;e"t.
ltO"rJ:Olf ro 1lUZR: Council Member RoseTlbaum moved, seconded. by
Simitian, that the single-story residential overlay zone be
referred back to the staff and Planning COlll:mission to develop
guidelines for application of the overlay zone4
Council Member Kniss was concerned about the difficulty in
developing criteria with such diverse neighborhoods.
Ms. Lytle believed council Member Andersen did a good j OD sum
aarlzing the types of crite.ria staff would return with. Hopefully,
staff ct)Uld provide a little more criteria and still remain
flexible.
MarzOH PASSED 7-0~ Cobb "not participating,. McCown absent.
... .:.
AGENDA ITEM 5
/
o ,
SINGLE·STOP.Y COMBINING DISTP.!CI.IS) GUIDEl !tIES:
Establishment of a set of guidelines far future
application of the single 4 family ~eignt combinin~
district (S) o'{erlay lmie. fnviro:imental Assessment:
NlJ significant lillpacH. A negative declariltion has
been prepared. file Nos. 91-ZC-6. 91-EIA-14.
Chairman Beecham: This is not a rfqu~red yublic hearing. but 'lie ha','e
some people who wou1d like to spea~. Does staff have any co~nts?
Ms. lvtle: 'IOU .,iil remember that we adopted t:-'is o .... erlay zone awhile
tack l not in this forum, a1though you did discuss at this forum some
guidelines for future applications. At the council level. they 9a.,.~ us
some pretty c1ear direction that they would like us to adopt some
official g~idelfnes. They outlined the ones that are before you.
Chairman Beecham: Any questions of staff?
CormTis5;oner Cljakian: It would be helpful to me if you wOt,;ld explain
no,,", the ((&Rs work in relationship to creati:!g a o\lerlay zone 11k2 this.
Ms. Lyt1e: (C&Rs are cOVfnants that are generally made at the time of
subdivision and apply to a-Il properties ..... ithtn a specific tract. Their
enforceability is not something that the city h~s undertaken in the past,
although we ha\le knowledge of tDe fact that they have produced a physical
restriction in certain areas. T~eir enforce~ent has been undertaken by
the private parties who are subject to that agreement, i.e., the
hemeowners association or individuals witnin tne \'ar1.ous subdivisions.
So we have not 1 j sted the presence of CC&Rs as a pa':"t of OJJr guidel ines.
simply because w~ ha\le tak~n a positian 1 ~s a city, not to get invol\led
with enforcing them. We would recognize .. how-aver. that some of the
subdivisions where we ha\le seen a stronger prevailing single-story
charatter retained are those wnere the CC&Rs have been reinstated through
time and enforced tnrough tfme.
Cormissioner Ojakian: j notic-ed i~ C;:;'Jr1cilman Fazzino's corranents where
he suggested that perhaps that be a criterion, altnaugh I notice that not
to be the case in wh3t you have given us. Why is that?
Ms, lvtle: I would say that that is exactly as j have said, that we have
ta~en a position. generally, at the advice of our attorneys! that we not
get into the enforcement of CC&Rs. J thlnk they are eXCEllent eviden:e
for tne app1icant at a zone change to provide at the nearing, as Mayor
Fazzino pointed out. They would be v'Cry good evidence, but 'fie did not
want to suddenly get into the business of requiring CC&Rs enforcement
through our own ordinances.
Corrm.llijoner Ojakian: I am not sure that we, the city, ""ould have to be
the enforcer. Jlhat I read into Ga:-y's remarks 'Was that you could use
that as a standar-d amongst others to denote wnere .1'ou shou1d have one of
these. 1 found that to be a pretty a~cp.ptable re~a~k,
Ms. lytl~: J am actually very comfortabTe with ft, too, but maybe we
could let Ms. Case r~spond to it, because most of the resistance has come
from the ~ttorney's offiCE. i may be misreading hel"".
10/28/92
·1 -
,
"
3
.,
I
~1
o
Ms. Case: My sense is that it wculd accomplish virtually the same thing,
yet you wou1d not have to get into it, if you said that the general
character of the ~~ighborhood was, for example, single story. Frar.kly.
; n a case where there were CC&Rs and the-y had not total1y been fo17owed
as we'l as they had been in the i1eighbcrnQod that we d€aH with, whether
there were CC&Rs that said sOr.lething would be totally irrelevant if~ in
fact, t~e character of the neighborhood did not reflect those CC!Rs.
Also, (CaRs can be changed in a manner totally outside the scope or
control of the city council. IIhat you would be better off doing is
taking sOmEthing that is reflective, perhaps, of the CC&Rs, rather than
thE! CC&P..s themse1ves is e·{idenc~.
t.2.~ssioner Qjakjan: I believe I am satisfi'!?'d wit~ your remarks. Sue,
b,!t i r; my own mind, I wanted to ma~e sure that we cO'Jered th; s and that
it is a part of our discussion and is in the minutes. When council gets
this back, we ha~e gone through some of the things they brought ~p and
they know why we have decided ~n things the way ~e have.
Commissioner Marsh: 1 have ~ question about the functioning t) tnis~
although it is not specific to the criteria we are discussing. That is,
the (ost of an apPlication to undertake this. I have had at least one
telephone cal i from someone who had been surprised by the cost that the
Greenmeadow Association had encountered. 1 imagine we may have people
here to talk about that, putting this forward and the fact that the first
neighborhood was exempted because they were a part of the process of
de~elop1ng the standard. This is an issue thit obv50usl) would demand
council action, not something ~e could be involved in, but r am wondering
if the plamdng commission could ricommend to the council, should we
c.hoose to do SO, that costs of He process be something they E'valu;:;te at
the same time that they 10ck at these criteria?
Ms. Lytle; The fee that is required for a zene change is the same
througl"!out the community. We r!cently adopted a program whereby major
applications which go througn a full review of (o~miss;on and co~ncil are
100 percent cost recovery. If an application gnes thro~gh fairly
smoothly, if it is nonc.ontroversial and 'is cees not take a lot of t;~,
the fee that is put down would not be fully used at the end of the
pr(lcess. There would be a reimbursement at the close of it. If the
project becomes extremely controversial, whereby a great deal of staff
time is devoted to effort, research, followup, continuances of ~~arings.
~tc., then we cnu1d actually exceed the amount of the deposit, and more
money ... ould have to bE: taken from an applicant. When the council adopted
the fee schedule four years ago, they di.~ected the planning departrn-ent to
begin to work toward a more cost recovery basis. We were given a
70 percent recovery as a goal. It was found that because 'IfrIIe do subsidi ze
heavlly many of our sing1e-family processes, we have to compensate
somehow irl order to reach that goal of 70 percent reCOlJ2ry, and support
the development monitoring function at a customer service level that we
find adequate. ~e cannot do all thIngs for all people. We (annat
process a lot of different applications for free when that staff time
costs €verybody somethir.g. So those applications we chose to be
lOO percent recovery were those w~ere it seemed fair that they bear
whatever the costs of their process were. Should an easy one of these
come through, I would ~mdgine tnat a ref~nd would OCcur.
10/28/92
-2-
1 .
, "
r ,
!
I
WI
..
o
Commissioner Marsh: It may be that refunds are incurred, but at the same
time, if you are putting the money down in the begirminJ, YOjJ have faced
the problems o~ raising the money in the beginning, and I think you
p~ob4bly should assume it ~il' all be spent. It is like remod@lling your
house. Never assume it will be cheaper than what you start out with. So
the question really is, should the council decide to treat these specific
overlays separa.tely. could tbey <10 so? This is a ma.jor project i1'\ your
groupings .
.ML~: They cou 1 d essentially .~o6ify the fee schedu1e. That is what
they would be ~oin9. modifYlng it.
Commissioner Marsh: And inCidentally. these projects cost 1ess.
Ms. lytle: That is ccY·r~ct.
Commissioner Marsh: My final Question is, what is the charge for
processing this klnd of application? Or if you need a spe~ific example,
in the case of the Greenmeadow application that is pending?
Ms. Lytle: Any zone change is gJing to be 100 percent cost recovery, but
there is a $3,000 depnsit wnich is a cost that we came up with that
refle,ts an average prc~e$s.
kNnf!\i~xioner Mars!'!: And an average precess in a majDr project is what
generally we think of as, !:ay, tile t.,o that were 01"1 t"e agenda tonight.
W~re those maj~r projects?
Ms. lyt1g: Yes, Hamilton and Tamarack would be considered typical.
Hamilton, the way it is going, I WOL:ld say w'ill go above average, in
terms of tlme consumption. Tamarack will probobly be more ~n average
exa.mple.
(ommissioner Carr~sco: I am not sure if these guidelines inyol~e good
questioning of an earlier issue that I brought up. T~at is that if we
want to keep the floor area ratio (FAR) the same is in other
single-family projects, the only way to lT1oiximiz€ out that FAR is to have
bigger site ceverage, which takE'S away trees and it takes away the idea
of the courtyard. Gi~en that there m~y be a m~nQrity, s~y, 25 perce~t of
that neighborhood a'ld zone wtHJ n'dght not want thi s kind of an overlay
Zone imposed on their house~. I am ~or.dering if there should not be ~
procedure that allows individual houses to develop a small percentage rjf
that FAR on a second story in order to preserv€ the natural character of
the housing. I would suggest that perhaps, if you cC'.l1d get 75 percent
of the adjoining houses to agree to an applicant's coming through an
exception process that would allow, say, 25 percent of that FAR to go
into a second story. whether we should recommend to council that that
pr~cess be ailowed. This is a way to protect the interests of the
minority if they get o .... erwhelming neighborhood support~ that is, if they
can get 75 percent of their adjOining neighbors to say, yes, a second
story is okay.
Ms. Case: I will let you write that ordinance, Tony,
~.Y.lie:: r wou1d ~SSLJme that a variancj:l process would be available to
people in t~is o~erlay district from the site dev~lopment r€gulations,
" ::~ 'q.
10/28/92
-3 -
1
I
'---:
Q o
jList like ali)1 other waridnce Coiln be achieved. Fraflkly. I aisa would
lssume that .a horne improvement exception process wO'Jld be a-.ailable.
need to contemplate that as it is an interesting point. Also r think
that if you cou1d qualtfy for a nome jmpro'lement exceptior., you <:ould
appiy that tl) thi! overlay. I need to read it C10SEI)I ~M order to
respond. If llie can have a. minute, llie will rE!'s.~arth it.
CDrnrnisS'ioneY' Sch.l~r\dt: To G,u-:ck.ly ExploY'e very quid.iy an issue that .. as
explored by the city ~ouncil, the co~cept of tM2 number of lots involved
in this. ¥C'u say you address Utis under appropriate boundaries. i am
wondering if a group of home'Owilers on a cul-de-sac, which usually end:; up
befnq six or eight or ten lots, could say, let's ha¥e the single-story
overlay, thereby promoting the pos)ibility of having bunches of little
areas with soecia1 o\;erlays, making everything more and lTiore complex
instead of simplifying things.
Ms. lytle: 1 can think of sume very unique cul:de-sacs in the Barron
Park area where this overlay dist~ict WOUld ~robably apply very nicely
a~d ~culd have 501¥ed a lot of pri~ate d1sputes that have ~risen
otherwise. I can also think of some places ~here it would not ~ork as
~ell. There ~re same little spots in th~ middle of larger tracts ~here
these g~idelines s;mp1y were not being met with that tiny, isolated
cul-de-sac in the midst of a Jarger tract of housing that had tak~n on a
different character. $0 I can see it working bot~ ways. I think WE need
to deal with the individual applications as they arise, ieaving some
fl~xibility. I would not want to rule out the possibiltty of a smaller
neighborhood that reall~ has a fairly strong identity in a somewhat
;sc1atefj phystcal surrounding being able to apply for somethlng 1 ike
this .
.commi$ __ sioner Ojakian: J t1a .... e that same concern as Comm;ssiOl1er Schmidt
h.as~ that is, -.;herc 'wIe shoIJ1d .jetermin.e an approprlate s)ze f'lr this, in
terms of Item 2, Appropriate Boundaries. Where do you draw the line?
Should you draw the line? Is it five hou.ses in a cul-de-sac! Does it
have to be a larger unit tnan that? What;s large enough or what is too
small? I hope we talk about t~.t tonight.
Commissioner Glazier: We \IIi11 lock iit everyone of these. If we do
approve this, they will all come to us. It is not ltke the GF exemption
process whereby it goes beyond U~.
Ms. Lytle: That is correct. Now that tMis district has been created, it
can en1)! be app1ieo to th'e map through a Z\:lne map amendment, 'ffhich
process is through the planning commission and city council.
Chait1J!an f3eecham: If there are
public porticn of the hearing.
waiti~g so long tonight.
no other questions, ~e will turn to the
We have two speakers. Thank you for
Louise Herring. 3945 ~ __ gl$_or. Drive. Palo Alto: I live witnin
Greenr.1eadow. I am one of the co-chairmen of the Civic Affairs (crrrnittee
of the Greenmeadow ~ssoc;ation. There are two pOints in the gUide1ines
being proposed that are of concern to us in Greenmeadow. You might have
noticed In the minutes of the Ju1y council me-eUfl9 that I stated that we
were a1ready taking a vote in Greenmeadow on applying for an overlay.
This come~ about becaus~ ~e are immediate n~;9hbors of ~alnut Grc~e, and
10/28/92
·4-
mafl)' (Jf the peop1e "n Wa1!ilJt G.ro\(~ swim -at th-e Greenmea\1olif Asso-:iation.
We talk to each other, so ~e knew what tney were doing. We-said, on, me
too. Our n~i9hborhood. if anythi~9, is more cobesi ... e and mare restrained
and sif'llilar than an.)' other neighborhood in al1 of Palo Alto. We are 270
housei) and ~e ha~e distributed ballots. The first thing that is of
concern to ~s is the busi~ess of ha~ing a sig~~d list of applicants,
which would then 90 through the city process hearings. What ~e did when
we too~ our ~ote to hand deliver to t~e homes that were Qwr.~r-occupied by
responsible adults in 01.ir r.eighborhood 50 that we c.ontrolTed the bal10ts
t~at .... ent oot. Ther'2 ""ere no piles put at'ol!!"ld so t~a.t the ballJts could
be packi!d, one way or another. We had this fro~ th-e taunt)! of owners, so
th~t when a property is ow~ed by a realtor or an absentee owner t he also
was soliCited for hrs o~iniQn. But we did this by ballet, not signed
ballots, for the reason that when materials go fDr public hearings, then
the peUtions. a'l'~ duplic6ted, Pllt i~ the libraries, dis.tributed. Our
whole object in asking for the Single-story overlay is to promote
understanding within our neighborhood, Tither than to produce acrimony,
neighbor tu neighbor~ What ~e ha~e found. betause we do hav~ CC&Rs on
nur properties, in most cases, is that t~ere ale a fe~ houses that are
changing hands in the more recent years where the owners are not actually
aware \II~,ell they are buying property that there are CC!.Rs, and 1f there
~r~ CC&Rs. what they say. It is tr~e that every lea.se does have a 1ine
in it that says that I understand the CC&Rs in book so-and-so in the
county registrar's office apply to th1s property, but in soliciting our
votes. we discovered that many peopli:! ha<:i no idea __ hat those CCS,Rs said.
There were pe~p1e who had purcnased property, assuming that they could
~ut on a second story and build tr.ree more bedrooms so the nouse could
se1i Tn four year~ for a magnificent profit. What we did was to control
the ballots just as the public balloting is done. NamelY. you have a
list of houses, and you ~ave one ballot per h(ll~Se_ We de have a record
that indicates that " .. e have only counted cne ballot peT h{luse. 'But 1t is
anonymous, Some peop1e elec.ted to sign the;:r ballots, but we did. not
require a signature. This is so that people who go to the library won't
go a~d say, you know, it was so-and-so who '7V~S next door to me that is
blocking the development of my property. ~e feel it is better to ha~e
tota1 numbers, by str-eets, of how many voted pro and can, rather than
being clearly identified publicly.
If it shoJJ1,j be dec.ide.d in your conecti~e wisdom tha.t we do need
sigoiitures individ:...:all,y for some reason, we could g2"t them. We could go
back to our people and take another vote. However, I would like you to
c~nsider a different method of counting now many peop1e apply. That is
the first thing r wanted to address.
The second thing has to do with tne moderate 10t size. Fo, that 1 have a
tally that I ~auld like to distribute to each commissioner. What I have
done there is that: had 1 ists fron! the county, by prop~rty. and the
property dimensions were on the lists. So 1 multiplied them all out to
see wh~ther this 1,000 to BtOOO-~quare-foct sug~estioo would fit v~r
community where I already had an overwhelming vote asking for the
one-story overlay. I have m~de this list by 500-square-foot increments,
and I found that a third of our 10ts ar~ ~ma1ler t~an 1,000 square f~et.
Not on~y that, the people on those smaller lots voted seven to one for
the over1ay. This would be because they need their privacy protected,
Since the houses are closer. In other words, the closer you are, the
more a second story next door WOUld infringe on your privacy.
ID/28/92
-5-
I
I
!
l
j
o
In the larger properties that are over the B,OOD square feet, we found
~lso that there is an o~erwh€1mlng proportion in faver of the one~story
o'.'erlay. It would seem to me that we .... ould be well advised not tc ha .... e
any numbers in there at all about lot size that the other things that are
within the city's ordlna~ces about setbaCKS from fences and baCK yards
and front yards and daylight plarlt!s, etc. added on to the l;m~tation of
the 40 percent footprint would be enough. If someone on a smaller lot
~ize. like &,000 square feet or S0, wanted to move one wall out two feet
to make iI. litt1e better din~l"Ig space or someHdng ('off\''Jicl'1 some of our
local reSidents haY! done). that would be fine. It wculd be better not
t.o ha,,!! it pl'ecluded bj this 7,GOe to 8.000 square f~'et.
1 personall,y happer. to be or. c.. 10t that:. is bigg~r than 7,000 square feet,
but th€re certainly are houses that are, say, 6,000 square feet where a
five perce.nt increase wOIJld be 300 square feet. That would be enough to
d.a a little somet~ing. Thank you.
Comissioner Cullen: On the smaller lots, wl'1at
district was to allow ~O p~rcent lot coverage.
responding to your questionnaire realize that?
not ~antfng a second story near them on a small
that kind of coverage right next door to them,
we did in setting up this
00 the peop1e who are
Because in additi,r. to
lot, they might not ~ish
Ms. Herring: We did not include the 40 percent in our Guestionnaire,
because that was not in the question that the Walnut Gro¥e people asked
e-lther'. However, in cur discussTon of thts process in our community
meeting which took place in July. Some of the people who live in
Green~eadow and nad recently 90ne to the p~anning commission mentioned
tnat that was a tradfl,(lff that they had been offered by the planning
(.cmnission ;rr order to stay w1th ttie cne--stcTY hi/el. 1hey mentioned it
at the public meeting. so although it was not in the bal'ct~ it was sort
Qf the understancin9 in the community that the two things went hand 'n
glove ~nd that there was t~is extra room that you could use with a
one-story limitation. So although ~e d,d nat promise it in o~r
ballot-letter, it was conlleyed verbal1y in our meetings.
1 could mention one other thing. r did take a plot map of Greenmeadow,
which is a large, cnntinuous unit, a~d does include 270 ~ouses, and
blocked in where the peDDle were ""ho vobd for and where the peopTe were
who voted against, Out of the number who voted, only 39 voted against ft
out of the 270 houses. Jie did have about 89 percent response on our
vote, which is a larse percentage, Or. t,l·ds map that r made for my own
information. there were no houses among the people who voted against
where the house involved ~as entirely surrounded by others who voted
against. 1n other wards, they were isolated houses here and there.
Occasionally, there were tWQ together, but not three or four. In our
particular architecture, tne back wall of each nouse is basically glass
running across. That is one of the featUres of the house. So the
back.-to-back. hOlJses are veT: important In -anyUing of this scrt. because
it is who is over your back fence, as well as ~ho is next door, who can
see nQt only ir. your bac.k yard but in your Whole tio\.lse, un1ess YOIl ke~p
tne curtafns drawn all the time.
Carroll S. Rankin, ___ ..ll_~_~Parkside Drive, Pa10 _~l.!_Q: Good evenif1g, at this
late hour. r liv~ 'in the GreertmeadolN cammurdty area. I have lived there.
since 1954, and am a member of the civic affairs committee. I am
10/28/92
-6-
/
'-,'
'"
speaking tonight ~s an individual and ~s an architect. 1 have done
re~odels and second~story additions since r retired, and na~e been doing
5nla11 projects out of a \Ie!'",), small office. I was struck, wf\cn n~ading
the gu.id~11nes, with what seemed to me a confusion betweeil what
constitutes a zone change and what ~onstltutes this overlay O~ an
existing ~·l to restrict those structures to si!'1g1e stories. I tl,ink
t~at these are two different things. I suspect that y~r question about
the CC&Rs may be the defining item in this situ:ation. In Greenmeadow. we
ha .... e had our CC&P.s in place sillca the da ..... 'We bClUg~t our hous~s. We
bought ours in 1964. At that time, we did knew "IlI'nat a CC&R means. It is
a covenant, a mutual promise that we made to each other, all 270 of us,
that we promise you~ o~r neighbors, that we will not put a second story
on our nouses. Over the years, I have been to the build; ng department
many time:; asking for help in e;1forcing these when someone ccmes along
and wants to put O!'l a secoOld story. Hoe rest of us have to say no, a
second story is not permitted in this area by o~r covenants.
Heretofore, there has been no mechanism within the city to help us. O~r
retOurse was to find somebody who is about to build a second story and
get together, hire a laioll)'er and tell them to stOP, at whicn pOint) they
have alreadjo' spent a great deal of money. It is an inefficient prace-ss.
This was ~one into in the dlscussion of the Walnut Grove ~verlay. So r
would submit that it seems to r.l'i! that these guideiines need to be looked
at a little more closely to clear up the confusion between wnat is a zone
change and what 1S a simple o'.'erl ay to simply enforce something that is
already on the beoks.
Just one mare point. This, then , goes to · .. hat I think. was in the
d;scussion, the back9round, In the staff report, talking about
100 percent support for wh~t is being proposed. It seems to me that the
CC&Rs constitute one hundred percent support for flO second stories in
Walnut Grove and Creenmeadow. This may not be true throughout the city.
and there may be other situations that would have to be looked at by tne
planning department when some other group comes along and ~eeds help.
But I think that this needs to be looked at"
in terms of the rest of the city and what might come along, ! have been
trying to put together a 1 itt1e sl ide sho~' that wDuld show Sl)me of the
difflculties involved in adding second stories and remodeling Eichlers,
in particular. As I have gone around the city, trying to take my slides, r cannot find many definabl~ areas that do not already have some second
stories, some geod, some · ... ery bad. But J think it is something that the
city needs to look into, particularly the planning department. If I can
be of any he1p, I will be glad tc.
Corrmissioner Carrasco: In this group of houses in Greenmeadow, what is
the a'.'erage FAR per lot, just off the top of your head. Is it 0.3, 0.57
Mr. Rankin: Nearly all the houses are in the ?,40G gross square foot
area, counting the garage at full value.
CQrrmission.er_Carrasco·, That is abuut a 0.3.
Mr. Rankin: If we increased that from 0.3 to 0.4. what do you think
would happen?
10/28/92
" 7: -....------
•
" ,
Mr. ~ankfn: Mine is a 6,'OCO-sQuare-foot lot, 50 we are right up to the
m~xlmum anyway. lhc majority of t~e houses are around 6,000 square feet,
I bi'lieve. The corners and the cul-da-sacs. etc., are larger. Remell1bar
that ",he-n Mr. [ichleY' did Greenmeadew, the zo~ing was c.hanged to reduce
the lot size so that we cO'Jld have a three-acre park with corm'llmity
building and swimming pool. ~ie own 1/243 'Jf that, so we are on sma' Ter
l~ts to begin with, as tnat was part of the agreement ~ith Mr. Eichler.
COrmliss;or.er (lrrascQ.: The questior was more in terms {)f the qual it) Clf
living space that would be created with the addition of C.l in the
average size house on a 6!OOO·square-fo~t lot. When you go frDm a 0.3
FAR t~ a 0.4 FAR, I imagine that you are going to close up courtyards or
you are going to come closer to the setback.s at the rear ~r sid.e. My
question is. does that cause you, as an architect. to feel that the
quality and character of those houses would chafige dramatically. cr do
you think it is acceptable?
Mr. Rankin~ The possibility of small additions with just that little
increase from 0.3 to 0.4 is not going to allow the second story, which is
what we are worried about. I don't think. that is going to bother
anything. There have been severa1 remode1s lat~ly that are very good
wrdr:h have ir;creased tn! square footage.
(omm,s~ioner Glazier: If you leoK at the infcrmal straw poll that was
taken by the Greenmeadolll Associati()n, if you look at the 186 yes .... otes
and compare it to the 270 houses, this would not meet the criterion of
75 percent support ~eighbcrhood. There is a guide1ir.e that requires
7S percent Df positive SUppOTt from the neighborhood, and here~ less than
7S percent said yes t ~e want to limit this. How do you feel about that?
Mr. Rankin: I bel;e~e I expressed that. 1 feel that we have 100 percent
support in that we do have the CC&Rs in place. We all promlsed earh
other that we would not put a second story on our houses. All we are
asking for nO~1 in essence, is that the city. now that it is willing to
do so, help us t~ enforce that. Instead of our having to get togeth€r
&~d hire a lawyer and sue somebody and go through all of that~ now when a
person comes in, they find out when they look at the map that it is
restricted to a single story.
Cpmmissioner Carrasco: I have a question about the 75 percent. It is
75 perce~t of what? 75 percent of the houses or of the population?
Ms. lytle: 1t 'is the affected properties~ the owners. It should say
·ollollers" because that is the basis on which an a~p1ication is received.
It refers to co-app'l ~cants.
Chairman BeELc_tl_am: Seeing no other spea.kers, I lIIill close the public:
portion of the hearing and bring it back to the co~~ission.
Commissi{lner _M_;a.rsh: I have a question for stilff. I had a sudden idea
which may be a bad one. You can te11 me. For me, the problemdtic part
of this is trying to evaluate a variable impact of a single story on lot
sizes that may range, as they clearly do in Greenmeadow, fairly
dramatically. ~ou ha~~ one piec~ of property that is 1es5 than
6 ,000 square feet ranging up to a handful that are Over lO,DOD square
feet. Ob'liouslYl the impact of this on th~ houso2's that are under
10/18/92
-8 -
~' .. ,
,
. '
o
7,000 square feet is going to be differer,~ tha~ th,;: if11pact of those over
7,000 square feet, because they are actually gcing to lose fAR that they
would otherwise be ab1E to use. r am concened about this, because there
is a basic fairness issue. and al~o becduse r question whether a lot ~f
people who may support a single story actua11y understand wh;.t the impact
may be on the las$ of square footage. To make thi:! jump from • .. ·ould you
liite a ~ingl€ story ov~r'ay" to "do you reaHzp. that you will lese the
capac;ty~ on a 6,OOO-square-foot lot, for 15~ square f~et and do you
realize what that means in t~rms of your ability to do something w~th
your property." So what I am wonderirig ~s (and this is act-lilly a much
big-ger question Ulan the crlteria; tnis gOES back to the actuiI,l
guide1ines themselves). what ~ould your response be if tne guidelines
were written not to say that tne slte coverage under the Single-story
overlay increased to 0.4. but that homes in the single-family overlay
would be a110wed to buiid on a s~ngle story, what would otherwise be
their allowable square footage? That ~ay. the Site coverage en a
6,OOO-sQuare-foot lot would wind IIp being 0.42, or whatever ti1E math
works out t" be. ranging IIp to the DO; nt on a bigger lot in which you
simply do the site coverage calculations.
Ms. tytl~~ The first thing to remember is what you are talking about is
not before you. Th~ code has been changed, so it would require another
zoning ordinance amendment.
Corrmfssioner Marsh; Right. I understand that. it i~ back. to the
Single-story o .... erl ay.
~~: I think staff would not be in favor of increasing site
coverage beyond 40 pp.rcent. I think we would probab11 make that case on
the same basis as you have heard CommiSSioner Carrasco exprESS concern
for ! .... en going up to 40 percent. Thirty percent lot coverage was
acceptable to p1anni!rs for a long, long time as being a minimum standard
in the type of develt)pment pattern where we are going to be app1ying
this, which is ~stly the post World War II tract housing style. To go
to 40 percent was a tr«deoff that I think we have been convinced was
sensib1e, given the impacts that were occurring from second-story
development and the types of overwhe1~ing neighborhood support that was
being e~pressed from the neighborhoods where they aid have restrictions
Orl that. A1so, because the needs of the 19905 ai1d what is contained ir
the home seem to exceed tnose of the needs of people right after ~orld
War Il. Peop1e Seem to want mnre room, so there were some compromises
made, but we are not really romfortable with going beyond that 40 percent
threshold.
Corm1issioner Ma __ rsh: Not even to a 0.421
f'o\:s.:..-h't..t.lg: I would not recommend it. ';Ie ha'Jen't gone that far. to date,
e .... en in the "ome ; m~rovemen t exc-ept i on s that ..... 'c havi! 9 ranted. We have
stuck to that 40 percent threshold, and there have even been instances
where I ha~e been uncomfortable ~ith that. ! ha~e se€n examples where I
really felt there was too much house on a lot and not enough open space.
There are some neighborhoods and some specific situations where that
mi9ht work, and I would encourage that to occur tnrough some kind of an
exception process, but r would not want to blanket the district over1ay
with that type of allowance.
10/28/92
-9-
•
, --
o -.
Commissioner Ma.,.s~: All right. With those comments in mind~ then, r
want to say that I am somewhat to ... n on this item. There is a lot we
could ::ompulse over in these criteria. I am not sure, in terms of the
timES that we .... ill be called upon to apply it , how much time we really
want to spend thi:lking through theoretical applicati<Hls. Nonetheli~5s,
when it is before us. it is hard not to. I do see a real conflict.
hO'Kever, that r wou1d like ethers to comment upon, in terms {If the
Moderate lot Size critt:r1a, Item 14. r think that ;$ very important.
don't want to see people lose potential sqlJare fC'.Jtage. I am 110t sure
they understand \IIhat that means for them. I am Imco:nfortable if a
Significant number of peoplro! in a neighborhood, Ot' even an insigntficant
number, are 90;ng to 10se square footage, whereas someone on a larger lot
does not. Sc I am inc1ined to support t'nat. Or the other hand, clearly
in the tase of Greenmead{)w, onE wouid e·it~er 'nave to mak.e an exceptinn or
make a jud;ment that roughlY 65 hOUSES out of 270 ire inSignificant, in
terms of the moderate 10t size req~irement.
The other comments t~at I would suggest we consider in here are, firstly,
that ~e require thLt a~ appl,cati~n contain a consistenc~ of 10t sizto
Actually, if we go witn the moderate lot sizes, that may take care of my
concern, which was that yOIJ not hav-e a.n applicatiotl. come fo~a.rd with
75 percent of lots over 7,000 square feet, but anuttler 20 percent that
were, for som-e reason, very smal1 and would, therefore, lose a good deal
of sQlIare footage. However, if we stick. with ~moderate,· that tak.f'.s care
of the consistency issue.
Then if we get thrcl..Jgh U1ese-criteria. I would personally support a
recommendation to the city council to take a look at th~ costs of
initiating this kind of application.
Commissioner Carrasco: Pam has ask.ed that we comment on additional
square footage for smaller 1ots. I f~el the same way as Nancy, which is
that going to 0.4 is really p1lshing it on a singie-story house. It
really compromises the open space; it compromises the amount of gre€n
area we would haye; it compromises the number of trees and where they can
go. It pushes you clo~er to th! neighbors, which is what the overlay
zone is meant to prevent. I am conYinced b.y the ar.:hitect"'s opinion,
too, to go with that 40 percent.
Cn!l'm1.issjooer Gla7.ier: Before listening to Pam, I was. going to hem and
haw and taik about ail the things I realTy did not 1ike about this, and
then say tnat net, net, I 5til1 think ~t is o~a1. But when yo~ thiPK
about that extra 2 percent. it does not sound like much, but it-is
l percent times 6,000 square f~et. That is 120 square feet, and that is
a bedroom. For me right nmli' in my personal situatioll, that is the
difference between ~taying in our house and moving. South PalQ ~lto,
wt1ich is the most likely area f(1r these districts, is the most affordable
place for people to move into, and the most liKely place for new yuung
families to move into. A couple of years ago, an ear·Tier planning
COr'M1ission rr·ade a decision to clamp down on the FAR . .My personal OpiniQI1
is that they went a little bit too far. Here we are saying now that for
the most affordacle seg~ent of the city where young people would be
att~acted, we are going to crank it down another bedroom. That tilts my
vote toward not wanting to do this if this id~a that Pam brought up is
not included in it.
10/28/92
. J 0-
_ •. ".-.".-y·' .' : PlI! • me
let me talk acout some of my other concerns, none of wnich wou1d probably
cause me t~ vote no, but are, nevertheless, concerns of mine. The
single·story he~g~t district is a good idea in theory, but I suspect
ther-e ari! going to be t'ehthe1y fe~ areas IJinere it is relevant.
Unfortu~atelYI I think we would find ours~lves facing a number of fair1y
tricky and (ontro~er~ial situations that we cannot e~en think of ~OW, or
(ou1d begin to think of nr.w, and I think they ire going to come our way,
whether ~e liKe it or ~ot.
1 dOfl;t know if 1 liKe the 75 percent thres.hold. It tends to set
e.';(pectations that if you can round up the ne1ghborhood and get 7S percerlt
of the peopl~ to say y~s, you ha~e the abi1ity to impact, 'n sorne (a$ES.
funda.mental property l"19hts. Mu1U·story dwel1ing.s. are not , per se , bad
thin9s that need' to be restricted. In pr'l:'larily single-story
neighborhoods, a multi-story dwell1ng car, be done appropriately. I ha~e
seen it. It ~an also be done terribl~. lhe Gree~meadow case is
interesting, because in fact, if you lOOK at the numbers. they do not add
up to 75 percent. What implication dees that have for what 'fie would
decide? It also does not say here specifically that attainment of the
75 pertent level of support is adequately sufficient to ensure that that
would be approved by fitner staff or commissi~n. I would like t~ see
something added that says, just because you get 7S perce~t does not mean
that you automatically get it.
The boundaries are obviously a critical issue. I can see cul·de-sacs
couing. I can see sides of streets toming. con see peop1e getting
angry about somebody trying tc build a hOuse, just doing it out of spite
and figuring it as a way of getting around the process.
The last issue is really the whole process of ... oti~9 process integrity.
The Walnut Grove application came to U~ ~ith a list of ~eople in the
neighborhood ~ith tn€ir address and a check. I have no reason to
dlsbelieve what she said, but there w€re no guidelir.es, there was no
checking at all. Ther~ is ob~iously the temptation~ if people kno~ there
are only two more votes that are needed tn get you up to 75 percent, to
say. we1l, we (ouldn't contact these two people and they will never know,
sa let's just check off ·yes· for the~_ TMere rea11y has to be some ~re
accountable way, a more independent, more auditable way for us to figure
out ~rletlier then really is tt'lis ~ir.d of support. All of these things
are is.sues, but since we will be lockil:g at each one ;)f them, I could
1 he with the consequence-:-(if tliem. 6l.At \IIIhen I think about the fact that
the FAR is going to go dO'I"In for the 9rouP of people who need it to go
down t~e 1e~st. ! don't f~el comfortable ~ith that.
~olm"'.s.siQni=;; ioIarsr.: 1 feel compelled to ma.ke a correction fer the
record. 8111 noted that a planning commission several years ago o~e!ly
re~uced th.e FP.R on homes. I 'fj(juld 1 ike to poin.t cut that that 'fI2..S not iI.
p1anning c.ommissiOil decislnn. It was a city councii decision several
years ago that did that.
Conmissioner Glazier; Duly noted.
COlTlTlissioner Cullen: I don't 'Want to prolong this any longer , but il'1
answer to people ",ho are worried about additional building, if they are
allowed to go from a site co'Verage of 35 percent to 40 percent, that is
going to give them the equi~alent of 300 :nore square feet. AdmittedTy,
lDj28/92
-ll-
/
o
they ~ave to fit ~it~in a11 of the other Gevelopment standards, but
think yo~ can get an additional bedroom in 300 square feet.
1h~ other thing J .... ould like to poirlt Ollt is that I happen to know a
couple of people in Greenmeado ......... here or:e neighbor built .a swimming poc'.
not part of the site coverage, of course, a~d it is rignt next to
soroebody;s back yard. It is ¥e~y. very noisy. T~iS was net looked upon
with .a great deal of pleasure bj the neighbors, so I am really reiuctant
to push tne sit-e coverage any higher than 40 percent.
Commis~ion!r Oiakian: J would lik~ to focus in on some of these items
that people are sort of peppering tOT1;gr.t, illd see if \lie can come to some
conclusions. To start out, on this first one, Level and Format of
Resident Support. It sounds T';ke a lot of us are concerned about the
figure of 75 percent, and how do you derive that? Is it by a l~ose
vote? I would like to go t~rough some of these now and see if we can
nail them down a bit more. r have some of the same concerns that I na .... e
heard others expressing. On that parttcular one, r do not have any
feeling for the figure of 7S percent. Wny not SO? Why not 50? What
con-stitutes that as a magical number, and ho".-do we derive that nlJmber?
~hat is it that ;s gOing to happen that SrYS it should be 75 percent. In
~ own neighb~rhood, which Pit used to live in, the University Park area,
r know how we wou1d go about doing tnat. 'rile used t{l have an acf,:iv.e
neighborhood association, anc! we still do. off and on, but I don't think
that necessarily constitut~d 75 or 80 percent of the area.
Chairman Beecham; This implies they would want a jist of sig~atures.
(olllJ1issioner OillJ.!!J.: So in this ~art:cular cas~, we wOIJld have ilI.n
application provided. there would be a list of signatures on that, ~"d
that would be weighed against the number of househo1ds in the area?
Chainman Beecham: I presume so.
Commissioner Ojakia~: Why is 75 percent a magical number?
M_s. Lytle: The council direction was overwhelming, and staff came up
with the 75 figure. If you feel that another nu~ber is better, feel
free.
Chairman Beecha!]; My feelirlg Or'l the level of support we need is, we are
trying to ba1ance the rights of the minority against the rights of the
majority. Whenever we do loning, we have public hearings and lots of
people talk. I hav~ never heard of any zoning we do where we taKe an
actual vote of the owners to sa) haw many are in favor and how many are
against. In this case, since it ;s a special l_oning, more restrict hoe
than otherwise, we are taking more care, but still, r think the intent of
what W~ want to do is what thE preponderance of the residents and owners
want t~ have dOOle. We always trade off some indiVidual rights for the
desires of the preponderance. Anytime you get 75 percent of the people
voting for something, that is a lot. In any kind of el~ction, that is a
land3lide. So 1 personally think that if you have three-quarters of the
j)eop7e willing to put their names down and say, Y25, I want to do this,
that ts a lot of people in favor of it.
10/18/92
-11-
•
,
• . ' [-l
:'i
I
,,",
CO!!'!Tt1ssjpper Oiakian: I don't halle a problem with that, and if ElOerybJdy
else is comfortable with that, then we shuuld feel comfortabll!' with Hem
~1. level and Format of Resident Support, and mO¥E on. J would like to
go through some of these so we ca~ see where we stand on them. That, to
me, would help to dt:'termlne how tc pro .... ide the cotincil with samething
that are decent enough guidelines for accepting this .
COmmissioner Glaziec; let me play devil's advocate for a moment.
Seventy-five percent is certairily ovel'"'Wtlelming, but you ~ave to balance
that against someone's fundamental property rights. Suppose 75 percent
of the people i1"1 your r1eighborhood did not want you to bui1d a garage. or
did not ~ant you to have so m~ny people in yowr house, r think there are
certain areas where W~ should ~a~e pur~few over density, setbacks, but I
don't nE'cessarily K.MW that second stcries an~ alwa."s bad. pei se.
Chairman Beecham: I am trying to figu~e out also, Vic, with your
prompting, Of! now to proceed with this. We Can either try to take
motlons on each item to see if we can formulate a c~nclusion, or a motion
~vera1l. I am getting tired, and I su~pect my judgme~t is not what It
should be.
MOTION; Commissioner Cullen: I mo~e that we continue tnis item to the
next available agenda. It wilT g1ve us a chance to thi~k about it. We
ha~e rais€d some ~ery good issues tonight that bear some pondering. I
also think the language needs to be tightened up a bit, as several o'LMers
have pointed out.
Chairman Beecham: am ready to do that.
SECO~O: By Chairma~ Beecham.
Qlairman Beecham: We have a motion by Conunissioner Cullen, seconded by
myself that th'1t we c\lntinue this t.o the n€.xt available meeting, on whkt,
we will get ad~i5ement from staff.
Ms. lytle: That w~uld be November 18th.
M01}ON PASSES: ~hlirman Beecham: Is. there any further discussion on
this motion? Arl th0~e in favor. say Aye? All opposed? Tnat passes
unanimously, so we ..... ill review this again on November 18th.
COrT!lJ1Tssione-r Marsh: Nancy, are y:.u planning on doing any more ... ith this
before November 18th, or just basically punt it back to us'?
~lytTe: I had not pl~nned on doing any more ..... ith it.
Cnj!irman Beecham: What I wO\.Jld recommend is that ~ f you ha\le any
q~estions. you forward them to staff.
~_rrrni_ssiongr Marsh: I \\las going to make a quick sugge:.tfon that might be
worth p~nderjng in the next mo~th. We might actualTy want to come up
with somethjng that had a two-tier process. That is, if you are in an
area that already Mas CC&Rs, tilat the standards for applying tt:e zane
might be diffel-ent and less onHOUS than in an area that has never dealt
with CC&Rs. I think that the council definitely pointed to the e.xistence
10/28/92
-13-
/
o
of CC&Rs as being very influential in their decision. J would agree with
them. In the case of Greenmeadow, that is how I wDuld rationalize the
issue of macerate lot sizes, the fact that thef& are C(iRs already in
existence. So that might be something for us to consider next time.
~s, LVtle: Another thing to think about, if you are concerned about the
square footage problem and the lass of FAR on a smaller lot, is that many
applicants have opt!d for the coverage rather than the 1arger FAR thro~9h
the ho~e impro¥ement exception process. They iiterally lose first-floor
usable sp~ce in building a st~i~el' to get to the second floor. S~
while their FAR may be higher with a two-story, their usable spice and
the way it cuts up t~eir first floor. is riot better. Sa quite often we
will see people on a 6,OOO'square-foot lot opt for a sing'~ story rather than two stor~es.
10/28/92
·14·
I ;1
I
, -
PLANNING COIottISSION EXCERPT MINUTES Or NO'/EMBER 18, 1991
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
AGENDA ITEM 3 SINGL(-STORY HEIGHT COMBINING DISTRICT (5) GUJNJ.)NES:
EstablishmF:nt of a set of guidelines for futurt!
appl ication of the Single-Sto:"j Height Combining District
(5) o\lerlay l.one. Er'I,I,';ronmental Assessment: ~o
significant impact; a negative declaration has been
prepared. File Nos. 92-1(-6, S2-EIA-14.
Chairman Beecham: Next is an item we ~ad continued from our last meeting
in October regarding Single-Story Hei9ht Co~binin9 District {S)
guidelines. p.rr. th~i<o iilY f1~W comments from staff on this issue?
Ms. Lytle: We naye no nE:'w corrments. We continued this item because it
was fairly late in the evening when We initiated the discussion, and
fcund that we were r.ot prepared to come to a concl usion. It has beerl
carried forward to this agenda.
Chairman Beecham; Any questions af staff f~om co~issioners?
ConmissiQl'ler Cull..~n.: I have i! Qllest i on for the c1 ty attorney. TMse
guidel ines are not an onjinance. lherefore, what 15 their
enforceabil Hy?
Il/IB/92
-3-
o
Ms. Case; 1hey are rot enforceable as ~uch. lhey are referred to i~ tn~
orcinance, as I reca1', and the~ are enforceabTe to the extent that when
anyone is .... ay cut of line frot,; them, I believe .... e can !r.force tf1e city"s
turning them dcwn, for instance.
Chairman Beecham: So essentially, we are now ~eipin9 to s~t criteria b)
Irfnich we and the council 'Win d~cide whether or not to Clppro\le sud
eve-rit)' zones if'! the future.
Ms. Cas~; That is correct.
~!'\ilirman Be-ecr.am: When we talked about thi~ at Cllf last meeting. we had
P number of it~ms and issues. J will list the ones J noted for
reference. One concern was. whethe~ tnere should bE! a minimum size for
the lone itself. There wa$ some contern about cul-de~sacs wJnting their
own zoning. and wnether that was ippropriate. There was quite a bit of
concern about what happens on some 1cts that may be abnormally small ill
the zone. Are we unfairly limiting their ability to have is large a
house as some think they should. Another; S5ue was whet~er or not to use
existing CC&Rs as any part of our cr~teria for setting up a zone 1ike
this. AMtner issue 'llras .... hether 75 percent ;s a good !'lumber to use as
the proportion of residents and/or owners who would support the lone.
Another number we talked about was that the current draft ~uld indicate
that someone could nave site c~verage up to 40 percent in order to
sOTrleJti'lat make up fC'f the less of noor orea ratio (fAR) by not being able
to have a se~Dnd floor. Those ar~ the issues I had noted frem our last
discussions.
C'lmroissiqner Mar:ih; That is a good summary of the bulk. of the issues
that we had w~en we discussed this the last time. Personally, I have
been struggling 'IIIIjth the Question of the deed restrictions that exist in
some neighborhoods that mao)' -come forward a.nd ask for th.is. I was also
struggling lIIith the issue of how detai1ed 'lire actually 'JIIant to n,ake these
criteria. \I.e know that t"~ere is at 1east Ol'1f neighborhood out there that
is likely to ap~ly for application of this zone; in fact, they have
already formal1y dane so. It is not clear that there .. ill be many others
in the future. so r am nat sure that this is wortn trying to pound out
the specifics fer every given s~tuation ~hen we don't even know if ~t is
someth11'\9 that lJ€ry lrIan'y other people will be interested in. So in
thinking about this, I wanted to throw out o~e thoug~t that started to
generate for me at the very end of our discussion the other night. lhat
is; considering these Euidelines as flexibl~ in the Clse ~here a
neighborhood has CC&Rs, and more rigij in the case 'llrtlare a ne~ghborhood
does not. 1 was the planning tommissioner at the council when they
consldered the apDlication of thls to the Walnut tro~e area. Se~erai
people that night mentioned both publicly and private1y to me later that
they ~e;-e really propelled by the fa.:t that there wer~ !lread)' deed
restrictions on these hous~s. In other words, people ~ere expected to
r.a'ie bought these hOlJses 'IIIith the expectatiN"' that they wou1d be
maintained as s~n9le4story. The council feTt that, I belii!ve, in
imposing the sin9le~storJ, they ~ere baSically making that legally
enforceable, but not really changing the expectations of most of those
homeowners.
ll/l8/92
·4-
.\
/
o
On the other ~and, ",ere we to be confronted wi t/", the s i tual ion where a
n~1ghborhood was appealing for th~ application of the guidelines and had
never had deed restrictions, that would really be a mud d1fferent ba~l
ga~. We waula be affecting the exp~ctations and c~an9ing th€
unde~standings of peQpTe who had bought property, in many cases, mdny
years before or more recently. and ha~ing paid i premium price. So J
would suggest la.ngua;e preceding these guidelines (and I ha~'e Mt .. orked
thi 5 out speci f"!c-31 1y) lfIIi th a ,paragraph tna.t stated someth i:'l9 1; ke thi!i:
The following guidelines are intended to guide decjsionmak~rs in tne
application of the single-sto"y overlay ~one for neighborhoods a.lrudy
subject to single-story d~ed restrictions criteria_ These trlterla
should be c.onsidered flexible. However, in situation.; in ~hid'!
neighborhoods appealing for the s1ng~e-story o'.:erlay zon~ halle never been
subject to that kind of deed restriction, tr,o.se neighborfloods should
expect that these criteria will be sev~rely enfcrced, or strictly
applied. fn that way, t~e basic concept ~ere is that we ~re giving some
element of stability to r.e1ghbornoods that fall Ol1 either side of that
line, and that we would impose the zone with more se~erity in
ne~9hborhoads where this was an entirely new idea.
rnat actually sal .... es the concerns tlut I t'la~e had whe:1 thi 5 came forward
scme time ago. I think that Criterion 14, Moderate lot Sizes, as long as
.~ leave that In there, with a definition of a moderate lot size as 7.000
to 8,000 sq:uare feet. we have taken care of the issue of noor area
versws site coverage. In the case of Greenmeadow~ ~e mig~t run intc a
problem with this moderate lot size reQuirement because we know that
th~re are some-lots in Greenmeadow that fall under that 7,000 f1gure.
However, if, for Greenmeadow, we consider thase f1e~~b12 be:ause cf the
existing deed restriction, that wou1d give us the flexibility we need tc
be able to go ahead and apply these criteria. should we choese to do $0,
whe'(l ind if tnat application comes forward. Those are my comments.
Cqmmissioner Cullen: r am glad that Commissioner Marsh has said what she
did. It is an elaboratior. of ""hat she said regarding i two·tier process
at the end of the last meeting 9 and 1 think it makes a lot of sense. The
only thing I would like to .dd to that is that 1 think there should be a
minimum area. When Z was tu~ning this over in my mind as to what would
be a minimum area, ] think a cul-de-sac is not \lFhat ] wou1d feel
comfortable 'f!lth. First of an. it is slIcn a small number of people that
~o\Jld be imposing. by oil 75 percent opinior, poll Qr '.'ote. en the rest of
them. Anybody who has been invQlved in a small area, as I am currently,
kMOWS that t~2re can be very emotional attachme~ts to various proposals_
So what 1 would lik.e to propose is that 'fie ha .... e a minfmum ar'ea. I am not
quite s~re what that would be, but i~ thinking about it, I thought
perhaps one of the tracts. Are tne tracts a minimum number of square
feet in tne city? Do we k.now what the)' are?
Ms. lytlf: A tract can be a cul-de-sac.
Com'Il,llsioner Cullen:
am not prepared to do
guidance on that.
Then maybe we snould spell it out a little more.
that right now, because we wo~ld need staff
Commissioner ~JU:rasco: To follow up on that, r ha~e th~ same concern_
There should be a minimum area, othen,.ise we w~n get this chaotic
ll/l8/91
- 5 -
sHuatiQn of tWQ-5t.ary houses looUng dCkHn into one-story (S} lanes.
would suggest that ~e have a minimum area of 300 houses., It seems to me
that that is somewnat ~on~istent ~ith the two app1ications that ~e ~a¥e
had. Is Hat correct, Nancy? The Greenmeado''''' appl ieation seems to be
roug~ly 300 houses.
~s. Lytle: Yes, my recollection is th~t both of the overlay districts
that hav~ apprcached us are .at least tha.t man,)' urii ts.
Comm;ssj~~Carriscq; ihe second ide4 tr.at I had was that these 10ts
s~ollld be cOT1tiguous. T;,ey should not be locClted in tails or stlJck on by
large, linear rDadways.
Ms. lytle: That is -,what WE mean by Criterion 12, Appropdate
Boundaries. The word ~conti9uouSM 15 not in there, but yQU cou1d insert
it, if you felt that was needed. I can think of neighborhoods tl;at
consider the-mselves as bein.g ~retty c1earcut neighbornoods U1at are Tess
than 300 houses.
Chaiman Beecham: 1 would fee1 that while we do not want small ones and
are cOl'1cerned about cul-de-sacs here and there, there may be truly
ccnesi~e neighborhoods tnat are smaller than 300 units. I do not Quite
know what number to pick, but even 100 is probably terr or twenty times
the sile of a cul·de-sac. which I belie~e is our concern.
Commjssloner Marsh: r wou1d suggest that insteaG' of looking at specific
numbers, that we look at the qualities that we are trying to achie¥e
by having a minimum Tlilmber. To me, if \lie first lMked at the le ... el and
Fermat of Resident Support, Crite~ion 11, .and then looked at Appropriate
Boundaries, and worked with both of those criteria, we might be able to
achieve the same th1fi9 without putting in a specific number. J thInk you
get intQ troublf when you tal~ about a minimum number of houses, because
who knows what that number should be? Who knows ho~ it will .actually
play out within our neighborhoods? Howe ... er, J think there are two
intents in looking at a minimum nurnb!r. One is that you do not have a
very sma)l number of homeo ..... ners winding up pusning that 2S perc:ent t which
may be one or two houses, as in the example you give ~ith the c~l-de-sac,
into something that is not wanted. 1t seems to me ihat the word
·oyel"'W'he1rrring" in Criterion #1 is perhaps key to that. It r"1ay be to our
.advantagE' not to nave a 75 percent or other number th,=re. If there are
ten nouses, ·overwh~lming" might well be interpreted as n~ne out Qf ten,
or som.: number that i 5 much higi1er than 75 percent. It seeiTlS to me that
it could ever; be interpreted as 100 percent, if in the eYl:!s of the
planning commission and city counciT at that time, 100 percent is what is
necessary to show an overwhelming support ~ithin that neighborhood. So
it may be that we need to realize that we can be fJexib1e in the way that
we interpr!t whether or not there is overwhelming neighborhood support
without saYl119 t~ere has to be a miniml.Jm number of houses invohed 1n
tot.1.
Secondly, this issue of appropriate boundaries is rtally fundamental ~hen
yo,," look at whether there should be a minimum Tot size imposed. Again,
what r think we are trying to get at with ~ mi~imum lot size, as I
l.mderstand a, is not haYing little tiny pieces of the commul'lity car¥ed
out and placed in a si~gle-story o ... erlay. It seems to me that perhClps if
11/18/92
·6·
\
o
we workp.d with the wordi ng under Appropri ate Boundaries. that again? \JI'l1at
we are t~yin9 to ac~,eve )S ther~. That this has to be a ~ery
ide~ttfiable. specific are~ that is be~ng asked to be included in the
s.'n9'e~stor.y olJerlay. If, il'\ fact, 'We ha\f~ a cu1-de-sac iii the middl.e of
a 3DO-house tract, we would not consider that to be an identifiable
boundary. ~e wou1d conside~ t~at to be a~ unatc€?t~bie definition cf a
c~mmunity on which to have that si~gl~·story overJ~y imposed.
SQ jf ~e could work wit~ those two criteria, perhaps making them a little
strong'!',f or flesh them out a little~ ..... e wil1 get to those con.cerns abcut
mlnim~m size ~ithout having to actually pick i number out of a hat. d~
not belie~e ~e are ready to dJ that.
Chairnan Bee-dam: As you f1a'.le spoken, COT'1!l1issioiler Marsi1, 1 have beel'1
trying to note ho~ to ,hange Item 2. Sa fa~, I thir.k the key words are
·identifiable neighborhood." Would that be ap~ropriatc?
Commissioner Marsh: It would certainly answer my concerns.
Co~iss;oners Carrasco and Cullen should probablY speak to theirs.
Commissioner Schmidt: I nave several questions for the attorney. If
th~se are guidelines, is it good or bad to eliminate i percantage in
Item 1 and just say ·overwheimingH? Also, regarding the two-tiered type
of crocess that Pam has descr1bed, we have said it is not a terrific idea
to attach something witn the CC&Rs. Since these are guidel ines, can we
just make some statements like that, or is there a problem with e~ther of
those areas?
Ms. Case; With respect to your first Question, my advice to you ~ou'd be
to remain as nonspecific as pOSSible, because the guidelines will last a
lot longer in t'me if you are. If you get too restrictive, the first
eft} cot.:ncil that does not agree with them will change them. So to the
extent that you \!Iant them to mean anything, 1 think. you should try to
include flexibility.
Witn regard to your second question, my only cOrTll~ent ..,ould be that yOlrr
zoning deciSions need to have a rational basis. 10 the extent that CCaRs
are reflective of what is actually existing in the area that yo~ are
talk.ing about, that would be a ratitJnal trilng to do. So what I would
suggest, if you are going to use CC&Rs as an €xample, you should say that
i sigfJinc~nt f'I~mbE"r of hcu.s.es in tt1e aY'ea that you are taH.ing about
need to be consiste~t ~ith the CC&Rs that you ar~ dealing ~ith. In other
'Nords, not to na'i€ b~E"n honDfed in a !.ignificant nurnbt>r of the hOlJses,
Otherwise, the CC!Rs themselves are somewhat meardngless.
Chai~2n Be€cham: Do we have anyt~in9 to say about how to take care of
small 1ots1 Pam, do you th1n\ now tInt i. current reading of th~ moderate
size covers that issue?
Commissloner Mars~: My concerns are taken care of in Item ,4 because
moder~te is defined as 7,000-8,000 squa~e feet. ~e ha~e stated t~~t ~e
need to have a range of moderate lot sizes in order to apply the Clverlay
lone.
Cnairman Beecham: from my readirlg of Item 14, it does say "d,arac.tedzed
by moderate lot sizes.-I WDL!ld, b.v no m€i.ins, say that one small lot or
11/18/92
-7-
,
'I
1
a handful of small lots cha~ges the 'haract~rization. So we could still
certainly hav~ some small lots in an area·th~t is, in fact. characterized
by mDderate lots.
Comiss:iMer Schmidt: G,reenmeadow lJIIould fit i:'i. It has scme small lots
and some hrge lots, too. In my estimation, it would be characterized by
the 7,OOO·S,OQO-square·foot iot size.
Commissioner Cullen: And thej ~o~ld be subject to a design ennancement
proces~, which 1 bel~eve we talKed ibout at the last meeting. lf they
wert i sma" 10t, and they 'lfIIere ab1e to come in, say, at 6,000, and there
are Quite oil few of tnem down U'lere, Hey wO'Jld be abl e to come in for a
deslgn enhancement eitception.
Ms, lytle: Any property would b •• bl. to do that .it" the (S) o,.rl.y
applied to a small lot, however, it would be subject to that overlay
zone, SD "it would 'have the 40 percent iutomatic.
C~iirmi~ Be§cham: If som~one comes in for 1 home i~pfoveme~t except~on,
and there is an (5) o~erlay, Nancy, co~ld we allow them to build a s~cond
story, or could we allow them to go beyond the 4Q percent site limit?
Ms. Lytle: They could apply for ~ither ~f those opt~ons in an (S)
overlay district. The way the code is written, there is nothing igainst
it. The on1y thing y?u cannot do a home improvement excElition for in the
site de~elapment regulations is the FAR, except for incidental jncreases
for certain purposes. Sut in eyery other aspect, you can.
tn3irman Beecham: And we are not limiting the fAR in nere, beyond ~hat
the standard ordinance says?
Ms. lytle; That is correct. Might I add, however, that it does discuss
that the intent is for minor changes, so we would need to think about
~etner or not a second story in this district would be ab1e to meet the
findfngs, particu1arly the middle finding, which reads "com,istent with
eXlsting architecture and neighborhood cnaracter~ in recommending whether
tne applicant ~roceed with that.
QJ..g,frman Beec_bam: Another point to bring up is that last time 'lfIIe ta.lked
a.bout His, to:nmissinne-r i.lazier talked about ih~ Ylh:e of the extra.
100-150 square feet in a tlouse, whir.h is pot~ntially what some nOl.JSes
~ould 1os!. In going through tht nu~bers, 1t seems th~t ~~en a
6,OOO,sQ~are-foot lot, more or ies~, does not lose any usabie square
footage. If the} were t~ bui1d a second stor~. the~ would neea to have a
stairwell. That takes up around ISO square feet. plus or minus i bit.
Sa if they build out ,nstead of bui1ding ~p, what they lose in total FAR
they somewhat make up by not having a stairwell. 50 to me, this
guideline1 as we have it, is appropriate Gown to the 6,000 square·foot
lot size. Below that, they begin to ~ctual1y lO$e some ~pace. when we go
down to probably tr.~ 95th percentile in t,",e Citi, cS"rtainly in these
areas, by going down to 6,<lOO square feet.
Commissior.er MarSh: r am 5tj11 looking baCK at the moderate let size
criteria. I would not mind the injection of the word "consistent" or
some equally appropriate word in t~ere. The point is that this should be
a neighborhood in .. hic,", the lot size is yery consistent throughout the
11/18/92
-8 -
o o
neighborhco,j so tnat the imposition of the single-Hory overlay 'ttil i be
gen!nlly equal throughout the neighborhooe!.
Chairman Beecham; What dots "tonsi sh-nt· 1I"!tdfr to ),Ol.l?
Comrnlssion~r Marsh~ ~cc~s'stent· IDa) not be the right word. What I am
locking for ;s that what ~e have is a consistent lotting pattern so that
again, the lots thit ire within tne neishbcrhood are goir.g to be ~Qua'ly
affected by the ordinance.
(omrnisSiQner Carrasco: You could say that 75 or 80 percent of the lots
should exceed the '9 000-8,OOD square-foot figure, defining ·consi$te~t·
that ... y.
~mmissioner Oiakian: lony. how ~ould that apply to ~reenmtadow, wher~
we have seen that, in fact, they do not have th2t many lots, 1 f~nd
Ite~ 14 a hard one to grapple ~lth and come up with a defined solution.
' .. ~,'
r agree with Pam' 5 c:orrtm€nts earl ier about focusing in an Itf!Ri '2, the
appropriate boundaries, beca~se after looking at t~is again with a clear
head~ it seemed to me tnat that is the ke.y criterion to try and ha'.'p. some
wen defined state!l'1ent in there. That will make this a usable set L-~'
guidelines in the future.
I drew that conclusion for the following reasons. One ~as that on one
side of the (Din, we are trying to benefit certain Targe area.s in the
r:ity that do have a consistent pattern of housing. ilhat we don'· .. ; ."'It is
the flip side tlf that to occur, "'~ich ;~ that U11s would be used Ei'iler
becalJse of the lure of getting an ex.tr. 2S percent iii f'ioor area. ratio.,
or some other reason, it gets peopl e to bring in a very small area that
this really is not applicable to. My feeling is t~at if we can somehow
define that ~riterjon as clear1y a~ we can and p~t it in such wording
that we can eliminate such things as cul-de·sacs, or one ~1de Df the
stre~t. or two ~ides of the street falling within this overlay zone~ then
the rest of the criteria are good enough to meEt what is trying to he
achieved tlcre.
C01Tr.liss:10ner Cul1en: I am a l~ttle uneasy with this ambig\IO~S. 1anguage.
I know that the city attorney has said ~e need t.o be as fle.xible in our
llnguige as possible. but 1 heard ·ovel~nelrning-a~d ~signific~nt.· We
mayor may not be sitting here determining what that is. Future planning
cQrrmissions may be doing SQ. J!e have just seer, in the recent election
that ~overwhelm;ng" was considered to be va~ious percentages, also
·significant-was ~arious p~rcentages, too. So you m!ght h~ye a
t"-ree-way vote, or no opinfon, etc. I guess I ~ol1'd really like to pin
~t down to something a little more spe~ific than tnose two adjecli¥es.
If you don't like i ~ercentage, although] have no objection to one, as
it quantifies things, it can be either si9nificant or o'.'erwhelming. If
it is less than that, you are getting into treacherolJS territory. You
might want to consider tnat the "eighborhood really wants to go for
that. So I am personal1j re1uct6nt to give up th~ idea of 1S percent,
because J do think that that is both sig~ificant and overwhelming. and it
qu~ntifies it so that future commissions and future staff ~il1 be able to
see that. It can always be changed, as we know. 8es~des, as our
chairman points out. we may not na'.'e any other app1ications except fDr
this one from Greenmeadow. But I do think it is important to have
something that defines what significant or o¥erwhelming is. So I would
11/18/91
-9-
~-~.~_o ....... ~ ___ tt ___ .'''' ___ _
consideration in the futur~ application 'Of the (S) oyerlay zone
district. I h~ve chang~d 50me of the wording in the guidelines to
reflect discussion tonight. They would read as follo~s:
1. level and Format of Reside~t Support
An appli(~ti'On for an (5) ovei1ay zone map a~endment should meet
wit\-, ·cverlfthe1mins-s.uppo ... t by residents of affected p"rcperi:.i.€:s,
These residel1ts must delT'onstrat~, by providing documentation that
includes a writte~ list of signatures, an understanding that they
are co-app1icants in a lone map amendment request. End of that
guide1ine.
2. ~r~t~ Boundaries
An application for an (5) overlay zane map should be accompard2d by
a map ir.dicatir.g the address loe.ticn of those r@sid~nts who are
(o-applicants for the rezoning request. ~Dundaries whjsh m!t
cgrrescond !til; th cert~it'l natural or manrliade fea..tY.t.tl. for exampl e,
roadways, l!,.aterways, tract. bmmd;;.rie~. etc., should define an
ident~ nei9hbvrhood Dr develop~~. End of glJideline.
3. Prevail ing SingJe-Stor" Character
An area proposed for a~ (~J overlay zone map ~mendment should be of
a pre.'ailing s~n9je-stori c.haracter where He vast majority of
existing homes are single-story, thus limiting the r.umber of
structur€.s rend-ered noncomplYing by tr:12 (S} o .... 12r1ay. Neighborhoocs
currently slJbject to deed restrictions sholJld currently be developed
in 2 manner ,,:onsistent .... it~ those {leed re:;trictions.
Actually. that may be a redundant sentence, gi .... er. the first one, but it
picks up on th~ carcern of the city attorney.
Furthermore, it ;s desirab1e that homes be simihr in: age, design
and character, ensuring that residents of an area proposed for
fi!zoning pOSSESS 1i1:..e desires for neighborhood pres.ervatiofi and fac'2
common home remodeling constraints.
4. Moderate lot Sil~i
In order to maintain equitable property development rights within an
(5) {)verlay area compared to other sites .ithin the R~l lone
district, an area proposed for an (S) overlay zone map amendment
should be chO'.riicterized by moderate lot sizes wit~ j generiil1y
c.Qnshtent 1ottj..n..g pattern+ For' Q!!T ~1'"pOSti. ! moderate 1ct siz,g
.iJ.1.Q .boo'; j;t~fined II ;,000 t:J 8,00Q W . .!!:i. feet. End of guideline.
These criteria wDu1d be preceded or followe.::1 by a paragraph stating that
in effect, the gUidelines are intended as criteria for declsianmakers
when confronted ~ith an applicatio~ for the singie-story height c~mbining
district OVErlay zone, and that in the case where i neighborhood is
al,.-egdy subject to a deed restriction and nas been developed consistent
with the deed restriction, the criteria should be considered flexible.
1n situations where there ~as been no existing deed restriction.
ne;ghbor~cDd should e~pect that the criteria would be rignrousl)
11/!B/92
" Jl-
•
\ " ,
, ._---
I
o
enforced. That is my motion.
~: By Chairman Beecham. I have it question for staff on a portion
of tht motion. At t~e end of e1ther t~e preambl~ or postamb1E, Pam said
these should be criteria for decisinnmakers. I understand tf'1i1t what has
come to us from council. as you ~ave ... ritt~r. ir, YCIJf report, ,ndkates
that th~se are criteria against which applications may be encQura~. r
~int to ~no~ if el} staff sees an) difficulty in what Commissioner Marsh
;s proposing, and l2) ens~rf that we, on the commission, ire aware of the
change.
Ms.~: 1 to;nk the idea is that staff shoold b. encooraging
applications that meet what th~ deci~ionmakers are likely to accept. So
it applies to both staff Encouragement and the decisionmaker reaction to
the applicaticn+
Commissioner ~,: I have no probl em with that language beins reworked
a little bit. He point is that these are criteri., against which
applications will be judged.
Ms. Case: I have a ~uesticn. You used the word ~enforced" in the
preamble paragraph.
Co~i :;signer Harsh: We can choose another word, suc~ as rigorously
appl ied or .r.gq2rd_ed.
ML.~: The word -enforced" may g; 'ole ; t a meardng that i:; not
intended.
Commissi()ne~ Carrasco: I t1avE a ql!estion about Hat paragraph. r did
not understand the relatlonship betw€~n (C&Rs and ker.fo~ce~.· Could you
c1arify that, piease?
tOn1Tlissioner Ma_rsh: The point r \lias making is the one I made in my
initial comments ton19ht. It is that my inclination is that when there
is a deed restriction. that we give ~ome benefit of the doubt to a
neighborhood, b-ecause they alreed)' have a r.e'i'9hhoriiood that is bought in
wtth the expectation of a Single-story overhy+ On the other hand (ar,d
a9air., tlds is the t."o-tiered (:CH'IC€'?t), ..,.h~n YO'J are guirq into. i vi'\"'gin
neighborhc.od in terms of deed restrictions or any of ti1ese; limitations,
we are goin.g to b'2 100l<.ing to a.pplj the criteria 'it", a. much more r'gorou.s
rnanner.
COmmiSSioner Cul1ef1~ Wouid the maker of the !!lotion and the seconder
accept as a frien.dly amendment. after the ·overwhelming" inc' ude an
k e .g ., 7S percent R ? That is just 15 an example. I am really worried
about what could happen down the line. I am a little confused by these
CireenmEadow fi.gtJres. If you add them up, they have 132 people out of 236
voting yes, ifld 104 v(!ting either no or no o~inic.n. /ila)'be I am riot
reading t~em correctly, but they do wind up by saying 78.6 percent voting
y~s. Perhaps it is because I ha~e drawn the line bet."een the
7.000-square-foot lot and the smaller ones. There are 48 plus 17 plus
one lets smaller than the 71000-~quare-foot average S;Zf that we are
putting in here. Maybe th;s is not really a problem until it comes to
os.
11/18/92
-12-
~ u
, ... :>,::.:
-"
y -:.:;,;.:
<-:.;:.;:
? ".".
CQmmissiQ.1~r "'~rJ...b: 1f I COJJld speal(, to that, that is e.lCactly why I do
not want to Pl.it those numDen iT! there. 1 ttlink t~eJ "ill c-onlley to
people that if they hit this threshold, or managE to ma~ufacture this
threshold in some way. they are gOing to get it. If they get 75 percent.
we are going to give it to them. With a number in there, that is going
to bE the Expectation_ It may be th~t if we have a 400-house tract and
100 peopTe do not want it •.. e may find that ill pretty compelling
argument. That is a lot of people who are nJt in agreement, e~en though
you have reached the 75 percent threshold.
Commissioner Cul'e~: Of course, that depends on how you define the
ar'!!a. 1 am satisfied with tr.e definition of the area. I doubt that we
will fver have 400 homes.
C.onrrdssioner Marsl1.: ] dO:Jbt it teo, bwt the: point is that once YOJJ put
those numbers in there, people start to hang expectations on them .
. lommiBioner Cullen: All right. You havt! corrw-inced me. I guess ... e can
take; t up ;as it tomes before us) (Clse by case.
~_PASSES: Chairman Beetham: ls there any further discussion on
this motion? All those in favor of the motio;'! as stated by C.orrll'1issioner
Marsh and seconded by myself to Cldopt the guideline~ as bClsically
outlined by stCiff and a::; modified by Commi:!lsioner Marsh, please say Aye?
All opposed? Tha~ passes unanimous1J ~ith Commissioner Glazier absent.
M5~: Hlis will go to the city counci1 on December 21, 1992. There
may be a postponement.