HomeMy WebLinkAbout0322.093-
~;'
.;. :. . . . . . ,':. ~ :," '
JUrlE 3, 1993
HONORABLE CIn COUNCIL
Palo Alto, Caljforni~
Members of the CounCil:
iliPORT IN BR I EF
The subject of this report ;s an appeaT of the Zoning Administratci's decisi1r.
to deny a yarianc~ for the location and constructio~ af a 9JS-square-foot
second-story addition, for total flc-or area of 3,186 s{jua'"e ff;et where 2,651
scg:Jre fe:et is other'ilj1se the rnaximum pennitted.
PLANNING COMMISSIQILAPION
On May 12. 1993, the Planning Commission vot~d 3-1 {Beecham, no; Carrdsco and
Cullen, ab~enti Cass~l did not participate) to recommend that the City Council
OV2rturn the Zoning Administrator's deciSion and apprOVE the variance with G
modification to the maximum floor area allowed. The Commission rec-omm!!nds
that the house, includf"9 the enclosed garage, be limited to 250 square feet
over the r:la:drr,um floor area, for total S~Ullre f::Jotil'Je of 2,901 square feet.
As reflected in the applicant's December 10, ]992 plans, which were in t~e
Commissicn'~ packet and before them whe~ they made their metlon, and in
recommended finding nllr::ber 2 {listed '='elolo.',I, a pDrtioll of which stEites "a
(arport would n9t be consistent with neighborlng properties", the Commissio~'s
recornnelldation ~s contingent upon the retention of an enclosed garage.
BACKGROUND
The Planning COIl'.mi:;sion continued this ite-m from the April 28, 19";) publjc
hearing, allowing the applicant to re~ise the project to reduce the proposed
floor area of 3.186 square feet. In preparatlon for the May 12, 1993 meeting.
the ~pplicant sub~itted ~evised plans, whjch reduced t~e floor area 51 square
feet, for a tota1 floor arEd of 3,135 sqn,e feet. AddHionaliy. he presente-,1
another plan at the hearing which showed the disadvantage of an unenclosed car
port. A motion to approve either revise~ plan failed for lack of a secon~_
Similarly. a motion reccmmending denial of the variance failed. /l.s stated
abuve. the Co~~issjon ultimately re(ommended approval of the Variance, tased
on the plans dat~d December 10, ]992, ~ith reduced floer area. T~is was based
CMR:321:93
-
F, J,... ;, ." ";.
,
on twa factors: 1) 250 additio~al squ~re feet would allow constrYLtiorl 0 a
hOJJse 'orr:men~urate in size to t"nost! in the adjdce~t cul-de-sac; and 2) U'.
applicant agre~d to the reduced floer area_ The appl Icant subseQ~e~tly ~terl
that h~ agreed wlth H,e COl'll'nissiorl's mJtiarJ, becd:.J~e he ur:derstoGd that T
provided flexiblljty to convert the garage to a carpart, i~d therefore
1ncrease the square footage of the hom~'s ljving area_
Upon fl!rther cO':'1sideratiorl, and based c.r} the cppl~cant's (onfljsiorl or. the
motion, thE applicant has decided to pre5e~t the rE~i~ed proposal, submitted
for the May 12, 1~93 C.um..'TIis~ion meeting. for Council corHideration. A cop)' o~
the revised plans has been included in the Council's packet_ The revised plan
inc1t.1des retentiQr, of tf,,€; two-car garage i!.J\d all 861-sql.Jare-foot s.econd-stor)
addition_ This propo~al results in 3,135 sq~are feet, 484 square feet over
the allowable floor area. A more detailed description of tnis p;an is
included in the May 79 1993 Pla"nin~ Commission report.
PLANNING CO~J~~JQN RECOMM'NDEO FINDINGS
1. There are exceptional or extraordirlary circums.tances or conditior1s
applic3ble to the property Involved that de not apply generally to
property in the same district, in t~at the property is an
unusually shaped corner lot, ~hich is s.ubject to a 16-foot street
side yard setback, and t/'l'E! maj'Jrity of tM€: site is directly
exposed to the public right-of-way. The site nas over 150 feet of
street frontage, ~it~ the property line setback 5 fe€t from the
sidewalk_ This portion of the public right-of-~~y appears to be
private property and significantly increa3E$ the ~ppareot s~ze of
the lot, causing the propos~d house to be in proportion ~ith the
property and surrounding development;
2. The graDting of the applicat10n is necessary for the preservatior1
and enjoyment of a substantial propertJ rigrlt of the applicant,
and to prevent unreasonable property 'ass or unnecess~ry ~ardship
in that the app7icr3nt sh(lu7d r3v~ Ute right to ha.."e a. sim-:·].3,'"
sized nome tD tnos€ in the il1ur:ediate-neighi:;r;rhoad. Addit icr,.1l1j,
a carport would not be consi~tent ~ith n~ighbo~'ng properties, ali
of 'Which supp1y ~mclosed garag~s.. ,Mdltiona11y, the applicant's
proposed second-story addition is constrainEd by tne existing
firep1ace and wall configl.!1'"eation on the first story; and
3-. 1"he 9rant~rl9 of the app\~caticn .. i'l not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvement$ in the vicinity in that the
eddition is co~patible with surrounding development, the proposed
second floor is in proportion to the existing fir~t floor and an
enclosed gara.ge located a.t tK€: s.i,je of the: property wn 1. screer,
the storage of typical household items and parked vehicles from
off-site view.
CMR:322:93
p:'",m;I.ti02'"",lco,;",,"
6/ J /93
Page 2
-
-~-~-----------------------------
Tl1e Plaf1ning Commission recommends that tn,:: ( t)' Cow''1Cil reverse 'the dHi'i10n
of the Zoning Adndr;istrator and approvE a \lor ance to a110w total floor area
of 2,90i square feet where 2,651 sQuar~ feet 5 otherwise the maximum
perxitted, based on the findings listed above (C~mmissjon modifications ~ppear
in ital ie,. Staff r;:commends that, shou1d H,e COlH.ctr approve the variar.ce,
the following condition be added to enforce the intent of fjndlng number land
require the applicant to maintain the re~uired co~et'ed parking within an enclosed garage.
RECOMt~ENDlD (OllDlTlON
1) The applicant shall maintain L1e covered parlong. required by the R.l
zone district site development regulations, in an enclosed garage.
~espectful1y submitted,
~L~~ NAN~ MADDOX llTLE
Chief Planni ng Off; cial
A<, ",7,/, ;fi::~L~~..((_ M-;C.,~., . /-
KENNeTH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning a~d
(ommulIity Enllir'onrTient
Attact.ments: 5/7/93 staff report to the Pl ar.ning Co;,mission
4/23/93 staff report to the PTanning (o~missi{ln,
~ith attachments
EXCel"pt of Piannillg CornmiS:S:ion min:lItes of 4/28/93
4/27/93 letter from Steve Player
S/iD/91 1 etter fro;:] Err,i Ty Renzel
Public Correspondence
Re~ised plans received 5/24/93 (Council Members only)
cc: Glenn A. Guidoux, 602 Towle Way. Palo AHo, CA 9~306
Anita Guidoux, 2012 Louise Lane, Los Altos, CA 94024
Emily Renzel. 1056 Forest A~enue, P~10 Alto, CA 94301
6/3/93
?age 3
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REFORT
May 7. 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION
Palo AHo, California
6Q2 TOWLE WAY APPEAL OF VARIANCE DENIAL
Members of the Commission:
Report in Brief
This is an a.ppeal of the. Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a variance for the
location and construction of a second-story addition for tolal f:oor area of 3,186
square feet where 2,651 square feel is otherwise the maximum permitted. On Aprtl
28, 1993. the Planning Commission continued this item to allow the applicant to
re\'ise the project plans to reduce the proposed floor area. The staff report and plans.
for this item were hand deliver"'....d to Planning Commissioners on Friday, April 23rd
Project Description
The applicant has revised the second-story as follows:
Table I: Comoarisoo of Second-Story Pmposals" .
Mat;ier Master Bedroom Bedroom Bath
Bedroom Bath #3 #4
Original 165 67 IDS 105 38
Revised 170 65 115 115 40
Net Change +5 -2 I +10 +10 +2
• Un!, 'TOIa! y column re ects s q uare foocage 0 . halls and stalrwe
__ ...... _ .......... __ e'"<c'-
'L
Landing
175
55
-120
Total
918
867
-51
5-7-93
Page !
J
I .,
\
-.. . -... '
' ... ' ;
-riii-_~:-:_'. r.----. " --... ,:,-,~--",
• "" ~' oj.""'-•
. -" ------_._------_. ~-' ,,--~~-
i
I
i.
\
-
Table 2' Floor Are. Ralio -
~-Allowed ( Vrc\'iolJs Propos.al I Revised PropGsa!
Se<:ond Story 383
I
918
I
867
~ota1 Floo< Area 2,651 3,186 3, \35
FAR I .42 50 .49 -
The following findings of approval could be used should the Planrung Commission
recommend that the Cit)! Council approve-the vuiance to exceed the ftoor area
limitations:
1. There ere exceptional or e~traardinary drcums.tance.'i or conditions
applicable to the proJl<lrty involved that do not apply generally to
prOJl<lrty in the same district in that the property is an unusually shaped
comer lot,. which is subject to a J 6-foot street side yard setback and the
majority of the site is direc~)' exposed to the public right-of-way _ The
site has over 160 feet of street frontage, with the property line setback 5
feet from the sidewalk. This portion of the public right-of-way appears
to be private property and significantly increases the apparent sire of the
lot, causing the proposed hOlj5e to be in proponion with the property and
surrounding development;
2. The granting of the application i. necessary for the preservation and
e'\ioyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent
unreasonable property loss or unnecessa.ry hardship in that the R-l zone
district floor area limitatior would cause the applicant to CO;1Vcrt an
existing two-car garage into a carport. Because of the building
coastralnts of the comer lot, the carport would be confined to the
position of the existing garage, which is Jocated at the side of the house
and directly exposed to the public street. An open carport at the side of
the residence will not afford the applicant the same level of security and
protection of property as a fully enck,sed garage, and has the potential to
become unsightly for the neighbors_ Additionally, a carport would not
be consistent with neighboring properties, all of which supply enclosed
garages. Additionally, the applicants proposed second-story addition is
constrained by the existing fireplace and wall configuration on the first
story; and
-.
P: \PCSII: \602TO'I/. 51!
57-93
Page 2
3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or Injuriou5 to
property or improvements in the vidnity in that the addition is
compatibJe with surrounding deveiopment, th~ proposed second flLoor is
in proportion to the existing first floor and an enclosed garage loca~~d at
the side of the property will screen tbe storage of typical hcusehold items
anc.l parked vehicles from off-site view.
Respectfully submitted,
N~~Wk",-
NAN<3¥ MADlXhL YTLE
Chief Planning Official
cc: Glenn A. Guidoux. 602 Towle Wa,. Palo Alto, CA 94306
Anita Gcidoux, 2012 Louise Lane, Palo Alto, CA 94024
Steve Player
Emily Renzel
D:\~C.5Jl\S02J(N 5R
5·)·93
Page 3
I
f"
!
i
I
I
! ,
!
-'-
-
-~---~ .. "">.-~-. -.-~ <."
DATE: April 23. 1993
TO; PALO ALTO PLANNING COM,IIfISSION
PREPARED B~: Nancy Naddox lyt1e C!r>d Jo~eph M. ('c:la~l1a
~HORT IN ERIn: 602 Towle __ J@J:: Appeal of the Z0:11rlg A.c'!~ir')fstr'dtO"'·S
d~cisjon to deny a variance for th~ location and cDnstructl~n of a second
story addition for total f1eDr area of 3,186 square feet where 2.651 square
feet is ot"-erwiSl;' the max~mum permitted.
Environment.' Assessment: Exempt from the previsions of the Califor~ja
Enwironmental Quality Att.
File Nos.: 92-V-27
APPLICATION INFORKAHON
Applicant/Appellant:
Type of Application:
Oates;
SUE II/FORMATlON
Owner:
Assessor's Parce1 Numbo:r:
,~Comprehensive Plan De~ignat;on:
Existing Land Use:
Surrounding L~nd Use:
existing Zoning:
Parcel Size:
P:\PCSR\6OZTOW,PC
G1enn A. Guidoux
602 Towle 1</<31
P~10 Alto, CA 94!06
(liS) 493-4155
Appeal of variance denial
Appea! rec.ehled 2123/93;
"'iandatory action deadl ine 5/23/93_
Anita L. GUldoux
2012 Louise Lane
lo' Altos. CA 34C24
(415) 963-3245
132-56-012
Single-Family Residential
Single-family residence
/lorth: Single-fam ly res
East: Single-fam ly res
South: Siligle-fam ly re'
West: Single-film ly re'
R-J
6,339 square feet
dent al
dent a1
den til
dent al
4-23-93
1
---
k~I .. '-.. -.
f
I
i
i
i ;
f
1
j
!
i
i
!
!
I
\
-
PRQJECl lNfO~MA1!ON
Projg_o;:LtfjjJ..Q.!:,Y: On December 10, ]992, tht apliuflt, GIl'nn Gwid':;Jx,
5ub~itted a varianc~ application to CDnstruct a glS-SQu~re-foot. seco~1
story addition for total floor 3~ea of 3,186 square f~et where 2.651 square
feet is the !r"aximum ~l1owed. to.t the februa:"".'o' 4, 1993 Zoning
Administrator's hearing, ttl'! put.l;t headng was closed after thE ;:'P?1-ic-.i.nt
presented the project and respond~d to questions from the staff (~inut€5
attached). The Zoning Administrator re~de(Ed a oecision D~ February 18,
199), denying th~ v~riance (decisiDn attached). On Februar~ 23, 1993, th~t
decisi.on wa.s appea1ed by G.ler. anc Anita Guicioux, appTicants and c·W!"lers,cf
the subject property (appeal applicatic~.and letter attached].
Proiect Oes'Cfiption:
The applicant proposes to construct a 91S-square-foot. second-s:ory
addition t'O al'J ex~stin9 2,Z6B-squar~-for:>t. s1ngi-a-story heuse. The
proposed addition complies with the R-I site deyelopme~t regulations wlth
re'3ard to location, but exceeds tr,e floor area ljrnitation by 535 square
fe~t. The resulting f1cor area ratio (FAR) for the !iouse 'would be .50.
The maximum FAR allowed on this property is slightly less than .42. Ttle
maximum addition that could be constructed without 3 variance is 383 square
feet, for total floor a~ea Of 2,651 squa~e f~ct (see 'Tabie 1 below).
Table 1: Square Footage Data for 602 iowle Way Floor Area Variance Request
Existlr,o Allowa'cie lotal Addition ~et EXt:elios FloO' Area R:a'lC,
Proposed Proposed" (tota I-s i~ 0 wa bje!
~tota1-e)(i:M!I'lIOi!
2,25S 2.651 3,lS5 918 535 .5
•
ihe applicant ba.ses tl1e requested varia.nce on several issuE-S. He :::ltes
the irregular shape and ex-cessive street frontage of the lot as reasons why
additional floor a~ea should be granted for this property. He states that
" the varianc.e is necessary to preserv-e the existing hlo-car ga1'"age, W-:,f(ich if
converted to a carport would not be counted as floor area. This would
alTow the prop~sed addition without a variance. He states that a carport
wOIJ1d "be more \,msi9ht1)l and 1ess SHIJre tha:i a -:.arport at the rej!,r of a
less irregu1ar lot~. Additionally. the applicant states that the variance
"will create a total footage of 3,200 square feet whict1 is nearly
equivalent to the average size of neighboring homes".
4~Z3-93
2
--
,N4l VSISflSSUES
IsS'Jes Support ing U)~O.e;'lial
In denying the variance. the Zoning Administrator fou~d that the propcsed
varjal1ce did nut satisfy all findil1gs required fOl" appro'ial (decisior.
3ttached). The applicant fa"lled to de:r!onstrate an t.:nusual ci'"cUJTJstaflce or
a lass of property right or hardship related to the enforcement of t~e ~-l
zone district floor area limitation. Addltjo~ally. thE Zoning
Administrator found that construction of the proposed second-st0TY addition
\IIou1d have rlegat i ve tmpacts on adjacent propert ies due to the mass and
scale of the resu1ting hous~. The fol1owing are t~e main issues supp~rting
the denial:
Unusual Circumstance -The applicant was unable to demonstrate an
unusual or extraordinary circr..:mstance related to thl: subject sit~
that was directly assoc!ated to the requested floor area variance.
As stated in the original deciSion, while the site has an irregular
shape and is a corner lot subject to a 16-foot street side yard
setback, this is not related to the request to exceed the floer area
ratio, wh~ch is a function of the size of the site, not its shape or
ori'?ntation.
The applicant has not been refused a property right. by tne denial of
the variance. He has been required to camplj with the same !tandar~s
for all properties 10cated in the R-l zone district. A ~Toss of
property r19ht" or ~hardship· can best be described a:i a property
owner's inabjlity to accomplish a site improvement that the .
overwhelming majority of properti~s within the same zane district can
achieve. Additionally, a hardship must relate direct'l)' to i!.Ti unusual
cil"'cufT1stance rslated to the phYSical Clttributes of the site. The
Zoning Administrator concluj~d that this 1s clearly not the case ~i~h
tne ~roposed variance.
Conversl0n of Garage -The Zoning Administrator does riot encouriige
the CQn~ersion Qf enclosed garages 1nto cpen carports fot the purpos~
of obtaining additional floor area. A preferable alternative is to
re(j'u-~e the propos~(j size of the second-story bedroom suites and the
landing area. However, as the applicant hiiS correctly stated in his
letter of appl ication, a carport (ii covered structure used for
parking, ~here the perimeter is enclosed by a maximum of 50%) is not
(o~nted in the calcul~tion of floor area. Floor area limitations
were enacted ~ithin the R-I zone district to contro1 the bulk and
mass of single-family strwctures. Because carports are at least 50
percent open, they appear to have consid£r~bly 1ess mass than an
equal size enclosed garage.
P,'J'CSR:\Mi2TOW,PC
4-73-93
3
.. d(~~ir"L--~····~-
."'"
-
J
I
-
Because carports are not counted as fr~or area, many propertj a~ners
ha .. 'e e1ect~d to convert exi:iti:"!.S gUGges 1"t(l carports. wnert th~y ha',~
atner10lise rea.ched th~ maximum floor area allowed. Tn15 ha:r:eowf1€l"'S
choice to ma.ntain an en(la~ed garage or additional covered parking
5p~CPS ~a~ not cans:dered a hardsh~p by the Zoning Administrator.
The 5S3-square-foot garage pro~·des. more than roam to park vehi(le~.
It also provides a bathroom. workshop ~~j space for laundry
facil'ties. "The c.pp1icar>t €1'I,jays. mu~h ~lJre usable ~?ace th.:Jn is
provided in tMe majority of gar~ges in the R-! ~one district.
Mass and ScaTe -The applicant claims that considerable effJ~t has
been taken to d.esign a seccnd-stoo ",'jd~Uc'i whkh ",Quid ha\'1! the
smallest impact on the neighbors. The Zoning Administrator
.jetermir.ed that the addition has Mt been de.s.igned to l~mit bulk. in
comparison to other ~pplicatian5 or other h~uses in the vi,inity.
The proposed 918-s·quare-fcot. s.e{:ond-story addition lncludes three
bedrooms, two bathrooms and a 17S-square-fcct 1anding orea. In
addition. the proposal incl~des a balcony area, which js open to th~
first floo\'" dini.ng room_ This area is not c.u('"i.sid'ered floer area
becaus'2 it was designed to fall beloW' t"le 17-foot. 5,=conci-stcry
eqlli.,alet1t. HClfte'Jer. it does. -;i\cr~a<;.e th.~ O'JI!c cn,j ~a$S cf tr,€
building along the rear ele~ation.
Neighborhood Compatibility -The Zoning Administrator found tna! the
.5 FAR prop~sed by tne applic~~t would be det~imental to property in
the vic1nfty in that it would allow the ~pplicant to construct a
house larger a.nd wi.th ",lore vol\!me and mas.s than ether properties of
~imil~r size in th~ R-l zane district, and more massive than those
ex-is.ting or allowable in the llm'1ediate cl!l-d~-sac.
It was determiiied that the. project li>Iou1d not b.e consis.tef\t with th.e
neighborhood because no other home currently exihbits a .5 FAR. Out
of the 13 neighborii19 protJert iei fr'lnt it'lg an Tew; e 1,..1;.'y: only 5 homes.
are currently ~qual to. or large~ than the hous~ size request€d by
th~ appl icant, but all are on larger rets. atl.::! the h"1gh:?st fAR 's. only
.47. Only 4 l10mes currently exceed their allowable floor area
llmHatian, non.e of Which equa1 the sa per-;:Ent FAR reqlJc£te4 by th€
a.pplicant.
Of the S neighboring properties in the Towl€ Way tul-d~-s.a.c: none of
th~ e:tisting nomes. ar-e as. 1i!.rge as the c..pplicant's. propos.ed t1.ause and
only 1 property would be allowed to 2xceed 3.1Sc square feet. The
i,\j'erage fAR for the S prcp.e,rt-ies i!, 37 percent, Q'l'" 13 percent less
than the .50 FAR requEsted by the a~plicant.
4-23-93
4
"
(s'Sues ~e1ate tJ:lm_1.h_e Appeal
TM appellant, Glerm G~idoL;X. based his appea~ on t .. o i.ss~eL P11?s.e nSo,;".')
are cont;Jinood in the letter of appeal (att-H:ned) and aro: addressed tel 0 ...
1. Inconsj5ten.t Treat~lJ~nt: The. appellarlt states tr.at ~ds applica~ioT'
was net treated in the same manner as previoui ~~r1ance app'icitians.
He cites the approval of four previc~s floor area variances a5 re~§on
for cvert~rnil"lg th~ ZC1Yirig Adm~n)s.t'fi!.to-r's. decisioT'J. Pre-',;'lc\..iS
variance decisions do nat create a precedent for future
determinations. Every case is decfded on its o",'n n,erits, ba~t;d on
the information contained in the project file and presented it the
publ it hearing.
The follo'wrting is a brief summary of the four variar:ce apprO\ia1S cited
in the appellant's letter. The table be'o~ Indicates the existing
square foot~ge a.nd the si!~ of the additjo!"l at U.e ti,trI-e that ea~h
variance wa!' reqvested. The following dlscussion is provided to
illustrate the differences between the requested variance and the
fo..:r pr€'.'10us lIpproved floor area 'oiarillnces.
Table 2~ Square Footage Data for PreviOUS FAR Varjancp~
-
Addre:;s exlstir.\j Ai!oweo' Tota! PrDpOsl'd Ne. FAR
Proposed ~t 0 tOlI·el(, S~ ir.g El(CeliS ,
455 Santa 5,323 5,021 5,500 177 I 479 .39
Aits
1015 2,016 2,325
hilih'
2,871 655 546 .55'
2210 St. 1,275 2,706 2,873 1,597 167 .43
Francis
590 3,679 3,514 3,991 3!Z 477 I .43 i
Center
S02 Towle 2,268 2,651 3,186 918 535 .50
• ThlS proJect conslsted cf basement constructIon In exc~ss of tne 3-foot
height &bo'le '9T'ide r~Cluirernent and made nO phys ica.1 cna/\g~ to the exterior
of the stru~ture.
45~ Santa Rita -lh1s project was a minor ~dditjQn of a IJ7-square
fo.at, first-story s.un room at the rear of a.n already iloncatr,ply~ng
home on ill 14,236-sQ.uare-foot prop~rty. The hou.<.:e exceeded the
allowable floor area and the additinn w~s a minor transparent (i .e .
. )1aS5-enc1osed) incremental increase in floor -area. As a condHlon
P:OCSR,\602TOW.PC
4-23-93
5
"'j-.,. ,'" -, .~~
,>
i',-,
,:.:~ 'r"~' ' . . ': •. , ,Yj,W' '.
, '. ,_ '" t _ ~~" ;
c_..,..,..,_· ____ ,_,· _: ___ , __ ~ _> __
--,
of approval. the zoning administrato~ rpquired the applicant to
reduce the size of the addjtiQn. T~is ~a~'ance resulted in a tota1
of 39 percent FAR.
1015 Hioh Street -This project included an 8SS-sQuare-foot a~dition
to an ei'sting IOO-square-faot basement. T~e propos~d base~ent was
incidentally calculated as floor area bAcause the existing first
floor he)ght was 39 inches ab~v~ grade ~here 36 inches is the limit
for excluding a basement fro~ the calculation of floor area. The
project totalled 2,871 square fee-t, 546 square feet over the
allowable floor area. The exceptional circumstances re1ated to the
3-inch difference between exelT'pting ar".d ass~ssing the 95S-square-fool
basement from the calculation of floor area. The project resulted in
no physical change to the exterior of the ~ouse. other than a
stairwell to access the basement.
2210 St. Francis Drive -This project i~(luded 3 1.591-square-foot,
two-story addition which exceeded the anowabl~ floor uea bj 167
square feet, or tctal FAR of 43 pe~ce~t. Tne objective of the owner
"'as to provide t\110 covered parking spaces where only one had
previously been provided. Of all the varia~ces cited by the
appellant this application most closely matches his request.
Hcwe\ler. the 167-square-foot garage space has far less impact on t~e
~ei9hbort1Qod tha!'l t~.e a,jdai~nal 535 square feet of floor area
proposed by thE'. appellant.
590 Center Street -This addition to a noncomplying residence
included the demolition of a 165-square-foot shed and the enclosure
Qf a 478-square-foot carport for a net inc~ease of 312 square feet_
The project actually reduced the amDunt of structure on the prDperty.
Additionally. thE carport, which was constructed ~nder previous
regulations, did not comply with minimum fire separation
requirements. By supplying a ene-hour rated fire wall the applicant
remedied a previously existing hazardt)us sitUation. The resLilting
FAH was 43 percent.
NOTE: The reason that information in table 2 of this report is not
consistent with that pro~1ded in tables 1 ~nd 2 of the appellant's
letter, is that th.e applicant has appre)(~mated the lot and house
sizes based on information provid~d 'n the Santa Clara County Tax
Assessors records. These records provide lot size information ..... ith
two d~mensions, width and lengtn, e~er. ..... h~n tne parcel has an
irreg~lar shape. This explains the discrepancy in the lot size.
information provided for 2210 St. Francis Ori;:e, which is an
irregularly shaped lot but is shown in the County records a.s S{) feet
by 115 feet. This ;1so applies to house size provided by the County.
Additiona11y, the coTumn listed as "FAR ratio~ in the appe11ant's
tables is actually the percentage of the existing h~use size to the
allowable floor area. In reality, FAR is the ratio of house size to
the lot size_
-L
4·23-93
6
.
I
I
!
•
-
2. Ne.i.9.bQ.QI.DnQ.9SLn,suppprt: The appellant asse.ts tr.at staff ~ndicated
that r.eighoorhaod support was the. majc'r fac tor lr\ appfO'1[1 ng ~
variance. He .;ite~ 20 letters of support as a compell irg reasO~ to
apprDve the reque~ted variance.
Variances are not decided on the basis of the nu~ber of signatures
collected in favor cf Dr against an appl~cation. While it is
valuable to hear opinions frem the surrounding property owners, those
Qpinions need to base-d i~ facts and pTE'::.entc-d as evidef,ce ad.::irEssir·g
the reQuired findings. The for~ letter circulateO by the appellant
ol'\d sigrle-d by a:djac.ent property owners does not address th-e f-aquire.d
find; ngs (1 etters attached}.
The appellant and all applicants are adwis~d by staff to contact
adjacent property owners to inform them of th~ reque~ted variance.
Staff routinely indicates that support from neighbors is i~portant
when trying to determine impacts to adjacent properti€:::, bL!t is not
the deciding factor in appro~ing a varjance.
RECOMMENDATlON
Staff recommends that U1e Planning (ommj ss;on uphold the dHi sion of ttle
Zoning Administrator and recommend that the City COt,Jncii deny the variance
based on tn-e findings listed ~e1ow.
fINDINGS
1. Tner-e are no exceptiona1 or e~traordinaTY circumstances or
condit1ons applicable to the property involved that do not
i?ply -gene:rall:l to property tr. th.e ~ame dis-tr~ct in that lj,'hi1e
the site is a corner lot subject to a 16·foot street side yard
setback, this does not sup~crt the variance request to ~xceed
the floor area ratio, which is a function of the size of the
site, not its shap~ or orientation. The sit-e's 6,339 square
feet of lot area ;s greater tnan the mini~um 5,000 square fe€t
required in thE R-l Zone, and yields 2,651 square feet of
allowable f1o~r area;
2. The-grant'\r,g of the applicatio1'1 is net necessarjl for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantia1 property right of
the ipplica.f\t~ nor is H necess,H'j to prellent t..II'Ireasof1ab1e
property 10ss or unnecessary nardship in that the applicant
co~ld construct a 2,651-square-foct house just as any a~pl;cant
who owned a 6.339-sQuare-foot parcel in the R-l zone district.
The applicant could co~struct a smaller addition to camply with
the allowable floor area by redudng the living space an He
f1
I, ,
'I I
!
.)
-
second floor. In his application htt~r, the appllcant cites
his 'nability to build a secure carport on th~ property as a
hardship, howe'fer, there is 1IInpl e fClom t."J construct -a carport
ell the sHe, and by dsfjnitiCln a carport does net provide the
SJme level of security or prj~acy as an e~~1osed garage. Since
carports do not count toward 11 site's maximum fleor area, many
homeowners haY~ opted to co~vert existing g~rage space into an
open carport, and utilize that ~pace fer li~ing area. ~
homeowner's choice to ~aintajn an enclosed garage or addjtional
covered parking spaces is not a hardship. It is a tr~deoff
that numerous homeowners fac~ between provJding more li~ing
space or a larger garag~; ~nd
3. The granting of the apoiication ~ill be detrimental and
il'ljuriolls to property or improvements in the .... icinity in thClt
the requested additional squar-e foot:lge Jr.'oL.ild a11'Jw the
a~plicant to construct a hous~ Targer and ~ith more volume a~d
mass than other prcpert'es of similar size in the R-l zone
district, and mor~ massive (i.e. more floJr area) tha~ those
existing or allowable in the ~mmedjate c~l-d@-sac.
Attachments:
location Map
Prcject Plans {Commission Members only}
Variance Decision dated 2/18/S3
Appetl Application. and letter dated 2/23/93
Letter from Applicant dated 1/16/93
Application Letters dated 11/9/91
Public (orrespondence
Excerpt Minutes of the 2/4/93 Zoning Adm; r.i strator .Heari ng
~opies Sent To:
Glenn A. Guidoux t 602 lOwle WaYt Palo ATto, CA 94306
"Anita Guidoux t 2012 Louise lane, Pa.lo Alto, CA 94024
Steve Piayer
Emily Renzel
P:\PC5P\602iOW.J'C
4,13"93
a
I
i
I, ,
I
i
I
-~---
,
f-
"_,._,. ~ _. M'"""-_. .
GRAPH1C .~TTACHMENT DATE: 4/414:' I sun: NON';:
TO STAFF REPORT FILE ND. '12.-1/-1-7
--------_ .. -.-------.-
.~
--....-: .-
,
I ~ I
~ -
-i
I
i.
,i., .
Application No. 9Z-V-27:
Cityof~aloAlto
DCV.;'';I:J.:"rlt cfP~,r. i I ;'1 Raj i.d
Co:'v)!wiity tn,,'£mj,~~71t
Variance 92-V-27 is de!'liE'd for th€ 1Jcation and construction Df Q second
stcry addition for total fleor area of 3,18S square f.eet "here 2 ,E·Sl
square feet's otherwise the maxImum permitted, as per attached plans, at
602 Towle Way, Zone District R·~, Palo Alto, CalifornIa.
FINDINGS
J. Thue are excr:-pticnal M extraordinary circwmstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved th~t do not
apply generally to property ir1 the sarte district in t~at while
the sit€ is a corner lot subject to a 16-foot stre~t side y~rd
settJack, this do.es not s'J?port t~e v:sriance request t{1 exceed
the floor irea ratio, which is a function of the size of the
site. not its shape or orientation. The sit~rs 6,339 square
feet of lot aiea is greeter Ulc.n the minimum 6,000 square feet
required in the R-l Zone, and yields 2,651 squue feet of
allo~able floor area;
2. The granting of the application is not nec;;ssary fol'" th~
preservation and enj~ym~nt of a sUDstdntiar property right of
the applicant, nor is it necessary to prevent unreasonable
property loss or un~ecessary hardship in that the applicant
cou1d construct a 2,651·s~uare-foot house just as any
appl icant who owned iI 6 ,339-sq:.:are-foot parcel ij1 the R-l zone
district. Tne applicant could construct a small~r addition to
c0mply with thE: allowable floor area bj reducing the li'lling
space on tnt' second floor_ In t1is application 1etter, the
applicant cites his inability to build a secure carport 0:1 the
property as a hardship, nowever, there is ample room: to
construct a carport on the site, and by definition a carport
does not provide the same 1 eIJel of se~:JrHy or pri \lacy as an
enclosed garage. Since carports do not count toward a site's
'11aximum floor area) many homeowners have opted to conllert
existing garage space into an open carport, and utilize that
spac~ for li'lling area. A homeowner's choice to maintain in
enclosed garage or additional covered parking spaces is not a
hardship, H is a tradeoff that numerOiJS homeowflers face
between providing more living space or a larger garage; and
3. The granting of the application will b~ detrimental and
injurlous to property or improvements in the ~icinity in that
the requested additional square footage 'Would anow the
V922i.JC
2.::;"') HarruJtmAveru.;,e
P.o. b 1029:J
PaloAlb,CA.9-t..1OO
415.32<.2441
415.319,2240Fax
2/18/93
Page I
applicant to construct a house larger and ~ith more volume and
mass than ott:~r pr{lperties of similar size in the R-l zone
district, and more massive (i.€. ~ore floor area) than those
e~i5t1ng or al1c'wable in the immediate cul-de-sac.
0~~_~l.lt.,~
HANCl-' MADDO.~ ChL-E
Zoning Administrator
f.~,uary 18, 1993
ThiS form docs ~ot constitute the variance for which application was made
1f the application is approved and jf no appeal from this decision is
filed by any person firm, or corporatien affected by th~ decision on or by
February 28, 1993, you will receive a copy of your permit in the mail , If
this application is not deCIded to your satisfaction, th~ decis;on may be
appealed to the Planning Cormlission by filing an appeal appl ication with
the Pl anni rig De9·utITlent and City C1 erk on or-b~fore tile above ment j oned
dat •.
cc: Joseph M. Co1cnna, Pl anner
Glen" A. Guidoux, 602 To.l. Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Anita L. Guidoux. 2012 louise Lane, Palo Alto, CPO 94024
C. L. Brown, 742 Me1vilTe Ave~ue, PaTo Alto, CA 94301
V9227.JC 1/18/93
Pa92 2
:f,i.)f F-, ',~,.,. " .. ,1;]'--~,jI'-.--'-i'; ,"-,'
. __ :" .. ___ .. ..~ ,,:'O"'.,..:-; •. _'._,~r,~"_
-
CITY OF PALO ~L TO
Offic~ of I.he City Clerk
APPEAL t=ROM THE DECISION OF ZON1NG ADMINISTRATOR
To be filed in dupHca!€' within ten d:=.ys from date c..f decJsion of Zoning AdiTl::'listra!or . ' ,
!
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assesso(s Pa~c-el No. 1...$2 -S"~ ,"' aJ2.. Zor.e Disl,ict R .. I
SU .. tAddress~ t;",/e tu~v &1. Alto ('../I 9t'.3()~
Name of Prc'perty Own'3f (If other than appefen!) _6i'Ut1 A. Cd,d&X
FroPf!'r'!'f Owne-r's Address -",S",",,"',-,e.~'--'=:;-_
Street City Zip
The decision 01 the Zening Admini~'trator dated hi, I? 5 ____ , i9~
v..11ereby the appljcat~cr1 of G/~n~IP~"&""x"'--7'1-~:'.A-"~"-L.,'t..." .. ~ ... a"-"p<.!, .. 'd"oz/,,,,,",,)(,,-__ for a
(crlglrtal aDpiicar.t}
_lCt;1."a""r"Il;,!a...:;:::"c",e'j',:::-==:;-__ was __ J:="'="'='='=,'"""J""';::=,,--______ . is her~by appealed to! the
(variance/use permit) (<lpproved/d.:~ied)
mas.Jr'tS ~tsd in the attached i€tter On duplicate;. ~("
~, .• 1
Dot. r~b :2..3.f-i1J.3 Sig,.ature 01 Appellant / vCiP>
/
PLAN~~ING OOMt~!SS\ON RF.CO+'~ENDATION TO THE O.TY COIJNC1L;-
Date
A-emarks and/or Concfrth)ns:
OTY COUNCI L DEClSl ON,
Date ________ _
Remarks and/or ConditJons:
SUBMIITAJ. REQUIREMENTS SATISFlm,
Plans [:;'j ').an"
Labels
Appeal Appllcalion Forms
Let1er
F ..
•
Approved ____ Denied ___ _
Approved ____ Denied ___ _
12/89
:. ::::. <;~,*~-~--
-
City of Palo Alto
Office of the City Council
and ;>Ianning Commission
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo ,1Jto, CA 94301
Glenn A. Guidoux
Julia K. Guidoux
Residents, 602 Towle Way
Feb. 24. 1993 AECEIYSD
FEB 26 1393
APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, REGARDING
APPLICATION NO. 92-V-27; 602 TOWLE WAY.
BASIS FOR APPEAL:
I have not been given the same consideration nor have I been judged
by the same criterion that have been used to judge and support the
granting of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) exceptions to other Palo Alto
residents.
1) The Zoning Administrator has found that for me to convert my
garage into an open carport, which will be fully exposed to the
strellt and to my neighbors in the cul-de-soc, is not a hardship.
For the following four residents the Zoning Administrator
found that allowing the construction and or mai~,tenance of
enclosed garages was necessary to avoid unnecessarf hardship
and prope rty loss:
12/3/90 455 Santa Rita Appfication No. 90-V-33
FAR exception of 479 sq. ft granted to allow the construction
of a sun room without converting the garage into a carport.
5/14/91 1015 High Street Appfication No. 91-V-2
FAR exception of 546 sq. ft. granted to allow the expansion of
an existing garage.
Also, granted was a lot coverage exception of 43% where 35%
is otherwise the maximum allowed.
Attachments:
Tabfe 1 5.li.,t. Franas [X. Dab
Tabae 2: Towle Way &: PL Oata
Map of T!7tfwlle Indicating Suppcrtive Neighbors
Appencb 1 SurTmary of FAR V.riance Findings -7-:""'----' .. " .. ·· .. '· .. ,,--.........-· .. ,----"'". ; '.·L'· .. ~~~~~
Page 1 of 5
i
I
I .1
-
· '-••. :
. '
.-~ -"
3/3/92 2210 Saint Frands App!icatio~ No. 92-\1-24
FAR exception of 167 sq. ft. to allow construction of a two car
enclosed garage where an open carport would othenwise ha'.'e
to b€ constructed. (Please see T,ble 1 attached)
(There is » difference betw~en the lot size reported on th;s appiicaticn and the
Santa Clara Count)' T~)i records. If the tax records indir.<l:t! the correct rot $lze
then th-is FAR exc2ption wouk:l be 398 S:::j. ft.)
5/12/92 590 Center Drive Application No, 92-V-5
FAR exception of 477 sq. ft. to allow the conversion of a
detached carport into an enclosed tWD car garage.
2) The Zoning Administrator finds that the increased volume and
mass would be detrimental and injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity., ..
Volume and mass have not been a attribute or item of
cDnsideration appr.ed to previous FAR findings, example:
3/3/92 2210 Saint Francis
The FAR exception granted allowed the construction of a house
with attached enclosed garage which total 2,873 sq. ft.
Data taken from Santa Clara County Tax records indicates that
the average size of 34 neighboring residences in the 2100 and
2200 blDcks of St. Francis Drive is 1510 sq. ft. where 1510
includes both home and garage footage. Please revjew and
compare the data in the attached Tables 1 and 2 fDr
comparison of St. Francis Or. data and Towle Way & Place data .
Therefore the granting of the above FAR exception has ailowed
the construction of a residence having voiume and mass which
js 1,363 sq. ft. larger then surrounding residences, this being
nearly twice the volume and mass Df neighboring residences.
(Of the 57 residences located along the 2100, 2200 and 2300
blocks of Saint Francis Drive only one is a two story home,
that being 2210 which is currently und~r construction.)
Attachments:
TaNe 1 .5.oIint Fran as Dr. Dat~
Tabfe 2 TIJ¥otie Way &, PL Oat;
.tr.1.ap of TO¥Ae IhdiCiiting Supporti~ Neighbors
,lppendx 1 SunYnary of FA.R V,niance Findings
Page 2 of 5
t1 .!
~. '
f .-
<
r.
-
3) The Zoning o\dministrator finds that the shape and ori<ntaticn
of my lot are not valid criterion for con,;ideration of F"R
exception.
In previously granted FAR exceptions the Zoning Administrator
has referred to lot shape in support of the argument to allow
the exceptior!s. Examples include:
.Excerpted from the Zoning Administrators approval letter for
Aw"caticn No. 92-V-5: 590 CENTER DRIVE, 4/30/92.
"There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved .... jn rOat the
site is a pie shaped com:r (at ....
-Excerpted from the Zoning Administrators approval letter for
Appfication No. 91-V-24: 2210 ST. Francis Drive, 2/12/92:
"There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved ..... ln that the
proaerty has an unusual trianDular s,~2pe, ......
-Excerpted from the Zoning Administrators approval letter for
Application No. 91-V-7: 929 MORAGA COURT, 6/20/31:
"There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved .... )" that the
proPerty is an irregularly shaDed cpmer 1qt ......
I have, on file, copies of documents to support the above data.
Should you have any questions please call me at either (408)
.' 748-6368 (9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) or (415) 493-4255 evenings
and weekends. --------. ------------
KUBOTA PACiFiC
c (; .. ~" , E ~ I...-C
CleM G!.I'do,"J:
Q\,.;IlJt\I I~ir ... ~e'
1610W.I~~, ",'tf1~
£,nl..l C\.Ir.I, c,.. 9jO.l'.o9\:,S
.:~ :,~e630a·;;,,-' 4.;8 ~'1) J'~7
A ttac.'UTlent5: Page 3 of 5
Table 1 Saint Francis Or. Oau
Tab6e 2 Towie W~1j &I PL Oata
Map af Tovde Indicating S4.1ppc:rtive NefghbO"S
.4ppenr:fx 1 Sumr.ary of FAR Vari.a.nce Findings
tw';
" .~~~.~
4) One of the criteria that was communic:lted to both myself ,nd
designer Dill"n Kyle (1091 Emerson St. 328,7503) ~y Nancy
Lytle and by Joseph Colonna is neighborhood support for the
proposed addition.
Dilion and I were both told on several occasions that support
from neighbors would be a (or the) miljor factor utilized in
determination of this variance request. The Zoning
"'.dministr.tor failed to follow through on this commitment
and did not utilize this criteria in making the final decision.
-LETTERS Of SUPPORT FROM NEIGHBORS: On fHe in the
Zoning Administrators office are 20 letters from surrounding
neighbors who support my variance request, these include:
(Please see the street map attached)
&ME;
1. K. & M. Rao
2. C. ChomP'JllO"9
3. R. &I T. Glanville
4. T. & T. KanauVto'i
5. lot & A Fang
6. j. & L Sparaco
7. 8. & It Deal
8. E. & J. Sprague
9. M. & lot Fisher
lO. J. & J. Mine\(
11. M. & J. Nassi
I 2. W. & D. Kightc ..... r
13. W., E. & R. FOixon
:4. c. & J. Carr
15. J. Sponi0Z2i
, 6. R. & N. Feardon
17. R. & M. Miner
1 8. R. Desposito
19. D.Yen
20. C. Mdntosh
AnDRess·
605 Towle Way
607 Towle Way
609 Towle Way
6 11 Towle Way
613 ToMe Way
637 Towle W<rJ
638 Towle Place
640 TOV¥1e Place
641 T oVt.-fe Way
642 Towle Piace
602 Wensbury Court
612 Wensbury Court
6' 0 Wensbu~ Court
606 Wensbury Court
615 WensbU'1')' Way
608 Wellsb'Jry Court
6! 7 We~5bury Way
607 Wensbury Way
616 Wensbcry Way
2955 Cowper St.
My understanding of me intent of the FAR guideline is to a ..... oid disgruntled
neighbors. Yet the Zoning AdministrGltor indicates that j should replace my
e)(isting garage with a carport. This would be the only car port in existence or:
Towle Way, Towle Court, Wel1sbury Way and Wellsbury Court, it w{Juld be
dearly visible from the street and is certaln to draw much negative ~omment
from my neighbors. As well, it would reduce the value, security and privacy of
my residence.
A :tachments:
Tabie 1 Soamt Francis Dr. Data
Tabie 2 TCJIIde Wa'i " po .... ~u
MIp or TOYde h(katillg Supportiw Neighbcrs
Appenc:b 1 Summary of rAR Variance Findmgs
Page 4 of 5
-.
--,',;
____ ... A .... ,. .. _~ ",.
P~ase review Appendix 1, attached, which
summarizes ten variance requests, eight of which
were JPproved.
I REQUEST THAT EACH PLANNING CO~MISSION MEMBER AND
COUNCIL MEMBER MAKE IT A PRIORITY TO DRr/E flY 2210 SAINT
FRANCIS DRIVE AND REVieW THE CHARACTER, DESIGN AND SIZE
OF THIS RESiDENCE IN RELATION TO SURROUNDiNG ADDRESSES.
(From Middlefieid Rd take Embarcadero Rd. toward Hwy. 101,
the last signal light prior to Hwy. 101 is St. Francis, turn right
onto St. Francis, 2210 is the third house on tfle right .... yctl, can't
miss it!)
I FUR.THER REQUEST THAT EACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER
AND COUNCIL MEMBER, PRIOR TO PASSING JUDGMENT ON MY
REQUEST, DRIVE DOWN TOWLE WAY AND REVIEW THE TOWLE
STREET APARTMENTS AT THE HEAD OF THE STREET, REVIEW ALL
OF', HE HOMES ALONG TOWLE WAY AND TOWLE PLACE AND THEN
RE".2/'I THE DRAWINGS OF MY PlANNED ADDITION.
(Towle Way is located directly across Middlefield Rd. from the
ARCO gas station which is located next to the Winter Lodge.)
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely, ~fr~
A~.achments:
T~ 1 Saint Francis Dr. Data
Tobie Z TcwM w.y & PL o.h
Map of TO<iMe In<ic-.. ting Supportiw Neighbcrs
Append)( , SJl"7TnOiry of F.l..~ VINnell!: Findings
Glenn A. Guidou.
Julia K. Gu idoux
Residents
Page 5 of 5
.'
1
I
I
i
I
___ ~~ __ ~~_~_~~~~ ___ --"'W
.... -.'
"" ",. ,:'" . ~r " ,. -~-,~~ ,;:o.,!-,' FT. F"~
I
:l. ~
1-
~
~ ~ f
,~ • U. 22 " 00,. >3' m "" "" I~
i'I
" "" ,-"'. "" ." " .. "" ;~ ,2<. " ,.,. "" ,., "" 3m
'''' " '" ,. "'0
l'J
'" ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~
i~ "'70
~ :ffi ti
~ ..
'."
~~ 6698 1232· 277 1510 275.
ID 2210 I 5750· 2473 400 2&73 2475
..... OTE, SlIm.. CI .. ,... County Tn Recor~ tndlcal •• 10: .ru of SO X 115.: S7SO --=I.
the. lot slu. 1nd'loca't4td, Q!\ the ..... rle.n.c. r .. .qu • .t I. 6,522 &cq, ft.
TH.E AL!.t'lW,UII C FAFI FOR It 5750 SO. n. L.OT IS 2415 SQ. FT.' NOT2.7~ SQ. FT.
AS I IN Tl<E FlNOINGS DATED !2121m.
TP.BL£
VA TA FtJR ST. FRfW[!S D!?/V£.
-
.. ~ "\:
F,';:;, ""'" ,
,
'" "
,-" ,
'" " '" '-' , ,
,
~ ,
H' ~ ,
0.55 1.0
1.15 2.0
l~
7 ,
L
t .\ r'\
l
i~
$
L
AD!lREsS <l'IotlaI
TONLE.WAY AND TOM e PlACE, HQMESOA1ASUMMAR'I'
YEAR ALLOWABLE TOTAL
lUlU lOTSllE FAA SQUARE FT.
~
FAR
".\flO
I' 'JS£ QAAAuE
flOI'W'3. '!ITOfIll' SQ, PT. 50.I'T.
I ~80~-------YL& P Wtmbedv _'11J_-_~ __ ~ill.... __ -ill~ --O~g-J • "-3-2-~Ji~----5~.ft~
,;l 606 H & M ~o '18 7040 2!U12 zen ,~ ~ ~:3 :;1 .. :tIl8 508
3 601 C.Ch.~eu~!'Il '78 leflS .~_3Jl!..-__ 28rL_, __ Q-,-~2~ '~'~_~'._~_:U.~~~_~O~=
1/ 60'1 T, G,-"Iif" '6c 606Q 25611 2272 0.88 e,3,Z I '682 H9 __ > ~p--_T, t(a!l.!lzflw. '8( 774,9 3072 2002 0.88__ ", •• J '2: ;;>;11.0 4~1~,
(. 6''3 ~,"';'. FC?nR '71! 7.490 2997 2875 ~~_9~~ __ ?~_O~ __ 50-.!l __
1 637 J.6l.Sparaco '84 6220 3218 J!i~6 1,011 9,53:1-2U19 537
1 r-:-6J9 {f:'lL-__ Q.~B~Q~--,,~_~~ ____ ?J;~O 3018 3~ij4 __ ~--' L9~ __ to:ed~._~ __ ~!I!li:::=-~fidn_
, ~~ & J. Spr~u.·64 &300 2640 3417 . 1.29._c---l0""'~3 ~..? __ 2.!L...s-,~_
JO 641 MAM.FIa..:hl1lr '8~ 0768 ,300 !'.14M ~_t-_~l~~ __ 2 __ 1li'--__ 5111 __
II _64UJ'~) __ J .!"I .. l!l',"_k __ '6B __ ._1I_3_0<!~_26~.26.611_~.-',-3_6 _ :---9,5,3 __ 2 ___ .3~1._..s2 5_
IL. .....!~iJ!'l} F'~.AUlrlM\ '65 HOQ., 3030 3811 1.26 !J.e,~ 2 JH5 G_!.I.!'~
I J 64~(Pl) D, SlI'lfl. :~_6 __ 7200 U1<, ____ 3630 -~t-~~t_-1<!2.} :2 2s:tL __ ~~_
l'f 648 (PS!_~M_I J. Wa.alOh __ :!!_~!_~OO 303(, ___ 3§}_' __ r+~~ ___ ~2....-~:;!_. ~ __ ?99~~ __ 5~.~ __
I; 65UPLL-"-"_"'~Htn.I~_r _'!II~ 630tl ___ .2114_0_~1_4 ___ .hJ7_ __9, 5~! ___ 2 __ "_01'6~S3 8_
II. 656 (PL) M. c.~...'!~.~~ __ 2_~~~4J~_ 1.2~_r--'-~21lcL.2_~2_8!2 __ 5~S~
17 680 P. & G. Ho", '84 6.~!..._264~_~3400 __ ~.29 1 0,6,3 _2 __ 2.o.Il8~_"'O_2._.
It 66' ,.,. ,,!,y~~~_ .. ___ ~g;68_~ __ !!~(l __ ~ __ 2~_4~ ___ ~!!.f! ____ D"!1-:J_._L_.~_;>_42~. ___ -"711
It __ .~_' __ .U.R.lJ.ht;"ng 't!4 ",gee jSJ6 33q.. r--Q:.:..~.L 1~S2-2: ;>7Uf! ~.I~
/l0
324U &4:1 +1':',,-.--• ~~--~~------''-AVEflAGES: ..... 1 J fJ ( , 2702 2'815
'02 A, Gu{doux '14 "uo~--2rn--n,,---rO:-eLt-,l.iJ·-~'---~-f T-;;------5-~-.-
6340 ,.,' 3200 r-,.2,-r-9,5,3 2 2634 559 -602-aaPllJPOSED**' UI' 91
AYf;RAGElOTSIIE: 1381
AVERAQE: HOOSE SUE (All HOMES):
A.VE-f\I\GE HOUSE SI1]; la" 602 To""e:
AVERAGE (II' ALL lWO STORY HOUSES:
AVE. 81Z£ 01' HOMEs ATI ,~o. au, tto, UI, .. 11110\
Prt:!pOu addItion 01 «c~ 1\00" (tID addition" 10\Jlldallon .re.),
3240
3.2.(0
If!U
Ut!.1
Addilioo to loolu:fe; MtuBA,.palh, 2 BA'e, baIt], ,fllirwaV and landing at ... lQr ~QQO &q (fist
Curt.hl F'-A FOOTAGE. :l21:1 • too -310" (lollli fAR fool'liIe'
U(J2
2102
21~8
543
501;1
!.41
,
\1
..
;~ TABLE Z. ~ !lATA FfJR. TaWLE WilY fTJIULf. PLACE
,---_ ... _._----.. -.--.... _----._,.,.,...--_ .. ---_ ..
. . ~ ... 7''''.:\ .. : • • • J_ .""
,,\;~ ~. :>. ,:~ ..
" r, ;,.'."
'~ -.:;.,.',
,
"
j
-l ..
'.' ..... ' , ;.,;.,,;J
~~. ------.-
1
.,
~.
, .
,,' .J
~
-
)
!
(
, I , --i i -, -I / <
1
i '" I
-r_! I
~ ... ..
\
:;;....=---
~
~
'"
~ -------.,--
! • I
I
I ~ I:;
I
1 , , r • r ! ,
· 1-
! ,
~.
) • I ;l ~ I ~~ ~ ~J!
~ ,
L-
~ I
~~
:0: I
~ I
\ Il-. l'-.. t;., a ~ -... 1-.~ 1'\ ;i<. ;" ~ \ ~
-"l!!_"~:""ij" """' <
'1" ~
~ ~ -" " , . -s • ~ .;~ •
~
~~( ;;;
--'I " ~.~
~"~'t. '< '~J
= Q
-!t ;' .. .;:;g
S'" :-0 l .~ .",
!
~\<,) S;~
~ <:::l
<:t:: ~~
I--"'<J ~~ ~ <:.(t 9: ~ " ~ .".,~ ~
c:<: "-I ..... ~<><:
"-I ~ cc ~ ~~
.:::. -I-: ~ q \... Cll<j <: "t-.l.
I.l.J
~ ~~ ::::r <'I~ '-J a ~
Q
~ ~~
~ >-...,
,:t: ...
::i!iE is: • <:J ..... ~ 4..~"-l
<:) i:i: Q .~ 'Xl
::c -.I ::t;
~ ~ ~ ~ Li:j "","'t --<:: t>c::'" ~ ;::J c....Q <:l Q...c:.c -.:
r{ <'<.J s!
.... : ,
-.' ''',
;
VARIANCE REQUESTS SUMMAR'!:
BELOW LISTED ARE TEN PREVIOUS FAR VARLA.NCE REQUESTS
EIGHT OF WHICH WERE APPROVED.
The following list of FAR .elated variance requests was extracted,
on Feb. 23, 1993, from the variance request 109 book iocated in the
offi<:e of the Palo Alto Planning Department. I attempted to extract
every variance request which indicated a Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
component. To the best of my knowledge, this list contains all
variance requests, (since the Oct '89 decision) deanng with FAR.
1) Application No, 90-V-23, 355 N. California Ave,
Date request was filed: 7/17/90.
Pemnit issued on 10/3/90.
Approved FAR variance of 239 sq. feet" on 9/20/90.
Offi<:e technicians Michael Bills and David Fisch, couid not
iocate this file. They reported that it might be out for
conversion to CD-ROM.
2) Application No, 9O-V-l7 &. 2B, 422 palo Altp Ave,
Date request was filed: 7/31/90.
Denied request for FAR and Oaynght Plane variance, Sept '90.
This was an attempt to relocate a :arge Victorian house to
either of two lots, both of which r~quired variances.
3) Application No. 91-V-2S, 924 Morgan.
Date request was filed: 7123/90.
This was a request for multiple variances on a proposed design
to be constructed on a vacant lot.
The following exceptions were requested:
• 400 sq. foot FAR
• Rear yard Daylight Plane.
• Setback
• Side yard Daylight Plane.
Letters from neighbors on file include: 7 opposed, 2 supporting.
Denied on 5/2191.
Page 1 of 3
~.·,.i"'.;","tE"."'·. '''.-'''''''' ,-' ._,. .... , •. .,' ~*,""
-'
"
-
4) Application No, 9O-V-33, 455 Santa Bita,
Date request was filed: 10/2/90.
Approved FAR variance, on 11116/90.
Permit issued on 12/3190.
FAR exception of 479 sq. ft. granted to allow the
constructior. at a sun room without converting the
garage into a carpert.
5) Application No. 91-V-35, 1 5SS Madrona.
Date request was filed: 12/17/90,
Approved a 5 I % FAR variance, on 2/1/91.
Permit Issued on 2112/91.
FAR exception of 355 sq. ft. granted to allow construction of
an addition to an existing two-story residence.
6) Application No.9, -V-2, ,015 High Street,
Date request was filed: 1/28/91.
Permit issued on 5/14/91.
FAR exception of 546 sq. ft. to allow expansion of an
existing garage, and lot coverage exception to anow
43% coverage where 35% is otherwise the maximum
permitted.
7) Application No. 9'-V-7, 929 Moraga ".QuTt.
,.
Date request was filed: 3/22/91.
Requested by: John brooks boyd, robert r jenks associates
Approved FAR variance of 100 sq. feet, on 6120191.
Pemnit issued on 7/2/91.
FAR exception of 100 sq. ft. to allow the enclosure of a rear
yard patio.
Page 2 of 3
8) Appfication No, 91-V-19, 3412 Ross Road
Date request was filed: 8/T 6/91,
Approved FAR variance for a swimming facility,
Thls ls the YMCA facility.
9) Application No, 92-V-24, 2210 Saint Francis,
Date request was made: 12/20/91,
Permit issued on 3/3/92,
Approved FAR variarlce of 167 sq. feet to allow
construction of a two car enclosed garage where an
open carport would otherwise have to be constructed.
(If Santa Clara County Tax records are conect then the lot siz-e at 2210 St..
Francis is 5750 sq. ft., .. .,d not e:S22 sq. ft. as r~orded on the appGcation. In
which case this exception would be 338 sq. ft.)
10) AppHcation No, 9Z-V-S, 59Q Center Drjve
Date request was made: 3/6/92,
Variance approved on 5/12/92,
Approved FAR variance of 477 sq_ feet to allow
conversion of a detached carport into an enclosed two
car garage_
Page 3 of 3
~
. I
i
I
I , ",
/
'I
Feb,.>ry 16.1993
MI'. Jo~ph M. C{)lnnn;l Pll:I,lI:lng O!'il\.~i<.J.l
Departmt,:lil (l( Pl:3.nning ;mc: CC,mrnU!1lty EilVir\.ll1mtnt
City of Paio Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
?al () Aha, C A 9430 1
RE: The Ouidoux Re.s-idr.nce
602 Towle Way
Palo Alto. CA
Dear Mr. Colonna,
My v.ifc and 1 wouM appre.ciatt it if YO\J and Nancy Lytle W(lu'ia Cons.ider apprQ\'al ,"If our
variance n3q1.lr:st contingent On Lhe eliml:J3.tion of th! second' floor landing are.a from our
plans. Th.is eH."l1inatirm r)f lhe upstairs floor area cO!·L~id=.red to he 110n·e!;SenuaJ would
remoy~ :.pprorimattly ]50 squ~re f~1. from our proposed addition.
We are awnre of the. fOlCllbat our t,".xisting home alla garage do conts.in tWQ hundred, OJ'
more. square feet Q! nO[1-essenlial footage, however, it is n(l(finan~iai1y feasible h)
eliminate these areas considered 10 Pe exce,s~ive. Funh':I1tlOre. prior to the public hea:iI'lg
on F~bruary 4t.i., it was OllT ul1der~l.d.Tlding that oar v<lrianc~ requesL would be judged
solely on the gnJuno.s ror a \'ariance ~s out..lined in the "Palo Alto Zoning Guidebook For
the R·I Property OwncT, and Builder", revise.d April of 199[1, and thtl! a de:sign r~vie\.l,' of
the existinl hom~ and proposed additiDn would mH he i(lctud~d in lh't crit.e:ia f(ll" decisiilO
of (hi$. variance request
Sillwe!Y'M~
Glenn A Gui.dc)ux
Ju.lia K. GuidllU.l.
cc: Nancy M. LYI\e
Palo ArlO Pi.:1l1..oing Offl(,;i~.il
D,ll on A. K yl,
De5i~ner
'1.~'--"
',-"
-
December 9, 1992
Mr. Joseph M. Colon.l14t F1;:mOling Of':'jcia~
Department ':)f PJani':"ing and Cor;;m:.mity ErwirCl:1mem
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Paro Alto, CA 9430 I
RE: The Guidou,( Resjderlce
602 Towle Way
Polio Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Co!..,nr:a,
The reasons for this VariiJ{1ce Request are as follows:
,r,
1. This 15 an e:dsting one-story horne O~ a 6,340 'Squz.re foot irregular shaped lo!
with a width at the rear prop£:rty line of 50 ~eet .,.,here 60 feet is the min;mui11
required width. In addition, this lot is loc<:lted on the bulb of a cur.-de-sac and ts a
comer lot, creating iH\ ext::eptionally large street frcmt3ge property line (160 '),
in R-l zone, Due to the rot situ at jon, the house was buirt on this lot wit~
maximum setba cks. The hoose is in iii nei ghborhood of r<.>rge two--stOJ)' ho me s with
boo and three car garages. (The alferage of oth~r homes along Tow~e Way and
Towle Place is 3,240 square f~t in size.)
2. The granting of this variance would allow the O'.\'Tlers to build a ptarmed second
floor addition and maintain the present enclosed, attached garage under the same
roof thllt would othel'VVise h.'i·~e to be converted to a two car carport. :)ue to the
exceptiooany large street frontage property line ;and the constriction of the ~te
CIt the r<ear property fine, it is not possibre to loc-ate ill carport in an area not
Yi51bl~ from the street. An Open carport would therefore be more unsightly and
tess serure then a carport at the rear of a less irregular lot. Tne pr2servatioi1 of
the enclosed garage space will provide the owners added enjoyment of !herr home,
and create a more comfortable nving sItuation.
3. Maintaining the garage wiil cause 2n FAR of 550 square feet o .... er th~ ailo ..... -ab!e
FAR for thi.=; property. Tne enclosed two car garage will be much mare ~ttractlve
in the neighborhood than .. carport. Al'io"Ying the enclosed garage on this property
wl1i create a total footage of 3200 square feet which is l1early equivalent to the
average size of neIghboring homes, and will not be detrimental to the pubfic
health, safety, general welfare or convenience. Furthermore, considerabre effort
has been taken in the design of the addition to be well 'wV'ith~., all setbacks and to
remain in keeping with the character of the existing homes.
Your approval of this application will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Dillon Kyle
Designer
1091 Emerson Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
G;enn Guido1JX
Julia Guidoux
Owners
I /~&;.:, ' ~,~i~~i' .
;;~l!~',i:; r' j
r ,
TOWLE WAY AND 10l'4.E PLACE, HOMES DATA SUMMARY
VEAR ·----r01AT SO. FOOTAGE
AOORfSS OWNER BUILT LOT SIZE SQUARE fT, LOT SIZE ROOOIS SlORV
~.~ 60":'=--W'&:::P-Wimborly--:: '7~,j=-:J630'==-ziiLs, :=~=-ri~3:f:~':= 9~4~' -..
605 . H & M Reo '76. 7040 2875 . 0,41 . 9,4,3
.=~~ f=-==C~9h~~,:,p~~-=~~~(~=~1~(J-8~===~~~tt-~=-_=~~),_~~_-~-,._-, 9.4,3 ~--
G09 Y. Glanville '64 6060 2272 0,37 6.3,2
6i-1~~~-T:-KQnlJu\wa---'6·f----i140--i69Z' --------·0-:35---·---B, .. -j
-=~ 61 f::::":_M,& A_Fang= __ ?" =-=_7490::=-=261.5====036 :=._ 9,4,3, __
_____ ~3? ______ ~_& L, .§para~ ___ '--64 _____ (Ig?O _______ ~_~ __ ~_6_~_ . __ 9:43 ________ 9.?,3 _____ .
636 jPl) , __ 8&R, 00", ____ '64_ 7560 ___ :1564 __ . __ .00'7 .,10,.,3,.
640 (PL) E & J, Sprague '64 6300 3417 0,54 10,6,3
-6"" '-M &-M~ Flsc"",--"64 --··8768--:145!1-----'o~39-'-·"o,6~:i .-
642 (PLf--JB,'J.Mlnck~·il6 6:1()ci---35i6---'·o~ii7 ---9,5,2
644jPLL'_::::'F)TAzarlah":::---'05_=, 7600-=_36"_ ===::-:: . .0,50 _____ .• ,_, ,6,',
. 646. (PL)__ .0, Slon,,-_. __ '65 __ ,7200. ____ 3530.. __ , ._ 0c49 __ .' 0,5,3 "
646.(Pl) ____ M &J,W.II.ch_ .. .'65 .. __ 1600, __ . __ 351.9_ .. __ .0,46._ .. __ . 9,.',2
650 (PL) S & A. Hmelar '66 6300 3614 O.~7 9,5,2
656(P[j~~-t.(Car.on~__.:--·64 6 300 -·-:l41C=...-())4-~~_=-1 0 ,6 ,3
660 P. & G. Hom '64 6300 3400 0,54 10,6,3
. __ 6~ (~=-= _~,joUI'WJ~_-~~---'6_4_~-=--=--856'L-==,?·9-~fL~=~_~ 0)4 8,4,3
__ ~~5 ______ J. ~_B=___Ue~~1~9 __ '6.4 .. _____ 928~ __ ~~_3q! _______ .0, 36 t _o,5,2 __
. -------AVERIIGES:-· 7387 3240 0.45
602 A. GlIldou.~-~--~-64
·602·--~ ··,)It()J'()SEu"''' ..... 6Ji'93
6340 -.. ---2'2'9-3--'-'-"0':36 6,3,2
6J~O '3200-0,50 9,5,3
Nov 28, '992
2
2 ,
2
2
2
2
~
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
,
2
HOUSE
SO,H,
2388
2Ja8
2386
J682
2210
~~8B
2979
289B
2862
2931
3061
3145
2932
2994
3076
2682
2890
2420
.:!790
',r/02
11;14
263-4
GARAGE
SO_ FT.
50a
508
508
5!JQ
482
_ 50Q
~3r
(;t!6
535
528
525
666
!..98
525
538
535
502
5)5 ,,.
543
55'
SS9
r;----1 . , , , .
, ' .... • I t" '~;-:-::-je;--·f--~~:!'*)' ,,:' ",:
. -. , . , '
-~.----------------------------------:---""""""'---'-'.
-"
.--
•
_ ... ~",",,,~,!I'it,,,-
602 TOWtE WAY -SUAROUNDJnG HOMES DATA SW WJ.i Y
YEAR TCTAl. SO. FOOTAGE
~RESS S1REE'T: BUtLi LOT s(Ze 'S.QIJAAE f"'L lOT Sl!E POOMS
.02 Towle Way '6' 6340 2293 J 3. 5,J.2
~S02" ·p'C~O$.tj .. '64/'93 6340 ~200 0.50 ~
604 To'WIa Way '78 7S30 2875 0.37 9.4,3
605 TowJe Wi:!.y '78 704:) 2875 Q.4T S,4,~
607 Towle Way '78 1888 2S-75 0.36 9,4,3
5Q9 TOIMe Way '54 6Q50 2272 0,37 6.3,2
611 ToMe Way '64 7740 2692 0.35 8,4,3
"3 Towle Way '78 7490 2875 0.39 ;,04,3
637 ToVo/iElWalj '64 8220 :3516 C.43 9,5,3
638 To\llJie Pla.ce '.4 75£0 35S'" OA7 '0,6,3
640 Towk. Pfacil '64 6::300 3417 0.54 10,6,3
541 Tawte Ptace '6. 8768 3459 0,39 to,S.3
642 TO'M& Place '60 5300 35B6 0.57 9,5,2
6.' Towle Plllce '65 7500 38'1 0.50 11,6,4
.46 Towle P1aee '55 7200 3530 0.49 , 0.5,3
B.B Towle Ploce '65 7600 gS19 0.45 9,5,2
650 TovM Place '66 6300 3614 0.57 9,5,2
656 ToYAa Place '64 6300 3417 0,54 10,6,3
660 Towfe Way 'S4 6300 3400 0.54-10,6,3
&6' Tow4s Way 'S4 8SSa 2946 0.34 8,4,3
665 Towle Way '&4 92S9 3304 0.36 10,5.2
60' Welisbury Way '56 7900 2293 0.29 $,4.2
602 Wansbury Q, '58/'91 6797 3343 0,49 ?
60' WellsbIJ ') Ct, '57 7040 2260 0.32 6,4,2
606 Wensburl Q. '59 86$8 2347 0.27 5,4.2
....... . AVCRAGES ...... 7337 3122 0.43 ."' ....
Nov. 28, ~992
---, ~,---, ,'.' ~,,-~ "~.~~4!i ~ 11-
/ ,
"
----
---------
• a ,
• i
j : . ' -.
7 " , ,
I '
, \ \ \ ,
I
I
\
"
/.
I r
---
\ \ '
, \
\
1
i
i
i
---~ .--"_C"
---
,-
!
I ---
-
Mr. Joseph M. Colonna Planning Official
Glenn A. Guidoux
602 Towle Way
Palo Alto, CA S4306
December 9, 1992
C(?-V'-)-1-
~--.-::~.;-~-... "'::"r-,:",
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
lJ~;; 1 0 1992 250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mr. Colonna,
j • ~ r ,
In support of my application for a FAR variance, I would like to offer
the fo~owing information for consideration.
The land at 602 Towle Way has belonged to the Guidoux family since
May of 1 921 when two acres, of the then existing, Clark's Ranch was
purchased by my Grandfather, Ulysses Guidoux. This two acre parcel
bordered along Cowper Street and the Matadero Cannel. This was the
"Guidoux Homestead" as my Parents, Uncles and Aunts refer to it. My
Grandfather passed away in 1932 leaving the homestead to my
Grandmother Mary who in turn left it to my Father when she passed
away in 1959.
In 1963, my Parents began the develcpment of the land, water, gas
and sewer pipes, the street, sidewalks, street lamps were installed.
My Parents hired a designer who created the plans for the homes at
602, 609 and 611 Towle Way. They contracted with Mr. Garnet
Gibson, a general contractor who managed the building of these three
homes. My parents sold two of the homes, 609 and 611 and moved our
fam;ly into 602. In 1975 my Father passed away leaving 602 Towle
to my Mother who is now transferring its ownership to me.
In May of 1 980, I moved bacK to this home bringing my family of five
with me, My family has since grown to a total of eight. A family of
eight in a three bedroom house is not a good match, as you might
imagine. For many yea,s, I have wanted to make an addition to our
home and finally I am in a situation were I can afford to do so.
Poge 1 of 2
." ,
., ..
-,
Fliture Plans:
My plans include the addition of a second flGor, consisting of three
bedrooms, two baths and a landing area at the top of the stairs, This
addition require~ approximately 900 square feet to create rooms of
acceptable size and in keeping with the existing home design. I
further plan to ha"e the yard professionally landscaped, keeping
water conservation and neighborhood aesthetics in mind,
I have no intention of seiling 602 Towle, quite the opposite is true. I
plan to continue raising my children here, they have been attending
Palo Alto schools since 1 982 and my wife and' intend for them to
continue to do so. Someday one of my children will own 602 Towle
and , hope that it will remain standing for my grandchildren and
great-grandchildren, it has become part of our fam~y heritage.
I believe that this addition will in no way be detrimental to the
neighborhood, I feel that the opposite is true, that it is in keeping
with the size and design of homes alo;;g Towle and that it will add
to the aesthetics and value of neighboring properties. Considerable
effort has been expended in the design of the addition to stay well
within ail setbacks and to remain in keeping with the character of
the existirog homes.
For your reference I am enclosing more detailed information
regarding this proposed addition and a summary of data for other
homes along Towle Way, Towle Place and several neighboring homes
on Weiisbury Court and Wellsbury Way. As you can see by the data, an
addition of 900 square feet to 602 Towle will bring its total size to
3200 square feet which remains Slightly below the 3240 square foot
average size of all other homes on Towle Way and Towle Place,
Enclosures: Towle Street Data sheet
Towle and Wellsbury (neighbors) Data sheet.
Lot map of Towle and part of Wens bury.
Photo's of Homes and Apartments on Towle.
Plot map for 602 Towle Way.
Elevations showing proposed 2nd floor adDition.
Drawings of floor plans.
Page 2 of 2
.'
December 8. 1992
Mr. Joseph 1~. Colonna Planning Official
Department of Planning and Community E' '-.. City of Paro Alto ,~ nVlfonmt?nt
250 Hamilton Avenue'
Palo Alto. CA 94301
RE: The Guidoux Residence
602 Towle Way
Pale Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Colonna ,
:; , ~ '. r:~-_.
,-." r '" ~: ;., l. ", ,]
I have reviewed information adenion to 602 Towle Way. regarding the proposed second floor
I feel that this ad ... .. . <lltlon IS In keeping with
other homes ., ~e neigh borhood.
the size and character of
I believe the Palo Alto Plannin D variance to allow the I d 9 apartment should approve this
feet. p anne second floor addition of 900 sq~are
,
[ ,
_;;;....~~=· ... c._ .. _ •.. _ ....... _
.'
-
December 8, 1992
Mr. Joseph ~1. Colonna Planning Offici a!
Department of Planning and Com'11unity Environment
City of Palo Alto
2SC Hamilton Aven~e
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: The Guidoux Residence
602 Towle Way
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Colonna,
) have reviewed information regarding the proposed second floor
addition to 602 Towle Way.
I feel that this addition is in keeping with the size and character of
other homes in the neighborhood.
I believe the Paio Alto Planning Department should approve this
variance to ailow the planned second floor addition of 900 square
feet.
Sincerely,
O1t1y
til; WviJ/'''''7 IJ~
17...Lo A (to, ('A 14. 30'
:.: .
December 8, 1992
Me. Joseph M. Colonna Planning Official
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: The Guidoux Residence
602 Towle Way
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Colonna,
, .
" .
\..' -
I have reviewed information regarding the proposed second floor
addition to 602 Towle Way.
I feel that this addition is in keeping wrth the size and character of
other homes in the neighborhood.
I believe the Palo Alto Pianning Department should approve this
variance to allow the planned second floor addiTion of 900 square
feet
SinCerel\ r: [ \ O'Orco. eewtf
'"
"
December 8, 1992 ~ (\' 1', \@'J' • ..> r,l-\ -\
Mr. Joseph M. Colonn. Planning OfficI81 -;;', .. C I
Depan:ment of Planning and Community EnVIronment ". ;, ~~, i~~1 .
-",J
City of Palo Aito ,,_ ... ',. c',' c"~"l'~ 0
250 Hamilton Avenue ell" CoF ~~.'-o
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: The Guidoux Residence
602 Towle Way
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Colonna,
I have reviewed information regarding the proposed second floor
3ddition to 602 Towle Way.
I feel that this addition is in keeping with the size and character of
ether homes in the neighborhood,
I believe the Palo Alto Planning Department should approve this
variance to allow the planned second floor additJon of 900 square
feet.
Sincerely,
..
~~--
'~""'."'." .. ". . . . ,
-.
~ ,
"
,.
December 8, 1992
Mr, Joseph M. Colonna Planning Official
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: The Guidoux Re;idence
602 Towle Way
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Colonna,
I have reviewed information regarding the proposed second floor
addition to 602 Towle Way.
I feel that this addition is in keeping with the size and character of
other homes in the neighborhood,
, believe the Palo AI~o Planning Department should approve this
variance to allow the planned second floor addition of 900 square
feet.
Sincerely,
1ttW
bo5:, (IJk i
fJp~
,
. ! .,
r
"
Dec~mber 8, 1992
~Ir. Joseph M. Colorna Planning Offlcia!
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: The Guidoux Residence
602 Towle Way
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Colonna,
I have reviewed information regarding the proposed second floor
adoltion to 602 Towle Way.
I feel that thi~ addition is in keeping with the size and character of
other homes in the neighborhood.
I believe the Palo Alto Planning Department should approve this
variance to allow the planned second floor addition of 900 square
feet.
•
••. ;c-._
-
December 8, 1992
Mr. Joseph M. Colonna Planning Official
Department of Pianning and Community Environment
City of Pa 10 Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto. CA 94301
RE: The Guidoux Reskfence
602 Towle Way
Palo Alto. CA
Dear Mr. Colonna.
I have reviewed information regarding the proposed second floor
addition to 602 Towle Way.
f feel that this addition is in keeping with the size and character of
other homes in the neighborhood.
I believe the Palo Alto Planning Department should approve this
variance to allow t~e planned second floor addition of 900 square
fee~
Sincerely.
-
"
-
December 8, 1992
Mr. Joseph M. Colorona Pianning Official
Department of Plar.ning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamiiton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: The Guidoux Residence • 602 Towle Way
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Colonna,
i have reviewed information regarding the proposed second floor
addition to 602 Towle Way.
I feel that this addition is in keeping with the size and character of
other homes in the neighborhood.
) believe the Palo Alto Planning Department should approve this
variance to allow the planned second fioor addition of 900 square
feet.
Sincerely,
. I
!
.'
-'
Dgcember 8, 1992
Mr. Joseph M. Colonna Planning Official
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: The Guidoux Residence
602 Towle Way
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Colonna,
I have reviewed information regarding the proposed second floor
addition to 602 Towle Way.
I feel that this addition is in keeping with the size and character of
other homes ., the ne ig h bam oed.
I believe the Palo Alto Planning Department s~ould approve this
variance to allow the planned second fioor addition of 900 square
feet
Sincerely,
'g, <A ./J1,«~ ~J--
12os"> C~LAI0VILL£
& 0 OZ TO U/L.6 INA '7
P.kLo A-t-TV
.'. -.
·--·'-'~~fJ~~:· -~"~"-" ~
-."
.'
December 8, , 992
~1r. Joseph M. Colonna Planning Official
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
PaloAito, CA 94301
RE: The Guidoux Residence
602 Towle Way
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Colonna,
I have reviewed information regarding the proposed second floor
addition to 602 Towle Way.
I feel that this addition is in keeping with the size and character of
other homes in the neighborhood.
i believe the Palo Alto Planning Department should approve this
variance to allow the planned second f10cr addition of 900 square
feet.
'''' .,
.....,"":'~, . .{;.,->[
• "'.-C-
,~
December 8, 1992
Mr. Joseph M. Colonna Pla"cing Offic;,,1
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 H~milton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE; The Guidcux Residence
602 Towle Way
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Colonna,
.. '.:
.; '-C; ;-t 1.. ~ ; l .~-C
I have reviewed information regarding the proposed second floor
addition to 602 Towle Way.
! feel that this addition is in keeping wfth the size and character of
other homes in the neighborhood.
, believe the Palo Aito Planning Department should approve this
variance to allow the planned second fioor addition of 900 square
feet
December 8, 1992
Mr. Joseph M. Colonna Planning Official _
Department of Planning and Community Er,vironmenC. " -, '. '~ ,
City of Polo Alto
250 Hamilton .... "enue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: The GuldoUJ( Residence
602 Towle Way
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Colonna,
, , ',: -:,
r -
I have reviewed information regarding the proposed second floor
addition to 602 Towle Way.
I feel that this addition is in keeping with the size and character of
other homes in the neighborhood.
I believe the Palo Alto Planning Department should approve this
variance to allow the planned sec~nd floor addition of 900 square
feet.
Sincerely,
CAM.. f3. 'h.t..d
"DG> 'lJ~ t!t:
\y~~ CA
.'
1.'1 f
'i--~
i . I
I
~~~~ .. ~ ~~-~~~-~ ------~------------~--:"", .-:-..
.'
. ,
December S, 1992
Mr. Joseph M. Colonna Planning Official
Department of Planning and Community Emn[onmen.t :
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: The G'Jidoux Residence
602 Towle Way
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Colonna,
~ '-',
.:. ::-. j., ~:)
I,,,,~' have reviewed information regarding the proposed second floor
addition to 602 Towle Way,
y,'~J feel that this addition is in keeping with the size and character of
other homes in the neighborhood,
,;""t believe the Palo Alto Planning Department should approve this
variance to allow the planned second floor addl~ion of 900 s~uare
feet
"
..... ,.
December 8, 1992
Mr. Joseph M. Colonna Planning Official
Department of P!anning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilto" Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: The Guidoux Residence
602 Towle Way
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Colonna,
I have reviewed inform.tion regarding the proposed second floor
addrtion to 602 Towle Way.
I feel that this addition is in keeping with the size and character of
other homes in the neighborhood.
I believe the Palo Alto Planning Department should approve this
variance to allow the planned second floor addition of 900 square
feet.
Sincerely,
,
t
\ ,
J ,
.,
4
--
---_.---------
--
December 8, 1932
Me. Joseph M_ Colonna Planning Official
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
l50 Hamilton Avenue
P<ilo Alto, CA 94301
RE: The Guido\J1< Residence
602 Towle Way
Palo Aito, CA
Dear Mr. Coionna,
r _ ~, _
'--'.-;. t !.. 0 ! l_ .. ()
I have reviewed information rega'ding the proposed second floor
additiOn to 602 Towle Way.
I feel that this addition is Tn keeping with the size and character of
other homes in the neighborhood.
i believe the Palo Alto Planning Department should approve this
variance to allow the planned second floor addition of 900 square
feet_
sincerely,t:? If
{}2 f! u;0ud£ ~
toP 1t-4.F£U £4f{-7 a-
M '/'1306
,.
-"
December 8, 1992
_._, -, ,'-' ',~ ~" r ~ ~ rR',
., . -, '" ", 'I' I
Mr. Joseph M. Coionna Plann'ng Offici~l. ~<: -_ ~_ . r:, 'i2~~ [;0
Department of Planning and Community EnVIronment. '. . .... J
City of Palo Alto ~~ri G ~ F:~ 'c)-~;.T 0
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: The Guidoux Residence
602 Towle Way
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Cclonna,
I have reviewed information regarding the proposed second floor
addition to 602 Towle Way.
) feel that this addition is in keeping with the size and character of
other homes in t~e ne Ig hborhood.
I believe the Palo Alto Planning Department should approve this
variance tD allow the pianned second floor addition of 900 square
feet
December 8, 1992
Mr. Joseph M. Colonna Planning Offici,,!
Department of Planning .nd Community Environment
City of PaJo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: The Guidoux Residence
602 Towle Way
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Colonna,
ru ~~~~~il~[DJ
[\\ L:c 15 1992
Dl::P~._;., i_, :;::.,,\T OF PLAr,,1 J i [,~ c..,
CITY OF PALO ALOO
I have reviewed information regarding the proposed second floor
addition to 602 Towle Way.
I feel that this addition is in keeping with the size and character of
other homes ""l the neighborhood.
I believe the Palo Alto Planning Department should approve this
variance to allow the planned second floor add,tion of 900 square
feet.
Sincerely.
?J{L f 1Jtu-. l1/ j). ~~-&1.-
{/2-1I~q&wd;
fae,-ctUr; CA 'lf3b{
(
December 8, 1992
Mr. Joseph M. Colonna Planning Official
Department of Planning and Comrnunlty Envi,onment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: The Guidoux Residence
602 Towle Way
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Colonna,
I have reviewed information regarding the proposed second floor
3ddition to 602 Towle Way.
I feel that this addition is in keeping with the size and character of
other homes in the neighborhood.
I believe the Palo Alto Planning Department should approve this
variance to allow the planned second floor addition of 900 square
feet.
Sincerely,
<:) -~~
C, r ~;;.;~ /J~
.p ~ ?Pe.,t; / C/t-
ctCf'b1t
". "","
December 8, 1992
Mr. Joseph M. Colonna Planning Official
Department of Planning and Cc,mmunity Environment
City of Pal::> Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: T~,e Guidoux Residence
602 Towle Way
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Colonna,
I haye reviewed information regarding the proposed second floor
addition to 602 Towle Way.
I feel that this addition is in keeping with the size and character of
other homes in the neighborhood.
I believe the Palo Alto Planning Department should approve this
variance to aflow tne planned second floor addition of 900 square
feet.
fl1r
.. -
--------------------
"
December 8, '992
Mr. Joseph M. Coionna Planning Official
Department of Plar.ning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 H.milton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: The Guidoux Residence
602 Towle Way
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Colonna,
DEP/J,r;-,.,lENT OF PlAhl>J1NG.
CITy OF PALO ALTO
I have reviewed information regarding the proposed second floor
addition to 602 Towle Way.
I feel that this addition is in keeping with the size and character of
other homes in the neighborhood.
I believe the Palo Alto Planning Department should approve this
variance to allow the planned second floor addition of 900 square
feet.
Sincerely,
S~fC2;~
'1C.~ J3 CU..,,~
Bruce E. Deal
R?cbel B. Deal
638 Towle Place
Palo Alto, CA 94306
5~tt
--c-~ '-_
,
.. -:
..
-
February 4,1993
Zoning Administration Minutes
Excerpt
Agenda Item No.2
602 Towle Way .. Palo Alto. Application for a variance for a
single-famiLy residence to allow construction of il. second-story
addition for a total floor area of 3,186 square feet, where 2 .. 651 square
f~et is otherwise the maximum permitted.
Nancy Lytle-This is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act a.."ld it is in zone district R-l r which is a single-family district.
Glen A. Guidoux, 602 Towle \Vay, Palo Alto (AppIicant)-I am the owner;
applicant and resident of the property. The history on that pr'Jperty goes back to
the days of my grandfather. He purchased "'''0 acres of land from the Clark Ranch
back in 1921. rtle acre.ge borders along Cowper Street .... "d Matadero Canal, The
parce! of land is the last piece of the m'O acres that is still in the Guidoux falnily.
My father had the house built in 1964 and h. moved our family infu it I was there
from the time I was 12 years old until I hL~.ed 20 when I moved out. I !noved back
into it in 1980 "'ith my family. My family has grown to 8 people: 6 childre" and
my wife and me. We fL.,d it very difficult to get along well in a :>-bedroom house .
Thereforel we are trying to make this addition to make the house more comfortable
and more livable for our family.
r have taken a poll of the neighbors and exprained to them what my plans are and
asked them their opinion. I received quite a. few DOSitive responses. Yesterday I
interviewed Joe Spiel of responses Uta t were mailed in. ] compiled 3. map sho\\"I't in
the tran>parency. The yellow indicates 19 different residences around my property
that all gave positive written respon.;es. My property is shown in blue. We had one
negative response from a lady, Mrs. Morris, who lives right behind me, Mrs.
Morris' complaint read:
February 4, 1993 ZA Exce!pt 1
-.---~--.... -----.
"""'-',,,"-'. ',:;:.:~~~i·
..
-
I do not apprrwe. This -was zoned for one-stor..'-I homes. I fed th~
Guidoux's do not take cafe of the hwse thut tht!l hat,/: ?'lOU', The fence,
wh fer. 1 pu t up and paid for m YSd.f. is [alii n g down.
I believe her first statement about the area being zoned for s!ngl~ story homes is
ll1correct. Eighteen of the 20 homes alon 5 Towle \ ..... 'ay ar.d Towle Place are
two-story homes and the home at 602 Wellsbury Court, the property behind my
home and one of her next door neighbors, is a rn'o-story home. The next sta:emcnt
about not taking care of the house,] tak.e exception to. I don't understa.nd what that
statement is all about. Her last statement about the fence, which she built and paid
for, is falIi.'1.g dmVlt. Her hOTrl.€ was built rn 1957 and the fence was built shortly
thereafter. It's a redwood construction fence, 4x4 posts ·;·\';'Lh 2>:4 stemers at t.~e top
and the bottom. It is a 6' high fence, It uses redwood sIa ts, \-... ·hic.t,. are about 2S'
wide and about .25:" thick. The fence is not ~ real sturdy fence. In fact~ it!s
s:uprising that it has lasted for apprOximately 35 years.
Since I moved back into the house in May 1980, there have been a number-of
occasions when .Mrs. Morris has asked me to repair the fence for one reason or
another. I have patched it The patches are not cosmetically appealing. probably,
hut they have been very fu nctional patches. Had I known before yesterday tl.at this
was an Important issue to her, I would have .pproached her and tried to make
amends and done 3 better job of helping her to take care of that shared fence.
If this is an issue that is going to affect-my variance,] would be happy to work .... d~
her on splitting the cost of replacing that section in tt.e fence. There is about 5{Y of
shared fence between her b.<.< property line and my rear property line. L, fact, the
other neighbor next to her, replaced his fence last swnmer ",,;th a brand new fence .
He sha."eS • side prop<>rty line ,,~th Mrs. Morris. He asked her if he could have her
old fence removed when he had his new fence put in .t his cost She refused, telling
him that she planned to put her home up for sale and that she wanted all of her
fencing to look the same. She didn"t want one side to be brand new wrJle the rear
and the other side remained the original fence. As a result, his fence i3 now b-.....iit
parallel to hers. They are six inches .pare
At any rate, this is something where I am willing to work with Mrs. Morris
to resolve.
2 February 4, 1993 Z.A. Excerpt I
Ms. Lytle--Sv you don't thip:~ she \,,·ol.lid be o~en-mlnded about h3'",'ing you
replace your back fcr.ce?
Mr. Guidoux-I'rn not sure that she \ ... ·ot!.ld agree to ha ving me PUt up a ne ...... ' fence.
1I\~at she may want is just repairs that are cosmetlcaliy appealing.
Ms. Lytle--if,lould your fence and th.i.s other r:ew fence butt up against one another
so that she would have one continuoLl.s fence alO::lg her property? Could you do a
fence compatible ...... ith his L'"tat would tiE: together and then she c:.ouid take hers
down?
Mr. Guidoux-YesJ I could. If she wanted to do that. v,'e could removE' her oid
fence and I could. ma.."I(e mine look just like his. HIS is very nice looking. l,-'v'"}\Oever
built it did an exCEllent job. In fact 1 would be willing to find the same contractor
and have~. do the ...... ork. I'm willing to work with her on sharing the costs or
even paying for that section of the fence myself.
1\1.5. Lytl~ou1d we please have a copy of the map for our records?
Mr. Guidoux-Yes. There were actually 20 positive responses and one of the:!!'. [
couldn't tie to an address. The name was Carolyn Macintosh. This is a map that
shows .Mrs. Morris' lot and the share fence This is the new fence.
y~. LyUe-Do you have any information on the FARs on properties around you? I
would be interested to know more about that.
Mr. Guidoux--That is sho ...... 'n in this document [have done lot to square footage
ratios and L."-te rotal square footage of the other homes along Towle Way, Towle
Place~ and some of t."e neighboring areas.
Ms. Lytle--VVhat are you proposing"? I know about how many square feet you are
proposing to go over what is permitted, which is considerable. How far over are
you now?
~fr. Guidoux-I am not over now. 1 am about.360 squa!"e feet under. The addition
would be about 950 'guare feet.
February4, '993 Z.A. Excerpt 3
~f~~J~l:
.',:; :.; .;-:. -
", ..... '~:,:, -.::.. .
)i~;~~'~·
~-: "-,-
" :"-;""~ <,
. '''-;-... ~.;..:; '. '
"~'-~;"~:' ,~ :..'
;~~~~-~-
-
Joseph Colonna-This would be an alio ..... ·able second floor additio:-L I calcubt.--d
he was under by abou":: 38-1 square f~t. The pla.nned second story noer addition 1:;
about 918 square fE'et.
Ms. Lytle-You have a 6,)40 square foot lot-The!"e are some homes in the 3,000
square foot nmge that are on 8 .. 000 and 9,000 3 quare foot lots; there is OIle on 7,s00
square feet. It ~ .. -ou!d be helpful to knov/ how far over F . .o\R .tr'.y of th€se other
properties are.
Mr. Colonna--We have that Wormati(;n~ bu~ it isn''t rnap~d, It is in table form. It
is a regressive formula, so it doesn't necessarily tie directly to a straight perr:entage.
Ms. Lytle--Is there any way we could get from you an actual ca!C'..:lation of whether
any of these properties are over their FAR as you produce this map and wha: the
overage amounts are? Do you know that off-hand?
Mr. Guidoux-l have it calculated individually. I am willmg to do that. One thing
that crosses my mir,d is that a number of these pro~!"ties, especially L'1 Towle Place,
have porches and also :have covered patios, which r did not inc1ud-2 in any of my
calculations. I ignored iliose. In some cases maybe they should be ca}cuJated into
!he FAR
Mr. Col onna--Gener ally they are not inel u ded in the FAR.
AD]Ouru-..'ED TO PRODUCE CALCULA nON'S FOR A MAP
EXHIBIT OF WHAT THE OVER. ... GE MIGHT BE 0,,' THE
SURROUNDll\iG LOTS TO FAR
, Ms. Lytle-Vie have quite a few properties that are over their FAR by considerable
amounts. In your cul-de-sac that isn't the prevailing pattern; most of the properties
seem to have some remaining potentia1~ or they are right at their potential. Ber.ind
you on WeUsbury there are a couple that look as though they are pretty far Over,.
although the one on the comer right behbd you isn't. Can you explain that?
What's happening there?
Mr. Guidoux-The homes on Wellsbury Court and Wellsbury Way were buill
about 1957 when the property was sold to a builder. The two acres on Matadoro
that are now at the end of Towle Way my father built in 1964. He held the land at
4 February 4,1993 ZA Exoorpt
-
the end of the cul-de-sac, thoS€ thrE."C' lots (602, 609, and 611) and this fou:-th lot
(referring to the map), L'1 facti my mother in.l-terited those four lots. from rJm ", .. hen
he passed a\ ... ·i!.y. She sold them to a builder in about 19'18 a.nd t.'c0se f012 home~
were built by a builder from Los Altos. I don't knO\· ... P.'Hlch about TOol/Ie Place. J
k.~ow that a number of those homes were built 5ta.rting in 1964/65. Th~y ~ ..... ere built
after fuese three hom~s were built.
Ms. Lytle----Have these had additions to t'1em?
Mr. Guidoux-No. They wer2 built in 1964 and 1965 a."l.d they were th3t size-when
they were constructed. I know a co!..~ple of them have h'ld some mooifica tions. One
had a breakfast nook added 1..1 the back eight or ten years ago, but the majority of
the resf have maybe had porches O! e,....,clcsed areas bLlilt IT, the back and th.iJ"1.gs like
that, but no real additions.
Ms. LytlE'-How about the property right behind you? Has that had an addition?
Mr. Guidoux-Ye.. They added to that about ore year ago. Last September the
construction wa. completed. They added quite a bit
Ms. Lytle-In a situation where homes werE' built more recently on one of the
school district properties~ we denied a variance for FAR t."lat had a better set of
statistics around it than you have. That applicartt was considerably over the FAR on
his own street and there was mo-re of a continuo·.).5 pattern of everyone on an of the
sUIT.oundL'lg subdivisions, At t."tat hearing we had a lof more protests to the
application. You have pretty strung support from the people around you. n.ls
issu~ is still one that we are "smarting" over. There was a contro .... ersy t.1-tat divided
hearings and years of study that the City went through whe.., they adopted this
formula and there W~ no strong communitY consensus for the fmal outcome. It
was a very divided situation. Some of our Commissioners are still ~'smarting'" from
that, although I think the last one who was intimately involved has resigned, so we
have .fewer players from that time than we used to. However. during the course of
those hearings the City Council reviewed what was a reasonable size second story
and there w,," • case being made by • number of the members of the public that you
really nmee close to 1,000 squarefeei and \hat was an interim measurement that
they took, A 1,000 square foot seconci story was sort of a guaranteed right for a
while and many applications came L."1 during an interim period to qualify for that.
FebNal)'., 1993 ZA Excerpt 5
~ ..
,
• !
.'
-
Staff v.ras asked to look at alterr,atives, for instance, ""'hat does a SOO square fcx"}t
sC--COTl.d story do for you, et:;:, \~nen they finaliy developed the fonnula, the
direction we were giv~n was, this is enough. Pe-c'r:',le who n~d mere, need bigger
lots. It's e~:en tough to get i~,to a variancf', to make t.\ose varianC'l? fmdings, b.-:<:ause
thE' formula is SO proportional to the lot sue. It hils an inherent fa\.."1c:r that gives you
thia equivalent rating. Alt.'"tvugh h's veri cut and dry~ it doesn't take into account
any persona1 considerations.
I'm " ... ~o!'.dering what is it about your lot and the situations of your property that
would make it uru-easona.b!e and extremely difficult to live wilhin a lesser budget
How am 1 going to make the exceptional £xtraordinary circumstar.ce finding here
when you have a lot that isn'T. om:' of the bigger lots aro·.md, ar.d yet yOUI FAR
request is on the big side. You will be over by about 500 square feet and WE' don't
have anybody except th.is one neighbor and some of these houses on Towle Place.
How am I going to make that rmding when all of these folks are "vl LlUn their limits.
Mr. Guido\1X-My understand.ing of the change i.f't the Building Codev..'a5 to tty to
prevent very Iaxge homes from being bullt in neighborhoods where there are a lot of
smaller homes in existence. The sihJation that I'm in is just the opposite, where I am
in a neighborhood where there are 20 homes on TowleW.y and Towle Place and 18
of t.'tose are very Jarge two-stort homes and my family and the one directly across
the street are the only people in single-story homes. r understand how the FAR
works based on the lot size l but becau.se I have one of the smaller lots on the street,
although it is equivalent to five of the lots that are on Tcwle Place, the FAR now
restricts me to the point where I feel like it isn't worthwhile putting a second floor
or. the house if I can only add 384 square feet
Also the Jot Joca don, being on the corner and at the bulb 01 the cul-de-sac I have
160 fuet of frontage to the sidewalk, That 160 feet of frontage has a five foot setback
along it, giving 800 square feet Technically I can'l claim that.s my land, but that
800 sql.lilre feet is there. So ... it makes the lot appear larger than I car, claim.
The other criteria for the lot is tha.t my garage is located dOWTl at the bulb or the
cu1~e-sac and if I were to convert my garage .into a carport SO that I wouldn't have
to count it as FAR; there's no way for me to hide that from the stree, and from tb.e
neighbors" r would <md up with an open exposed garage and it would be difficult
fDr me to keep personal items sec"red,
6 February 4, 1993 lA Excerpt
• <
."~".
-
Ms. L)'tIe-;vr.ere is your garage?
Mr. GuidoU>'"-Th.is garilge is 3.( this end (r~ferrjng to transpaTt'r,c:} a.nd the
drivewayromes right into the bulb of the cul~de-sac. The garage is iarge. It is
550 squa:e feet. If I were i.o convert thf' ga:-age to a carport, that wouldn't be
counted in FAR I could use that 550 square f~_,t as part of my floor area for the
house, but I'm sure that would open :myseli a.."ld my fa.rnily up to probfems and
criticisms from the neighbors for having an open garage. I keep puwer tools and
automobile parts in there. It would be difJ:icult and it wouldn't be a c-om[vrtab1e
sit"uation.
l\.ts. Lytle-That Is a good size garage, 5Sa square feet.
Mr. Guidoux-Yes. It is a 2·car garage with a work area. It also has a half-bath.
Ms. Lytle-Is there a...~y way of reducing your plan that would work for you, where
you aren't as high as you have proposed, but somewhere in befweo-.n these people?
Mz. Guidoux-lnitially J was lookil'"g at adding about 1,200 square feet and we
pared that back to 950 square feet. '"'''Ie have considered ~"';..ng!o reduce it even
more. J have asked my designer, Dillon Kyle, to help me out ",,1th that He did try
to get the square footage do~
Ms. Lytle-Is .orne of this equivalent?
Mr. Colonna--None of that counts towards equivalence. The appearance and mass
of the building makes it look larger ~.use there are areas that are open. If you
were to stick to more of a traditional ~'o-story v..rithout the wells, it would actually
shrink the size of the building. That is an area. where you could redllC'e if you
needed to, the bulk ",d mass of the building"
Ms. Lytle-This seeDlslike a very spa,e consumptive design for a landing.
Dillen A. Kyle, 1091 Emerson Street,. Palo Alto (Designed--The landing is a room
that was wanted in terms of spaces to do things that wouldn't have to be done
downstairs: watching television, reading" things that areas dOl'·m.stairs don't allow
for right now. lt was something that was foremost in the client's mind-to have
the space at the top of the stairs where it wouldn~t be just a landing for circulation.
February 4, 1993 ZA Excerpt 7
"L .. " .
.;
-
Ms. Lytle--V..rhen we did O\.4! studi.es, th.i.s is the type of space t.~a.t \,,'12' hf'ard from
the pcb I:)' makers that they considered unessential, or certainly not classifying as a
hardship, [f one didn't :have it. It's interesting becaase we had a fissure in the
.commu.nit~y, people with these con~emporary standards of wha~ they feI! they
needed in their homes as es.sentiaJ eleme:1ts including some things that p€-Ople
tTaditionally haven't thought about. ntis is that kind of space . ..A..nother i5 having
yOU!" O'W'n office. In S<,.")me cases botl1 husba..."'"ld ~'ife WaIl.t heme offices in addition to
their regular bedroom. Family rooms and computer rooms separate from t.'I[e main
lj"ing area. ""'hen we developed the fonnuJas, this is the type of space that the
policy Ir.akers at the fime concluded we lived a long time 'Without having and they
didn't think we needed to account for that kind of living area in developing these
formul~s. So, it's hard for me to the.."I. saYI well 111 p..st grant variancl."S fo that and let
people go ahead and build those Sp.J.ce5 when we are day after day at the CO~U1.ter
cutting them out of people's. plans in order to have them meet the FAR criteria.
People are being held to a lesS"'J e..111bellished design as a resul.t of it r m trying to
be real honest here and let you know t. .... at is going to be a hard one for ITt€" fo cl',eEe.nd.
Mr. Guidoux-Part of what we're trying to deal v.'i.th is the rurrent deslgn of th~
house. It is a 1..B50 square foot; 3-bedroom house. There is a flfl:p~ace. Tne
stairwell would go in where the mo:ster bedroom is now. In trying to keep with the
design of the house, we were trying to make the upstair, bedrooms approximat<>l y
equivalent to the size of the: bedroom.5 t.},.at e;:;;ist now on the firsf floor. The new
master bedroom would be smaller than the existing master bedroom. The other two
upstairs bedrooms would be slightly ~ma1Jer ilian the two downsfairs bedrooms
now. Th~ chimney ronk--S up more or !ess in the center of the houSE!. It's a double
chimney. On one side in the kitchen/dining area is an L'ldoor barbecue and the
I other side is the fireplace. We are working around that. nus whole wall is brick
and the brick extend, all the way to the end of the wall in the liv'.ng room. If 5 used
brick. In the kitchen it extends to the cabinets. It is massive. Unde.."Ileath the house
is tons of concrete supportLllg th~t. It would not be an easy thing to reiocate or to
try and move that chinuley.
Ms. LytJ..-Are you saying that the chimney and its configuration as it comes up
and the size of the bedrooms led to this sort of inefficient upper floor plan?
Mr. Guidoux-Right. It would be difficult to locate all three bedrooms right on one
end and keep the design of the hOllSe balanced. We did talk abo"t going upstail'S at
8 February 4, '993ZA Excerpt
\,
"
,
!
I ,
\
I
<,
-
~------~~-----
one side of the house~ but from t.'e outside ';'I!I? did~'t think it was very cosmetl..:.'llly
appealing-I will show you on my model of the honse. \'Ve look€d at doing all the
editions 2t this end of the house. It ju;..t didn't look good, "Ve played a:ound w£th
different ldea~ and decid&:! we wanted it it::! look more bal.a.nced and we c-nded up
\'with L.\is desi¢-l.
Ms. LytJe-If you eliminate this aspect of it and bring these components closer
together, what would be the resu.it? W"hat I'm sa}ing is that I V\.;U have a hard time
justifying this rnllc..'I-t space where the open landing area is. I'm going back to some
hearings that you wonrt have the benefit of ha0.ng sat through ar,d quite frankly;
many of the players in those hearings are no i.onger policy makers, so I'm going
with. previous City directions. If you look at the re--:ords, willcP, is all r have to go
on, when they came up 'with these lunits this was exac+Jy fr.e yJnd of stuff that they
took out when they came up with the formulas. I trink there is some sympathy for
the fact that you're working ,-,;':ith ar. existing condition do'n"Il here and it isn't like
we wanf you cut j'OUT study out., even though it's kind of a small, impractical room
that's giv'f""g up SOIne space footage v.'i.thout making a good bL=>droom space for you
particularly. I sympathize with the idea of cllopping off a chunk of your garage.
That sounds unreasonable also. But, in the new design that's what I don't know.
How am I going to defend this kind of space, which is exactly the target of t.'tis
former reduction? There was actually a reduction that occurred between the
Planning Commission recommended FAR level and the City Council level. In that
workshop series, we got clown to santple floor plans. VVhat can you do \'w"ith
500 square feet on the first story and we brm.!ght in plans just like this, people who
had done approximately l,OOO square foot second stones a.'1d the Co'mdl at the
point when they came dc'WI\ with the fina1 numbo:!.r. which was stricter than the
Commission had no problem taking that kind of space ou t and saying people wiD
just have to live with""t it They can find • bigger lot I remember one of the
Councilinembers saying that they could move e1SE-~"ihere. I don't think that is City
policy by any means, but she felt if they wanted a really dynamic house, they
should move to Los Altos, but they didn't ",'ant those kinds of [.omes to upset the
balance.
Mr. Guidoux-Those houses on the cul-de-sac are all two stories. There isn't a
lower scale.
February 4,1993 Z.A. Excerpt 9
-
Ms. lytle--I'rn nor saying t"h'o stories. I'm ~,aying, what would h3.ppen if you b:)ok
some of this kind of space out of hel-e. Is that feasible?
lvfr. Guidcux-Part of ..JUT incentlve fo!' doing that was to have the L.pstairs portion
of the hou5e connect to tJ,e dOl/· .. n~tairs. To have-som~ area of open space. This
wouJd be a railing along here so that someb03y in the kitc..'1<;'1 or dining area could
talk to 5Omeone who is upstairs and sta...T1dfng on the landing. It 'lI'ouJd give us a
connection there. If we were to eliminate that and put a bedroom t.l,.ere, that would
have to go a~· ... ay. unless we l""tad an open wall into a bedroo~.
Mr. Kyle--I would hl:e some more information in terms of how dPCisions are made.
If that plan were considered efficient, would that make a di£feren~e given the
argument for a certain amount of square footage?
Ms. LytJe--In looking at these numbers, I'm not seeing a compelling enough case.
I'm trying to see if in combination there is something specific to your urJque
improvements.
Mr~ Guidoux-Actually those numbers on the map aren't the case that we made.
They are part of the background of i~ but they are not one of the t:hre<! points that
we list in cur argument The argument had more to do mth the inability to create a
carport due to the setback and because the fence can't come across the front. In a
typical lot you could have an open fence, drive through, go into your carport, close
the fenCe, and have a privatE carport That's the argt.unent thal we're maki..7lg. That
is the hardo;hlp. Given the fact \:hat if fr.is was not a ccl-d~5ac or if this specific !ot
line was straight. we would simply make this a carport and have a fence OOI:le up
this I1ne of the house and there would be no problem in terJ'tS of doing tha f.
Ms. Lytle-The only problem is, when meyse! th~FARlimit mEYassumed a
garage. They didn't assume a carport They gave the carport away as a ruce
"freebie" at the end. It certainly wasn't the parameter upon which they developed
their formu.la~ based on the Sfa. .. ·ldard 400 square foot garage. You have a little bit
bigger garage and that glves us rna ybe 150 square feet of rationalization. ] can see
that it is L'l. unreasonable and unnecessary hardship in makiJ"!.g you lop off
ISO square feet of your garage.
Mr. Guidoux-It didn't make sen'" to us to have two bathrooms back to back. So
the .idea was to convert the master bathroom into a study area.
10 F.bruary 4. 1993 Z.A. Excerpt
_.'.
•
4 ......
·>
1 ,
", , ,
--
Ms. Lj'tIe----Wnatever it is, it's a little piece. I~ works for ,,,,'hat YOll have H called out
as. It would work also as a b"'throom. It is!1't going to functio!'. instead of
something upstairs. It gives you about 50! squart: feet of sort of unusable =pace, but
nobody wa.'"1t$ you to lop if off. TIUs seems bke a perfectly good runctkm for it
architecturany. The only reason J'm digging farther is that I didn't find your
""gument to completely hold the case togetheL
hi? Gnidoux-Do you mean t.lJ.e argument in terms of the garage?
Ms. Lytle-Yes, 50 1'11'. flShing for additionalf.cts or some compromise"
!\h. Guidoux-\-\'f,en I put all the data into the table for the homes along Towle
Way, Towle Place, and the fOUI homes in Wellsbi_l..)1 Court behind me, 1 averaged
the total square footage of all of thE" nomes. Those came up to 3,122 square feet
Averaging just the homes along Towle ",ray and Towle Place, those came up to an
average of 3,240 'quare feel Our proposal would take the house ~"d ga:age from
2,293 square feet to just a little under 3~200 square fect~ which means we would still
be approximately 60 square feet below the average of the other homes along the
street. Then you say that 1 have a smaner lOCI so does that mean my home shouldn't
be the size of the a"\'erage of the other homes on the stree!, some of which are on the
same size lot, some of which are on larger lots? Another thought is that five of t..~e
homes, four of which UI!! on Towle Place and one on the corner of Towle Place and
Towle Way are much bigger homes than mine" They are two story home; in 1."e
neighborhood of 3,400 to 3..BOO square feet. Some of those .homes are on lots that are
the same size as rrdne. I have a 6 .... 1;00 square foot lot. In fact, if you were to me-asu;e
the actual lot including the setbacks, my lot is larger than those other 6..,300 square
foot lots. Some of those setback lines are much smaller than the setback that 1 have
and they have 3,500 to 3,800 square foot homes on those lots" Some of those homes
have 11 rooms, 6-bedrooms,4-bathrooms" They were built very large" They were
built by a different builder slightl y after my home was built Had my father chosen,
he could have built a 5,000 square foot home on that lot probably bad; in 1%4 and it
would probably still be in existence. At t.'e timer though, he built the house v.ith
other considerations.
Mr. Kyle-When the volume of the house goes up, you can either haw it look out of
character Mth the rest of the houses visually, or you could get into problems v.'ith
the daylight plane in term!> of the quality of light and air that gets to the
February4, 1993 ZA Excerpt 11 " -r'-
-
SurT-Ju...,.ding homes. Seeing there is no problern in this design ,,·,;ith the daylight
plJ.n-e, then it w.o1.!ld seem to me the r.'ta!!'I concern of the l.::.rgBr F.A.R be itc; vIsu.al
consistency with the rest of the homes. Is that wr-.at would be considered the main
goal of t.~e FAR, to keep rt with.in visual consist('r.cy of t}".e arcruteclural cha.racter of
the neighborhood?
Ms. L.rtIe-it is essentiilly m establish a. massing limit. The commurdty did not
want to commit the resources, nor is there ~_y inclination to do so today, to desIgn
review. There are lois of Woli'S of visually making masstng compatible .... ,fith
adjacent properties~ but you would need some kind of review to assure that occurs.
The community was not willing to commit resources in thaf direction. It \ ... ·ouJd be
an incredible res-oU!'ce commitment. Look how uncomfortable we all are i.,., this
situation. I don''t wanJ to be looldng at your floor pla...'1.s. This is a tough isS-LIE".
'W'hat Council tried to do was say we're going to set fair amount, we're not gou,g to
re,,;ew the design -a man's home is his castle; you go off and bund it -and it's
gotng to relafe fo your lot size. The bigger your Jot, the more you get. But, they
weighted it towards smaller lots becaUS€ they thought a minimum sized home
needs to be a guaranteed right, so they said up to 5,000 square feet you get a higher
ratio and over that it st9..rtS to dizrmish. Achlally smaller lots have iin ad .... antage in
FAR calculations than do these other people if you look straight at numerics. We've
effectively tried to work with people since the regulations through the horne
improvement exception process and the "wiggle room" tha~e have there to
accommodate to the maximum extent possible wP.at people can do. We have not
processed FA...~ variances since the time of the il.doption. \Ve are feeling inaeaslng
pressure to do so. The economy worked to our advantage. A lot of applications
came in during the moratorium pe...;od and fmancing was wo .. king, spec building
was going haywire, all sorts of things were happening. A slump occurred
Immediately upon adoption of the regulation. All of that pent up buildi. ... g trickled
through the prOC'eSs, but new applica.tions have pretty much been able to fit v.it.lU..n.
People are not doing as much speOOative development. People are building their
homes not a'S an investment anymore, but as a home that they want to live in.. w1>Jch
is the c:a.se here. But~ more and more we are seeing even L."1 non-speculative
applications that there is still the fissure that we obse..-ved at the time of the R-l, and
that is that there are some contemporary expectations for what a construction load
means when you go to refmance artd dQ a construction pTOject~ and it isn't
necessarily in line with that number that was set by the previous CounciL
--,;:""-~:"".iO-~~_G( _
-'c-_.
12 February 4,1993 Z.A. Excerpt
L ,--,
--.1.' I ,
-
..
.r
Ken Schreiber, our Planning Director who has beer\ t.~re for 15 years said it was the
most controver~;[a.l set of hearings he has ever experienced in that entire time period.
Our hope.is. tf...at same teI'sion doesn't come to play in the Comprehensive nan
Update, whic... ... "A'e are new embarking on, although 1 suspect tha tit is out tJ1.ere to
some exte.n.t in. thos~ areas as welL We h2.v~ a min':)rity, but grm . .,rint" yOW"Lg farruly;
r~'o-ir:.co:;ne hOlL~no1d, typical prome t.~a t r.as entered the Palo Aho housing
situation recency. or is rebuildi...."g and refinandng in a m.ore recent market, who
don't have exactly the sam€' view of what a home should be, or even where the
community should be going. as L.;e majority of established neighborhoods where
most people have raised their children and the hOUsing was constr".lct€'d after Wurld
\Var IT and people a.re satisfied ""'<ltlt that house size. Thelr kids are t:.p and gone or
on their way and they a.re very happy with the sort of floor plan thot you are
dissatisfied W'ith having eight people in your farrdly. It's not an easy one for us.
You heard about our appeal process. If Lt."e outcome of the hearing isn't what you
want, you 'have the right to go forn'ard to this Planning Commissicm and City
Council altd we would be !L'tening very carefully to what they would say this time
around. We would like to avoid appeal,. We like to work hard to try and
acrommodate peop1e. I am nervous with this one. This is not easy. nus is a tough
choice. We lilte to make the regtuations work for people. When th""e i. a real cut
and dry ability to make finding$, that's not an issue. T'nis is one where what I sen..c;.e
it is not that the va.'"'iance is the issue,. but more the formula. It's the regulations that
are really the problem.
.M.r. Guidoux-"'ll.en you said that larger lots have a smaller a.Lowable FAR than
smaller lot.s, don't you get into a problem where you have a street lined -v.'ith 8 .. 000
or 9,000 square fool lots and you have one lot in the middle that's a 5,000 square
foot lot? If everybody builds to maximum FAR, wouldn't that one house in ti,e
middle look unusuai? On a 5,000 square foot lot it wvuld fit in and it would look
fine, along with all the other maximllm FAR. that aYe on 8,000 or 9,000 square
foot lots?
Ms. Lytle--You don't see a lot of that pattern.. 'Where you see 5,000 square foot lotos.
is usually in a more conslstent small lot area or in a real mixed. bag. You don't
usually see a real consistent pattern of 9,000 squa,e foot [ot5 and all of a sudden in
comes a 5,000 square foot lot.
FebNar:t~, 1993 ZA Excerpt 13
------t a ~,~,l~:~'
L
--
-
--------~--.---,------------------
Mr, Guidow:-f'rn j""lst surprised that there is no '.,."dY in taking into account lJ1e size
of ot.;'er ex_istL..,g homes in the neighborhood, or in th.? immediate vidnity. TIH? FAR
a..."1.d given house size is based so1e1y upon the sLze of a lot and yl't it Sl?€"ms as though
put of the goal in that regulation i£ to try to ke~p the neighborhoods uniform and
the mass of the hom?s on the lots somewhat UJ'.!form. r don't see a cor.elation
~een the aJlowa hIe house size and the siT.e of the neighboring homes. Tne
oorrelation is based on lot size only.
Ms. LyUe--That doesn't chaii.ge a.1s.o. In regulations you want to try and fix a
formula not to something that will ronstantly change, because all you have to do is
get toge'J"ler as a group and say, I'll add on and you add on, and then we'll come
bac.1< and do our second phase and you do yours, and it ""ill keep grov..'ing
and gro'mng,
~1r. Colonna--You ha"lo'e an expectati.on of what kind' of s.quare footage you can get
based on the lot that you're buying. Ii I buy. 5,000 square foot lot En nor.hem Paio
Alto in the midst of large homes .. r can expect to build the same am.ount if [buy in
south Palo Alto in smaller scale homes. It's almost an issue of fairness as well.
Ms. Lytle-Would you like to think a'rout trying to reduce, or would you liKe us to
take action? I'm not saying J know what I'm going to do with this. J will say,
though. t.."tat I would encourage you to increase your chances of getting: a.."\ approval
by trying!O eliminate some of wllat they would have calJed at tlle time, extra 10ft
area. Architectura.lly I understand exactly why irs there. The proportions of this
house are very lo\~ely. The fact trult you have done a model shows t.i.at )'OU paid a
lot of attention to that As you Y.now from our home improvement exception
process. good architecture is something that we in Palo Alto value very much and
thaN< goodness we got th.t adopted because it has gi"en us .Io! more flexibility
with these very rigid regWations. Before we were chopping people's roofs off and
all ki..,ds of goofy stuff because this was our only process and these findings are
harder to make than the other set for the home improvement exception. That has
worked very nicely in helping to encourage this. Keep in mind that I am open to
those ld.nds of arguments, but 1 would feel more I:omfortable and positive if there
was some way of reducing that second story to elin"Jnate those spaces. However,]
won't commit on what our decision is, because 1 really don't knO'N.
14 February 4,1993 Z.A. Excerpt
.
... ····L·· ...
..
._---
.'
Mr. GuidGux--Given that ""'e've taken nearly 300 square feet out of oux original
plans, at thls point in time OUI cOf',sideration has been if the variance does!l-'t go
through then we were going to look at meL ..... oos of cop.veTting the garage so that it
wou..ld be dassified as a carport. We've talked about variolls ways of doing that.
February 4. 1993 ZA Excerpt 15
,
-
The planning commission m~t in a rE:gula~ rrle-etin, on Wednesday. ,G,pril 22,
1993 at 7:35 p.m. in the COJncil (ha~ber! with hairma~ Be~cha~ presi~ing.
CC".Jn1r:'issioners Beec'nalol1, C-3rTl~Co. Cas.sel, (\Jller:, Glaz.iH,
Ojakian a~d Schmidt
None
Staff Prese~t: Susan Case, Senior ~.ssjstant City Atton·.,-ey
Jose~h ,'-1. Colonna, Planner
James Gilliland. Ma~ager Pla~~l~g Projects
Nancy lytle, Zoning Adm~nistratcr
Rnbert Schubert, Pla~ner
Chairr1J..~.!L.l)~§".>;.b..~: I would like to welco.rr:c our new commiSS1Qn€r~ Phyllis
Cassel. Welcome to us, and we have high hopes for you.
Chairwan BeechaM:
Any member of the
agenda is welcome
next ag€nda it€~.
The: first item or. our ag~nda is Oral Cormunic.ations.
public. wishIng to speak to us on an item ~ot on th!
to do so. Seeing no speakers, we will ~ove on to the
AGENDA ITEM J Appro'{al cf Plann.ing COl"llil,ission millut?s of March 10,
1993. Are there a~y comments. corrections or a motion?
tlOTI .. <Jli: CommissiJner' Glazier:
SfCOND: By COl'Jmissioner Schmidt.
MOTIori PASSES: .c.h.~ ... irm~.rJ Beecham:
opposed? That pas S€-s on a V'\ltl: e,f
Cass~l and Cullen abstaining.
move appro~al.
All those i~ f~vor, say Ave? All 4-~, with (om-~ssioners C~r~asco,
AGENJ.t. ITEM 2 Appro·,'a1 of Planning CCr:l.'i:issil1n rT",in:..Jtes c,f ~iil'Ch 31.
1993. Are Uere any comments, cQrrecticr.s Qr"" a r.:otion?
SECOrc .. Q: By Commiss.ior.er Clil1E'n.
MOTIO~I P.ASSES: (h~a·irm.an Beecham: All those ir, favar~ sa'!' P.ye? ~11
opPo$e~That passes on a vote of 4-0, with Co;-.rr,~ss.iom·:r-s. Bee(.~ai7·., Cas.s.ei
aDd C~rrasco abstaining.
AGENDA lTEM 3 60? .. lO"WLE. W.C;,'1': ~.pp€.al of tre zoning adrr>.inistrator's
deciSion to deny a variance for a sin91e-fa~ily residence
to allo~ c0nstruction of a s~cond-story additi0n for a
total f100r erea of 3.186 square feet where 2,651 square
fe~t is otherwise the ma~imum permitted. Environmental
---'-.. ~,,~".-
04/28/93
-2-
-
-' . -"
-
AsseS5m~nt: Exe~pt from the pro~jsicns of the California
Er. .. 'ircrllT1enta1 Qual;t." Act. Appltcatior. No,; n-~-'27.
Zone D~stl'ict: R-l.
(Commissioner Cassel steps do .... n.!
Chairma_UE:_ecr,a~; Sinc;;-Com~iss,oJ1fr Cass.el lives within 300 feet of ~his
location, she wdll not be partaking in the {jisCL:ssi':!r"1 of our first item,
Are therQ any staff comments?
ttr.!-i._o1onna: Sta""f has M co:nme~ts to make at t~is time.
(hairma'"! 8eec.hM: QllestiOf1S from the cO:1"mlssior?
~Q!i'Kll~;;-ion€r Oiakii!:n: I ha .... e se'.'f~ral Questions. If 1 understand this
right, is this the first floor area ratio (FAR) varia~ce we are looking at
since the new ordinance went in jn 19S9?
Ms. lytle: There have been ether vari~nces. b~t th's is the first denial
that has been appealed. So yes, tne co~~issi~r. is seeing an fAR appeal
for the first tim~,
COfMlissionEr Oiak.ian: Have ",'e had other F~Rs. that nave passed since that
ordinance took effect?
Ms. litl~: Corre~t. !~ fact, the appellant in this instance has brought
up fOIJr other insta1'Jces \IOnere fAR variances were granted. "These are
addressed in the staff report. There hcs also been at least one denial of
an fAR variance which was net 2ppealed.
~;lonE-r Oj~kia_1j: So we ha\,le had fou\"" that ha .. e gone through. the
four that are in the report, a~d one tnat has not,
Ms, Lytle: I think that is comprehensive, but J am not certain that that
is every FAR \lU1a.nce that has b!3'~i': app.lied for S~l'\ce the ne.,; ordinaf1ce.
There is a provision in the horre improvement exception process that allows
for r...-~n;)r everage-$ to the FA?" <!.'ld we ha'lE' l"'t~riJret~.j that is
approximately lOa sq~are feet, so th~re have been 5c~e home improvement
e.xcept 10f1S grcl.llt-ed that (n"e E-x,ceeded FAP. ty a rr.~ ncr amO'dnt,
(omi..??_tc~Mr G1az1er: ! ha'Je a question cr, process and. H.actly what we
can and cannot do tonight, Is our decision to approve or deny the
appe.al? Can \>Ie, lflst~J.d of si!.j'ing yes or rio to the 584 addiUOf\a.1 sqtJore
feet tMat he is asking for~ say yes to 200, j~5 to 300?
Ms. lytle: You have the abil ity to recommend conditions with a wariance.
If you felt tha.t you could recommen1 approl,ial with. cert.ai,n cl}nljiti<ln~. and
one of the conditions wou1d be to reduce sqware footage by a certain
amClIf1.t, yOll haIJe tile ability ta make that rl.:cofr,rnE'rtd2tiM to the City
Council.
Chairmar. Bee;::Jl.1l1!l: We will no ... · t\.Jrn to Hie pubHc hearj~g, Stewe Player
will speak far the app·1 ic.,anL
Stellen Pill_~ __ r. 1874 Guinda Str;:!~ala Alto: I am here on behalf r:f the
applicants, Glenn and Julie Guidou;.:. 1 would lik2 to clarify for the
L
04/28/93
-3-
-
-.
...•
. :., .
,",' ~, " ,:. -;~~-r
. " r1
-~ -~ .... ......-...~~-
record t~,at t~e record shows that the owner and or;ginal ~pplicant j~ this
matter was Anita Cuidoux, Glenn's ~other. P~r5ua~t to thes~ proce~di~gs,
she Ilas a,)5i'~ned riel" intHoii'~'. te' Gler:r, a~·j ,Jul it? GL!idc'j~, and t/"ley will
proceed throughout this appliration. That is who I am appearing on behalf
of.
In addit~on to Glenn who is spetking later, as well as his ~rchjtect,
Dil1e>rJ .KyTe, there are several ,.,-eigh!:;CI·'; who wish to speak in 5-upport of
this application. Also others whG are available to answer qllestion5 as we
go along. 1 have sub~itted to you a letter dated April 27 which basically
sets forth ITJ.:f position and t,h-e position of He Cuidoux's w~t~, re-gard to
Ule ability of H,is comiT1ission to rrdke the rJecEssar"j' findings ;n ord€~ to
allow t~i~ appeal to prevail and t~~ Guidaux's to proceed with the
improvement of their hO~f. !n addftlon to t~at, there tlav~ been letters
delivered to .e in ~u~port of this matter by various neighbors. Thers are
two new letters ,"'hid r hHrf.> recehed, one fro.":i a Mr. and Mrs. Kanazawa
who llv€ at 611 law1e Way and one fro~ Mrs. DespOsito who 'i~e~ at 601
Well ~bl!ry Wlay. I would 1 ike to sr~bmit those far"" the record, There are
others u,at ,"'e'r"e FAXed in todO!j. ~Io:re they m3.de available to the
commission?
Ms. lytle: Ye~, we ha~e a letter frQm the residents it 4080 Wilkie Way,
appears to be Sandy and lim Gallas; a T2tt€r fro~ John Minck; QnE from
Bill and Pam ~jmberley; a letter from ~enahern and Jean Nassi; another from
John Mlnck; o~e from William and Ernestine Faxon; and one from Rachel
Deai. These are all at your pl aces tonight.
Mr. Player: There has been submittea to you an extensive staff report,
including th~ tri~scripts of t~e zoning hearing. so 1 do not feel it ~s
nece-ssary to go through them verbatilT' ag-3ir-;. Sr.!t I ~rr anilable to anS'/rj'er
any questions about the staff r-eport. I would "iH,e to make a fe" comm.ents
and to follow up on CommiSSioner Ojakian's comments. "Yes, there have been
other FARs of a relatively minor nature which ha~e been allowed, but th's
is realTy the first issue where we are confronted with the Catch-22 that
appears to be in the ordinance where you ha~e a young family such as the
Guidoux's, who are long-time residents of Palo Alto and ha~e six chi16re~
living in a three·bedroo~ hOQe, ~hD are requesting that their home be
alloloo'€d to be exrande.o in orcer-t,:; let !her;; rem.:,,., ;n t"~e harte as their
children grow, and to allow them t~ continue to live in a neigh~orhODd in
which they have b&en raised to this point. The neighborh00d, as yo~ have
seen, is reallj one that basic~lly has two-story ho~es. Mr. G~idou~ has
some slides to show of the neigh~orhood. The ironiC thing about this
particular application ~s that in order for this to be al1':Jwed, it .... ould
make thi 5 home mare; n cODformity wfth He general nature of thei r
r.ei9hbDrhood, as op90sed te be~rl9 sOIT.eth10g that is so;:·ewhat different
fro~ what was there before. I think that the evidence of the support of
the neighbors for thls application reflects not o"ly that ch~r~cter'stic
of the neighborhood but also the support that they feel this addition to
the house will cause no hardship to the adjOining neighborhood. In fact,
the neighbors welcome the addition. I am sas~ng that in support of the
fact that at the ~earin9, the statement was ~ade that the letters
submitted by the neighbors did r.ot addrtss the findings. It is my
position that the letters in support really are indicative of the finding
yo~ can ~ake that this would have no detrimentaT impact en that particular
neighborhood, because basical1j, the neighbors who are the most impacted
by it see ~o impact. These letters are indicative of that.
04/28/93
-4 -
-
In my lett!?r of April 27, ! ha','e indicated t(" .yOJ Ul~t. flr,dings un be
made in support of this variance. If you feel that after heari~g the
facts, h~ar-jng Mr. Gui.a'oux and ta:lk.ing to the desigiler, it 15 an
appropri~te decislon to be ~ade. I k~cw there ~a5 been an issue discussed
at some length at Hie loning h€Hif1g as t,o ~h2tht-r or not there was a
basis to ma~€ some finding! here. T~~re is s~~e precedent in !hese that
have been cited, and as we go throljg~ these, 1 ha~e S0~e of the earlier
variance decls!ons which we can refer to and I ~uote some language from.
In my opinioif, they wculd give you a t,3..s~s to jT:tlke the findii,gs. na~ely,
(1) an irregular Tot. Here we ~,ave an irregular lot, a cuT-dE-sac with
160-foot frontage. There is indjcation in the fjle that this is one of
th~ 'mal~er lots. Tha~ is a fact. lt is a s~aller lot. but it is a
cul-de-sac lot, and if yo~ look from the site location, that is the only
lot ~n that partic~lar c~l-de-sac th~t has th~t particular config~ration.
Although it is a smaller lot, it has more exposure to the street than any
of the other lets there_
Also, the house whilh was built on the lot is already at the site coverage
limit. It is placed in such a ~ay. due tc the setbacks, that the only way
the Guidoux's ran proceed in this matter, wjth the exception of putting a
carport there, is to do a second-story additio:":, as we have in.jicated
here. There is Tanguag~ I can reC!d to you that has beer. quoted before
that is supportive of using that kind of rationale to make the finding of
unique and unusual circumstances and that this wo~ld cause a ~ardsh'p to
the property O,'ir:er if the .... ariance were denied. It is a very difficult
decisi{)n that is c{)mjng before you tonight because of the natut"2 {)f the
R-I ordinance, ~eighing that against the potentiC!l detriment to the
homeowner and t{) the idea that we are trying to encourage fami' ies such as
the Guldeuxls to be able to remai~ in P~10 Alto and to remain in our
school dlstrfct and t{) help this community to continue t~ be a vit~l and
YOIJthfu1 comrmmlty. So we are 10(.11<:1[19 2t ... ·~ighing s·ome balances here and
we need to do some creative, fleXible thinking tonight to try a.nd deal
wtth t~'s problem. I belie~e it is the first instance that such a
situation has come bef~re you for discussion.
As I indic2:te~ tn -,'ou, thlS is really a l.2.Se lI'hfre we are looking a"t a
sing',e-far:-,ny, s',ng1e-story d~eniT:g ha'Jirg a seco[,;,j story added which is
more in line with that pa~ticu'ar ~eighborhoQd. What we are asking for is
approximat~ly 550 sq'.!are feet above the aHowable FA~:. Theie has been
same sugg~sti(1n an,j dlscussion In the staff repnrt that if th€y unenclose
the garage and convert it to a carport, they could go ahead and do this
addition. For those of you who have been out to the nelghbor~ood and the
1ocation here, that real1y wO'..Jld net be a feasit,~~ ~oluUon for the
Gvidoux's. I really do not feel It is a sol~tfon that would be acceptable
to the neighbors, because there is ro other carpo~t for blocks around. It
would cause a security problem for them. It is irteresti~g that in some
of the other deCisions you have made, there ~a5 been some i~dicatio~ thit
carports were allowed to be enclnsed for the rfa~ons of providing security
and prjva~y for the ~omeowners_ We also ~ave to consider that we are
looking at thlS decision 1n the :ontext of SOffie precedents and some
earlier deCisions which ha;e been ~ade and S07~ earlier findings which
have been made. But we really do ~ave to focus on this particular site,
this particular neighborhood, en a case-by-case basi~ t~ determine the
reason~blenes5 of the request and the appropriateness of the request i~
the context of the surrounding propertles and in the context of the needs
L
04/1B/93
·5-
-
--~------
What 1 would like to do 1s to gj~e you an overview of the problem. You
have seen my letter and YOu ha,;,e seer, the basis and the theory on which
think you :Iave the ability to m.l.k~ the fir,dj~9S. r WOUld li~e to
introdiJce Glenn: Guidcl'::x who would 1 ike to give .}'ou some more specifi.:
facts of the rationale and the reasons behind their desigM at this level.
He has a model he wDuld like to show }~U, ~s well as same slides, to put
the neighborhood i~ 50~e kind of car.text.
Glenn A. ___ ~uicoux. 602 ID""'le __ ~liLPalo ~.HQ: Caod Evening, Chajrman
Beecham and Planning Commissioners. My wife, Julia, and I are the owners
and residents ~f 6D2 lowl€ Way . ."I~ would lili.e tc trank you for tlking the
time to review our sitlJatior; ard for your-assistance in working towards a
mutually acceptable ~o'utjon. During the last 12 ye~rs, my w~fe and I
have been. ...,.orking toward severa.l s"als, inclu·jing thE' purchase and
DiNner-ship of Ea2 To\\'le \II a)' and the ad.j:tion of a se.::::ond floor to make our
nO:T1a a co;nfortz.ble heme for O'"r farr1i1y. We desire te· make i:'npro'w'ements to
our home that -'(111 enh02nce Hs value, its liveability ar"j its -aesthetic
appearance wHhin our neighborhood. Wo:: wis.h to a','oi-j !flaking any
structurCi;' t'nange~. slJch as a carport, that would malf.e o\..r property
different and ul1iQue within the area. The existing lot ccverage is
slightly the maximum a"owable. It is at 35.7 pe~cent, where 35 percent
is the maximum allowed. Therefore, as Steve said, the only additional
strl.lct1.Jre we can add wCi..lld be a $econd~fioor :.;;truct'IJre. we looked at
adding th.e 383 sq~a!"e feet .... 'h!d, ~s ct.JY"f"E-ntly allowed under the FAR
regul aticn. It .. as determir.ed that adding 383 s.qu-a .. r~ feet 'fl3S I'.ot 90'.ng
to be sufficient to me€t Oilf faiT1ily's ne€ds .. f;, stairwell requires
approxi~?tely 100 square ffet, l~~'I{~ng about 283 sq'Jcre feet for tll-e
actual additiof1. That would be enough for hlo small bedrooms. Also, an
~dditio~ that size loo~s r~ther peculiar C~ a larger home. !t would Jook
so~ewhat like a turret there on top, or li~e a chicken house.
In re~iew'ng other FAR variances, it appears that there is some precedent
for finding tt',at Cl.!l irregular, odd shaped 1..,t nay ~ro'Jide a basis for FAR
variances. My lot, because of the ~~isting location of t~~e home on the
lot, was built to ~a~l~um sEtba:ks. It has a six-foot side yard ~etback
and the rear yard setback actually eJte~d5 into th~ location of the
gar·age. With that large s.et~ack, we ha~e 3,O~O sq~arE fEet of street side
landscaping. Our plans include having professionally done landscaping
with the goal ir1 mjnd to minimize tne appearance of the increased mass
that would result fro~ our planned addition.
The offEred solution cf converting the garage into a carport is not an
acceptable option for us. We have reviewed thjs carefully, and we have
determined that to have a carport in our neighborhood would really be out
of character, extr-emely so. ft. carport WOUld be contrary to our objectives
in that it is o~r de~ire to enhance the value. the functionality and the
appearance of our property. Converting our garage to an open carport
~ould do just the opposite. Our intent is to make i~provements to t~te
property to e-nhar'lce its liveability, its ·walue, its appearance, and to
improve its aesthetics within the neighborh~od. We b€1ieve that our
proPQsed addition will enhance the appearance of our property and will
(reate a home that is more consistent with ~eighboring homes. I would now
like to take a few minutes to sho\!<o you my slides, after \!ihid Dill.on and I
will be happy to answer your questions.
O~/28/9J
-6-
~ j
,"' I ~I , ! ,.--.;
~.-,;-;:-.:"{" -. :: :
ji~~¥~1' __ ~ .... __ .. " __ ._~, .. _"'>"'~
r.
-
[A number of $lid~s are ~hown of t~e neighbJr;n~ houses and 602 Towle
Way, )
Dillon Kyle has be~n 'Very helpful 1.'1 constructirg sE'.leral r.lodels. This is
one of the earlier ones. There are so~e ton~tncillg argum€~ts ~s to why
this structure is ar'c~itecturally superior to the one that we chose. It
allows fer more light arId higrer ceilings in the ,.,nd cedroom$, but my wife
and I turned down this option be~ause of its appearance and because it
would not readily fjt into o~r neighborhood. We want to stay with the
construction and design that wc~ld blend in, rem~ining homogeneous with
thE: neighbor; rig house;.
This second model shows the yard area in grec~. ~hich wau~d b€
iandscaped. With Hds desig:l, 'I'"e were close to 1,200 square feet
initially. We began looking at ways to shrink it. Dne cf our early
r~quirements was to try and put 1n a laundry porch in the u~stairs area tc
prevent carting a :ot of laundry back and far-H, to the garage. That was
one area we elim'nated. ~e also took some space out of the bedrooms a~d
out of the central landing He-a, which is tMis t~ird rr::ode1. So this is
the one we ha,.e arrh'ed at no·w. The bedroom are"s have shrunk somelrrOhat.
and I believe we are down to Big square feet en this design.
Commissioner Cullen: If you ,,",'ere to remo·.;e the 1anding area, as mentioned
in one of your letters, ho~ much would that shri~k the house?
Mr. Guidour: The landing area itself measures 175 square feet. In our
initial discussions with Dillon, if we were to remD~e it entirely, we
'WouTd end up with SOrTie corridor space, some halh,ays. We think. we could
get 7S or 100 or maybe 125 square feet cut if the; anaing wt!re to go away
and hal1lrrOays were to be p~t in to replace it.
Commissioner Cullen: It would be reduced by 125 square feet?
~t". GuidoLix: 1 think that ~'culd be the 1r.aximu" .. SamewtlHe around
100 square feet.
~_haim.a.., Btc-ecr,am.: 1.r:.'ck1ng at y0'..!r b~'-lepr':nts up her.:, yDll :llpntioned you
cDuld lower thE square footage if yo~ red~ced the la~di~g and stjll have
sam! corridor space, so t~ere is no gain of 175 square feet, I have not
looked at this at all from a $tructural point of view, but it just seems
tc me, jn looking at t~e blueprint, that what I belie~e to be the master
becruom could be compressed and tne landir,g area essentially eliminated
all together. Is that not fe~sible?
Mr_. Cuidoux: I .... Juld like Dillen Kyle, tr.e archjte.:t, to speak to that a
bit, but by cl)~pre:;sing the master bedroom an~ eliminatir19 the landing
space ent!rely, part of wh2t we are war~ing around j~ a large double
fireplace and barbeque ~ith a lot of brickwork to~ard the center of the
house. We were trying to balance the addition around that. That is a
very sizeable structure supported wit~ a tremendQus a~ount of concrete
underneath the house. To look at removing t~at would be a pretty massive
job.
Dillor, Ky',e, lQ9l Emerson Street. Palo A1to: One of the things t~at would
happen if w@ mJved thls wall back over to compress the bedroom and get rid
~----~.< L
04/18/B
-7 -
.'r·
-
__ ..,;L'_ .... ___ .. , _~ ..
of the landing is that a ~ot of the walls do net bear down on other
walls. An ~ttempt to 1et the tWO'5tC~Y ~31l n~t be a '·lat surfa:e. as in
many of the ether houses in the reighborhood, there is a little roof
element or some other mitigatfon te the tWD-stor) h~ight of a wall. If
this wall also came i~, it becomes very expensiye to always have one ~all
not bear down on any Dther wall, That was ene of the reasons fer letting
the house tome :0 this far edge so that it w~uld be ~ore feasible,
stnJctural1y.
CCml:1is..~io.n.~~ Carrasco: have a quest:crJ abo;Jt tnt soiution proposed b)'
staff regarding the carport, I can see that the nei;~borhoQd does h~~e
enclosed garages, but it comes -down to a:-: i~$ue of trading off a large
house versus a carport. I am w~nderlng w~ether between ~r. Guidoux and
the architect, can yeu come up with a creativ~ soluticn that results in a
beautH..:l house and a beautifL..'l addltion with t~e carport. In my mind, I
can see some ideas, a~d I am ~ot s~re why you have el,minated the idea.
Mr. Guidoux: We have had some discussion on that. Our g~r~ge contains a
half bath, a washer a~d dryer, fcrced air heater, wat~r ~Eater and a freez~r. It is an area where W~ store eight bicycles and quite a few
other personal items. I have four teol boxes. 1 do seme auto mechanic
work. as kind of a 'iiE-ekend thing, on occ03si-un. I also have an antique
piano in the 9arage that was buiTt in 1896 in Ne .... ' York City. A..,.f1ile bad,
J began a project restoring it, so it is in t~e process of hawing paint
stripped off. To h<i~e an open carport, for me, seems rather difficult and
infeaSible, I have pOIll'er tools in the garage. inc;i.<ding a small table
saw, One thought wo~ld be, what would happen if someone, SJch as a
neighborhood child. wandered into an open carport alld injured him:;elf.
would haVE problems securing th~ property.
In addition. I wo~ld contribute t6 noise pollution in t~e cul-de.sac.
There is a tendency far sound to rewerberate around all the houses there.
Running any type of power equipment in a carport, the sound is going to affect the neighbors.
CommiSllMer Carr .. ~ .. li_Q: ~'r'Ere do you pad.:. your cars if you tlave all of this in the garage?
Mr. Gu~dcux· In the drive~ay.
,_hairman Beecham: J:e ""ill now ~>E.ar rro'l1 the re~aining speakers..
Jea r, N..].~ .. si, 6C2 \t,le11sbury COJ,:.r.t..l.... ... p .. a.lo Jl.1to: Our h0iJ:e ba::ks up directly
to t~e Guidoux's. We would li~e to thank yo~ for this opc:rtunlty to
address tM€ cOTmission. ~1'2 w€re sur~ri$ed and lier.y disapPointed by H,E
dE'Cision to deny a var"lance to the Guic!oux's for their s€(ond-storj
addition. We are here tonight to reiterate our ~ho1ehe~rted support for
the; r re.rr:odel. \\Ie understan,j that the addi t i 0'1 \\'111 Ey.ce-ed t~e prescri bed
floor area ratio, hO·Never, ~re bel ieve it is importar:t to l':.ok b'::J'OFld the
f1umbers in this case. One, ne G:..J~d,~'lJX hOLlse is sunounded on all sides
by larger hOLlses. Therefore, it would on1y enhance the reighborhood for
them to enldrge theirs, espeCially in the t3steful ~ay they are attempting
to do it. As you can see frD:7i the large nur;-,):.er of !~tter5 that 'you have
received from other neighbors, there really is support for this addition.
The second issue i~, in my eyes, the mere j~partant one. It is the
D~/28/93
-6·
., I
I
"
-
humanistic on~, T~,e Gujdo~x's are a w~rde(fully l~rge family, ~nd pure
and simply put, they need mere spate to li~e jn comfortably. They have
long @stablishe~ roots ~n Pa10 Al~o, Mr, Gu1doux ha~jng grown up in this
very house. They He not b'Jilding for specu1ati\.'e fJu,:"pcses, OIlS SO many
people ~ave done 1n Palo Alto. Th2Y are only asking for the possibility
to continue livj~g in comfort in this city. Huma~istical1y speaking, we
do not see how the city can really deny th2~ that possibiljtj. ~e
therefore ask t~at the cjty grant the~ t~fs request.
MenanJ'JlLt!assi 602 ~'ellsbllry Coun,.....£.i!JLAHo: I ,,"'GL.:ld just 1 i"e to add
to please facil itate us es neighbor3 to have neighbors 11"e t~e Guidoux's
to continue to be our ngighbors.
Mr. Player: I would like to brlefly su~~ar~ze and speak ~n support of t~e
appeal. This is a very ~ifficult deCision, no ~~estion, The ordinance
say:9 what it says. When the ordirlanc~ was put tog~ther. it was dHid~d
that lnstead of having an ability to go in under a home im~rovement
e~ception, you ha~ to go the variance route for anything 1n excess of the
FAR. That is why we are here ~ith a variance request.
There is some oifficuity with rf::'gard to the size, Let rle a,jdrE:ss that.
The Guidoux's have made an effort, in cooperation wit~ their ntighbors and
in cor.sid€ration of Ueir r.eighbors, to make a very aestheUcally pleaslng
design. They have rr:ade ellery effort to desigil in such. a way that it .",.ould
not appear bulky or in any waJl appear out of cor.text .,Hh the other
neighbors. They h~ve an unusual l~t in the sense that they have an
extensi .... e abjlily to landSColpe this area in a way that wOlJld take i'!waJ'
fr~m and mitigate any appearance of bulk or mass, which is normally the
concern that wE have.
If you need some additional support for making this deciSion, there are
some other decisions, as I have indicated, that could be looked at to
assist you in mak'ng t~e findings that would enable you to make this
particular decision.
lhe landing area has been a subject of discussion. There may be some ways
they cOlJld deal .... 'ith it, but bas;ca11y, Hi~ h a fa":',ily of ei,sht. The
la~ding ar~a i5 net going to be empty sp~ce. It will be u~ili!ed.
Belie'..:e mE', ;,,'lth six ct'iidrer'1, it ';till be utilized, rt has been de:;igned
in such a way as to not be obtrusive. The unfortunate thing is that it
does add square footage. As I have indicat~d, I appreciate your dealing
with this, Tony, I OIIppreciate ylJur ques.tioil relat~ng tc the cupo!'"t. but
J think that to try arid de i!. carport here wowld be completely out of
context and would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. I feel that
if you say that you could put the same bulk and mass jn by just saying you
will put in i carport, 1t seems to defeat lI'nat we are trying to do. ~;hat
~e are trying to do here, casicd11y, ls to do a d~sign th~t is gDir.g to
blend, which i~ going to provide the security, and wilT be within the
context of the neignborhood and enable the family to continue to live at
t~OIIt location. I do appreciate your time and consjderation of this. It
is not an easy decision, b<Jt I trus.t you will 91\12 it yOllr full
consideration, Thank you veri muth.
Qiairma!'1 e.~.~.C;.1:l.~.:<: Seeing (10 other speakers, I \11'111 close the pub1jc
portion cf the hearing anj bring the matter back to the ccm~ission. Are
there questions. for staff at this point?
04/28/93
. g.
-
Commissioner Cjaki~n: First, I ha~e a comment. F~r the publ,c record, I
want tD note t~at I went cut and locked at thjs s,te on Saturday so that I
would ~ave a~ idea of what context we were t~lking abDut. In the process
of doing that, I bumped into Mr. G~id:ux w~o was gracious enough to take
me through his house. ~o r ~2'Je a pretty good unjerst~n~jng of the current
house and ~hat he is proposing. He showed ~e ~he mo~els at that time. I
want to make sure that is on the record.
Now a questlon for staff. lnere arE SD~e com~ents in here, Nancy, about
this 160·fo,:t fror.tage and ~,cw that applies to the whole lDt. It is very
vague in the way it is prese~ted in here. This is in the excerpt of your
!1ea:rir.g on FebnHr)' 4, Pag;: 6. Hie par'agraph that S?jS, "Also the Tot
location, being on the corner and at t~e bulb cf tr.e cul-de-sac, I have
160 feet ~f frontage to the sidewalk. Th~t 160 fpet of frontage has a
five·foot setb3ck along it, siYing 800 square fert. Technically I can't
claim that as my land, but that 800 s.quare feet is tner.e, So it makes He
lot appear larger than I can claim."
Ms. ly.tJ..g: Right. Throughout the Cr'l:J1I'f1IJrlHy. we have the lot dimensions,
essentially the property 1 ine. an~ then we havE an area of public
right-of-way that extends beyu~d the property boundaries w~ich is city
property. That distanc~ betwee~ the sjdewalk and the property line
appe~rs to be the front yard of most residences. It is maintained as part
of the front yard. It can range In depth from zero to ten feet. In this
case, the appellant has measured that space and is say'ng that the
additional space that appears to be part of his lot ca~nct technically be
counted toward the land area. He is using t~at as a rationale for why the
FAR overage is acceptable, in this instance.
Comm i 5S i on er Q.i~.Kj __ ~_D.;
that were incTud€d in
would be greater.
So he is usi~g it as a rationJle to say that if
the Tot siZl! wOllld be bigger, and therefore the FAR
Ms._,_.-.1..zJJg: That; s correct.
CommissiQr1€LC __ l,l_llli: r h-3.-€ a q~estiN' fc,r the-cit)' attiJrnex iii t€1"~:> cf
the findings that are necess~~y. Fl~d;~g #2 on Page 7 of the staff report
reads ~s follows:
-The granting of t~e application is not neces;~rj for th~ preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial pre-perty rignt of tn€ ~)Jplica:'1t. nor is it
necessary tn prevent unrea:.or1<lble property 10.5s cr lln:H!CeSsary hardship in
that the applicant could construct a 2,651-square-foot house just as any
applicant who o~ned a E,339-square-foQt parcel in the R-1 zone
district .... " It talks abollt \oo'neHler the "or~ 1" ~unr.e,:essary hardship~
is an alternative to ~nr€asonab'e property loss. What is the rel~,tionship
between those c12uses?
Ms. Cas.e: " ... unreasonable prcperty 105:> or unneces.sary hardship.
ar eah.er/or for Hi.e la~t half of the finding.
Comrnissjo~1J_~_'1: P.r:d the firs,t par"t of the finding is still
mandatorJ'?
Ms. C~se: That is correct.
04/28/93
-10
It ; s
--~
.-
.......
(~.IT"iI!LLs __ siOrle_I _____ ~.lJzier: I have a q:Jestiorl for Nancy. ! dm ir.trigued by one
of the previous examples, 591 [~~ter Street, w~ere FAR ~XcEpt'ons ~ere
granted. I am very familiar with that property. We al~ost bcught it. In
that case, they added a 478 sqHre.~~c.ot carport. Ih~t lot. 'is scm€:\rI!f-.at
similar to thIs lot. It is somewhat pie· shaped, and ~retty strange. Why
~ould you claim that that situatio~ is somehow different from this
situation? The findings were made, in t~at c~5e, that because it w~s ~
ple-shaped loti it was appropriate to claim that there were exceptlcnal
and extraordirlar), C \ fcu-;o-,s.tar.ces.
Ms. Lvt~: "Ihe main dfstj!'1ction tlere is H.at ir the current app1ication,
we have a structure that is to code and is net i~ ~eed of rebullding. !n
the ot~er 1~stanct, we had a situation where an entire property had been
de\leloped c.rcund what was M·t up to code b:t to{~aj;s standa.'!"ds. We were
improving tilt' fire saf;a>ty of the structure by enclosing a detached
garage.
Commissioner Glazier: ~'o:.J couTd have required that they r€build the
carport to code, per se. Putting the 9a~ag~ the~e Q~fin~tely increaSed
the mass. There was nQ questiofl of that.
Ms. Lytle: It was a detached structure that could not ha~e been rebuilt
as a carport in its current locatfon today, because you haYs to maintain a
one-hour fire separatlon in that 1acation. So if you were to b~i1d it as
i!: carport) you would ha'/~ had te: ~o'.'e it ~r, an the property uroder t.aday's
regulations,
Corrrr.issioner .GlaZi.!.r: So yOlJ .,ere-c1alming a public safety reason for
do; ng that.
M'l> lytle: "es, that \alas one dtst\('\ction. t,e-Helle there were othHS.
too. The house was a much older house than thIs one, and there were s~me
complications with their lnterlors that came into play. modernizing some
of the interiors, as well. Prim.arily, the issue was that it couid :1ot be
reconstructed to code in the same location, and Ly shifting it th~ three
feet required. ~t dlsrupted a 'fI'no1-e let (1f c·ther ~mprovE.me!'\ts.
Commi..$.lloner Gl aZ1€r-: Eut jO:.J cou~d iH'gl,;e that becalJs:e the GuidoLlx's
tod~y have an enclosed garage, that, in fact, provid~s public saf~ty.
Rather than replccing an unsafe situation. WE are maintaining a safe
sHuatinT1. So one cou1d use thE' same IDgh: as ll:)~<j in the past to grant
variances to this FAR, based on the requirement for publlc safety.
~j_.=..-L.ttle: You couTd. You can make ar.y arguments.
Ms. lytle: You could, however, can~ert and nGt ha~e the situation whEre
there is a structure on a property line, in this irstance. You could go
from an enclosed 9ar~ge to a carport without wiol~tirg any codes, where
you could not. in the other on€.
CommlS-S1CfI'i!r C~rrasco: !\arv:y, lre :taw ';\J.'jgest\r'9 nat If"l U.'2 c-as.e of th.e
existing hOUSE th~t Bill cited, it was t~e property and its configuration
that enabled you to make Finding ~2 for the varianc~? rn other words, the
04/28/93
-11-
-
----~-~--------
struc.ture arld it'S locHiall alTowed j")u to mak~ that find:rll~?
Ms. lytle: Yes, we do define both the properl~ dimens~cn$ and
characteristics and the improve~ents existlrg 01 the site to be part of
the situation. So you can ~ti' iz.e the striJctlJreo;; tlie;~SE'1.,e5 and their
location a~j configuratio~ as part of your fi1ding'S. We did so in thdt
instance, anc "yOll cOIJ"ld in this, are, 115 ..... e11.
Ccmmissioiler Schmidt: I na"le a q:.Je.st~Dn a'ocLJt anothe" Qr;e of the examples
Cited in ~e'r"f, the-one Dr: St, frarc;s O:i"E-. ! d'-eve by that nou::;e, ar.d
~ndeed, it is a fair"lj good size. t"";;-stOf), nouse for tne neighborhood.
believe it is the only ~""'G·story 'nouse around there. ~,11 of the others
are substantially smaller in appearanc~. I was wondering about the
statement where 1 guess you are s~yi~g t~at the 167·squ~re·foot garage
space has far less i~p~ct on the neighborhood tha~ t~e additional square
feet of floor zrea proposed by the appellant. 1 would like to ha .... e you
talk about that a little bit, in that the hawse itself seems to ma~e a bit
of an impact on that neighborhood
Ms. lytle: Please remember that the hO~5e itself and the proposal for the s~cond story were not the subject for the ~ariance request. It ~as this
garagE enclosure isslJe. Tne secorld story 1oi·as propc-sed to go forward ir1
any case. Sc tr.e variance a;)~l ication fecused on the COVE-red parking
spaces, esse~tial1y, which was the tradeoff that ~as being prese~ted~ as
has been done in this instance, as well.
COITll]l .. 'issl..gner 5c.hn:id:: It see'":",$ to me that that neighborhood had ~ostly
enclosed garages versus carports. although I do not recail that for sure.
!t rtay have bee-n ; n keeping wi th Hit: cnaracter of the ne ·jghborIlDod,
~..Lvtle: That i5 correct. The surrouncing Drc.perties main1y did not
have the carport Situation that thls o~e did.
~ . .9:nmis.siqner Oiakian: I am Ii,issing the PDlnt here. what I bel ie'o'-e you
are saying is that they were allowed to build the second story and then
after the tact. they came b~ck to talk abo~t E~closing the garage? It is
sort of the same argument he~@, enly we ~re ~utting the cart b~FGre the
horse_ I find the logic in:erfsti~g.
~s. Lytle: The St. Fral1.:is ho:::,: is rcoally the most paralTel, \>·e belleve,
to the 9ppT!cation before yo~ tonight. The dlstinction between this
applicat!on and the St. Fra~crs application is that the overage, in that
case, was 167 square feet. \~E felt \\'12' werE stretch~ng to make th-2
findings, in that instance. but W~ saw justification for not havIng a
carport there, for having t~e enclcsure. I~ this instance, we saw reasons
for it as .... ell. What we became ul,cc~fortablE-with in the Towle Wat
application was the amaurt of excess, the 500 square feet, the 0.5 FAR.
That is wflere we baH.elj, I think, as. beir1;: sepa.~ate fro~ the 5t. Francis
application. It was the ~agnit~de, not t~e issue so m~ch.
~ . .ommissioner Glazier: Nancy, if the appl icatian that was before you ~ad
been for an increase in square footage of 300 square feet instead of
550 square feet, do you think your decision ~lght ~~~e been different in
any way?
~ .. ~._·_lx.lli: "es. if you nGtfced in the minut.,=s, that ..... as a direction in
04/28/93
-12-
~~#1;=J?:--
,'11>
w~l'h ~e were ~eadjng in th@ discussion, to se~ if we could brlng the FAR
more in line with other FARs in the s~rrCJndi~g neighborhood. We actually
€ven gave the app1icant that option in djscussj~g wh~ther he would prefer
a decision that might include a conclitir:)r1 111:.e this, or \oOould he prefer to
go al1 t~e .... ~y,
Com.<lissiOr]er Gl~zie_t: So yOJ couid probably ra~.e st'veral of the findir.gs
if the impa~t of the b~lk and ~ass of tMe struct~r€ ~ere not 518 square
feet o~er the current Grdi~ance?
~~. Lytle: Yes, 1 "",uid ha.'t' feTt Il',ort' cc;,:"fortabl.e if ~t were n{lt to the
amount that tt is,
COlmli 5 s i orier C i a~i~.r~: I f we \I'eroE' to red<.tce the 1 a~d ~ n9 by wh at G T enn was
saying, 100 square feet, for instance, it is 175 square feet, of which I
think he said t1e could redu-:e it by per!"o,aps lO{} square feet. He is going
to ne'3d corridors,
£ommissio;JE'r Cullen: Reduce it to 125
That means a SO-square-foot reduction.
c1arify that?
square fe~t. ~s I ~nderstood him,
Would the applicant lik€ to
Mr. Guidou~: 1 wou1d iike to ask Dillon ~yle for some assistan~e on
this. ~e have discussed this a little bit, but we have not actually tried
to calculate square footage of \I'tHt it wiil.!1d take, My understanding is
yes, we could eliminate a p~rti~~ of the landing, but it would requ~re
some cor~idor space.
Mr,~: r must say it is ~ery diff';cult to gi'.'e-an exact number. r
think it would be mDre a1oT'r-g the 1 irlEs of 75 square feet tt'lat could be
taken out comfortably witho\.Jt hailing to reorganize the way the mass of the
house is distributed.
Commissioner Scnmidt: I nave a quest ion for staff. Could someone-refresh
my memory as to when a rtlgh area in a resid€nce starts being counted' as
seco~d-floor area? For example, there is an area that is apen above the
living rDG::'!, 1 belie'.'e, ir this Ilhr..
Ms;. l,.t~e: rt loI'ill CDU:""t a$ a :,€Cr;:ld floer if H bas a floor, first of
all. It \\Inl also count if it is: air :5pa':-e that EXceeds 17 feet from the
finished floor of the lower floor to the roof above it.
(ommissioner Sctjmidt: Thank yDU. That is what I thought.
Commiss;or.er Cullen: Mr. fuidou.x, in you~ lette; of February 16, which ;s
aho frem the deSigner-, it SdyS "M,/ wife-and I wO:.Jid arlpreciate it if you
[Jce C~lonnaJ and Nancy lytle w~uld corlsider approval of our variance
request contingent on the eliminat10n of t~e second-floor landing area
from our pians. This elimination af the upstairs floor area, con'Sidered
to be nonessential, would remo:e apprcximdte1y 150 sQuar~ feet from O\.Jr
proposed addltion." I a1'l fi~ding three different figures, a!1d r do not
kno\ol 'What the proposal in this If'tter is, b\Jt I wo .. ',d ljke to hav-e that
clarified,
Mr. Guidoux: If 1 remember corre-ctly, that was seyer~l days after our
public hearing. It was an atte~pt to open a negotlaticn with Nancy and
04/28/93
-]3·
-
Joe, and we ne~er re(~j~ej a rEsponse tc that letter. Regarding the
150 5qu~re feet, at that tine I h!d ~ot had any lengthj discussions with
Dillon. arid. I \oO,H just m('.:I:.~,ng ar as.sLilrl~;.t'LD~. lt m~j n·~t ha'{e been a. '"ery
valid assum;;!:ior..
Comm~ssiQne~ (u',"ler:: The rte.xt paragraph say~, "\IJ€ are .a .. are of He fact
that our existing ~o~e and garage de CDrt~'n two hundred. or more, 5qua~e
feet of noI'\esser.tia~ footage, hcwevl2r, it is not fin3.:lcially feasible to
eliminate t~es~ arias co~sidered to be ext~~sjve.· So it looks as if
there is 5quar~ footage of indetermina~e excess in here ~om€~here. I
guess that is wi-lat we ~ave been trying t.:l ge-t at, if it is possib1e tc pi!'l
that dow~ a littl~ ~ore.
Mr. G_tUdoux: I sho;.Jld Si:!y Uat that port";",, of the Tetter is not .... ery
well \'jritten, I wrot-e it mys.elf! an.d in rereadjl'1g it a day or so later,
realized tMat I had left aut a point which is fairly im~ortant. That is
tnat Ue viewpC'int of ha>'ir.g those extra square feEt ';,'35 not my 'IIiewpoint
or my 'Wife's, but the .-ioewpoi.nt of the city zoning office. \We 'Were told
that a two-c~r garage requir~s ~OO square feet, and our two'cdr garage
contains nearly 560 square feet. Tnerefore, fro~ the city's standpoint,
it CQntains apprDxim3.teTy 160 square feet j"',ore thar. is req'Jired. We were
also told that our master bathrDO~, that we plan to eliminate and turn
into a study corner, was not an essent13l usage of floor space. Our
thoughts were to have bookcases and a desk with computer i" that corner of
the house. ~e felt that since we were adding two bathrooms u~stairs, we
did not need to maintain the two bathroo~s downstalrs. We would have cne
bath downstairs.
Cornmis_Hane, Cullen: One mor-e q'..iE'stion. I belie>'e YCli said in your
presentation that although the garage is ~versize~ for a t~o-tar garage,
it contains other elements. But then I think you also said you were not
even using it as a garag~. You we~e using the driveway for your cars.
Mr_ Guidoux; Hrere have b£>en 5.Dr1E occasions an which I have had it
cleaned out enoJgh that! could park a vehicle in It. At the moment 1
cannot do that. ! plan to get it back to that state i!'l the fut~re 50 that
I can park at le~st one v~hicTe inside the gara;e.
Chair:man Bee-chOIr;": 1,1-;11 be;i'l H.:~ dis(u:;siG~. of this ite:;1. let /C,e start
with an aspect H.at I "m '.erj 12~(c,,~fortatlle ~'lt~" \1"= do welcome .1'Qung ar.,j
growing fa~ilies in Palo Alto and want to find every way possible for the=
to stay here. But I find what is co~jng up here is essentially an
approach to our FP,R regulatlon in ~'hlch ~'e conslder-ed the squ<lre footage
of the lot with the assumption that you have sidewalk in front that is net
included in that calculation. ~ith the intent of protecting neighborhoD1s
from overTy de\ieloped housE'S, larger hO'.Jses ir; te,-ms of mass. and larger
houses in terms of gOing from side yard to side yard, W~ came up with
these "magic-al numbe:--s." In this nS2, it ,",'inds up being sl ightly under
42 percent as t~e sQuare footage allowance for the site. That 42 percent
Explicitly included 92rages.
Here we have an application where the applicant is essentially saying to
us, I could take my garage and turn it into a carport. So therefore I
think it is appropriate n.at to includ~ garag~s in your FAR calculation.
think that is a significant step fer us to say, YES, that is a reasonable
approach. If I could find exceptional circu~stances at this site, and, in
04/28/93
-14-
j
.j
-
;. :::,~ '';'"
~'>~ ;..:.,
::-:~t~t.
fact, substantial 105s Df property r ghts. then r could say t~ere may be
reaso~s for doirg things that are no otherwise appropriate. ThiS is a
corner lot, 11 little bit of an ood .5 U. C:l"'ner lots occur fcur to iii
corner in Palo Alto. Hf1) Goes na"'f a curVE in "it, but it is not a
draffii:ltic cun'e. Sc I do not fine that this site is E'neptiona1. A little
bit ur.usl..'a', a litt1e b"it atypica1 ~erhars, bt not excfpti:r:r.a1, at l.east
not exceptional in the sense cf ~h~~ we are talk!n; abo~t doing on t~e
site. 1he 2pplicant requests that ~e cDnside~ that the right to a garage
is a substantial property right. !~ fact. we do require parking sp3ces,
and in fact, 9ara.g<:'s HE-often stora9"= '5op~ce-:J.!ld are 1\ot park.'ing spaces..
That is a fact of life. But r do net se! that an applicant's choice of a
c?rport ~~rSijS a garage as 3 tradeoff for additicn~l l1w1ng !pace w~njs up
being a substantial property right that is at risk in a situation.
r appreciate t~e fact that the applicant a~d stiff h~ve tr1ed to negotiate
on the numbers nere. BlJt again. tne numbers. are not matcrliflg. \tie
str-lJggled over them in setting tr.em curd wound u~ ... ·hera we d~d. If the
numbers in this applicatfon were closer to the FAR limits in the
ordinance, j think I would feel MrE comfortabl~ with it. Fjr.dings
relative to a smaller increase ~ay be appropriate. But given the size
that we are talking about. ! cannot fin,j it. 1 do believe. as the
applicant has dlscussed, that mo~jng the landing and moving the master
bedroom may not be lIerj feaSible, strllcturallj speaking. 'l'ou have thf
walls below, you have the chi~ney in t~e way. and that ~111 be diffjcult.
look1tl9 quickly at the plans, 1 thDught perhaps you could move the other
two bedroo!p.s over. Maybe there is: ~cmeH:ing vossit1-e there, bl.it I suspect
Y()U are 90in9 to r\lft into probiE-!T;s lJT', how you site your stairwell and SOr.1e
oUler issues.
I do not k~ow of a good sol~tion for JO~. I think there is some
90ssibilitj' of some (oom c .. er th€: FAR. ':e do bave a design exception ru.le
that can be applied. In this case, hcw?ver, to S2!Y that a ty,·o·story
design fits in bett~r ~ith the neighborhood does not fly. The
neighborhood is certainly mixed. As I drove through it, I did not see
that the preponderan(e of houses ~ere, in fact, two stories. I do not
find that having a second floor in t~i5 area would be a right or an
enhance~ent of the cu~rent desigrs existing in the neighborhood. So I am
sorr.)" but r am winding up thinking that] cannot support what you are
doing here. I feel that the s1ze cf ~~2t yo~ ar! asking for is larger
than can be supported by the fact s; .of the case.
CommissionnE:!.!J.lazier: agree wHI't a portion of BE-rn's remarks and
disagree with a portion. I am ver)' sympathetic to yorJr situation. r find
my family in pretty much the )'CIme situation --a small lot, -a sma~;l
house. !t is unfortunate that we put in place SD~e magical n~mbers that
discourage or make it verj dtff~c'Jlt for )'0\,;:\9 faMilies to stc..y ir. Uds
city. I want to list some of the costs that are involved if one mo .. es
frlJrn eo sma11 hOllse cr, a sma11 lot tc a bigger t\OIJ.5.e. ~GlJr prope1"ty tax.es.
tan go up substantially. )OU have ~ovin9 costs. Maybe your kids are
changing school districts. Tha~ mal not cost you nroney, but those of you
~ho have done this know the costs. You lose cOlltact wlth some of your
frie~ds and neighbors. In add~tion to ~aving to buy a bigger house. you
~alle to buy a bigger lot. Those of you whc have bought bigger lots know
tnat that ;s VE-ry expensive, sa it is a slgnifir::ar,t problem.
I disagree with Bern i~ the sense tnat r feel I could find that there are
04/18/93
·15-
L
-
exceptional cirCu~5t~nces which ~Juld ju~tify so~e iddft!o~31 square
footage above the CL'rrent FAR $quare footage a11owance, But I agree ~'th
B~r:'l ir: the Sei15E Ulat I feel 50) s.q[.;are feet is perJl.3pS :! ljttle too
much,. I lon~. in j'Glir immediate cul-de-sac, a:"d I see that; most of the
homes are arcund 2,600 square feet. I think it is fair for you to request
of us that you be given similar property rigtlts to your adjacent
reighbor-s, so 1 eouid support sornetrdng that was in the neighborhood of
250 to 350 s~uare feet above the current FAR.
Part of my problem is th.at ! r.a',!€' s'orne difficulty lrIith these magical
mlr\'IDers. I do net have any a.nsw~r as: to "Nh~t the r~9[lt (1',.:.g1C potion needs
to be, but 1 think I would h~ve a let of sy~pathj amo~g people who were on
th.e Phnnlng COl':"Jnission at V.e ti:ne ;,.,IhQse suggestions arid pr{)posals got
turned down, and more restrictivE' FARs, more res~rictive m~gical numbers
were put in place. I just t~ink they don't work for young families, and
unfortunately, staff is in a position where the.1I have to be very rigid
about it-The home improvement exception is a good idea, but it just does
flat permit the k1nd of flexibility that young fal'iil~es need.
Hot only do we have the il1equities that )'ou poj~t out about other people
getting FARs that seem to be sim,lar to yours, I also have ineQuities en
my street. Hclf thlC peo?le On my street j-,a'lE S::CDfid-storjl homes tha.t are-
2,800 squa~e feet. Mine is a Single-story home containing 1,500 square
feet on the same site lot. ~hJ are they er.tit1eJJ to a bigger nous.e thar'\
am? Some of ttJeir two-story houses are better 10{;king t~a;:"J mine. It
seems to be a situatlon that needs some f1exibility.
One thing that has 5truck me is that we seem to ~ave a Situation here
where all of the nei9hbo~s are very SUPPD(t ';ve of what the Guidoux's are
trying to do. Over the past ~ve(!r, Or! a coup1e of cccasl0ns, we have
allowed neighborhood>, s"-Ich as t'ne Gr€ei1:meadow neighborhood and one other,
to say, yes, by virtue of a majority of tM€ reSidents, we are go;~g to
restrict your p~o?erty right5. Here ~e have a group of n~lgnbors in a
clearly defined area saying, we want you to ha~e the same property rights
as.,..e h.a.lle, but 90. S-. h , ge-e, tn.e !\,aj{}flty rIJ1e does rlf.>t applY when yC\~ ere
trying to give more property rights as opposed to restricting property
rights. ! fi~d that a little iro~i~.
I 'Nould encDurage yell to think aboi.Jt ~ome way of making tnlS house 'o¥or.k
\l(it~ perhaps only a~ additional 250 square feet abo\lE the cu~rent FML
~ould find it hard to say yes, you can have 3,200 square feet, because
then, this commissi{)n would h2ve no aHernatilie but to say tc e',leryone on
that cul-de-sac, yes, )'OU are entitled to 3.200 square feet also. Then
JOU just get into a nasty sjtu~tiDn and we ~ou'd be in design review
befcre you knew it.
I really empathize with you. r would personally support a motion or some
outcome tOri~ght tlliJ,t 9 ~ lies yo\.! ~·ome extra '><l.lJan~ footage abo~'e the: clJrref1.t
FAR, but I feel t~at a 3,ZQC-square-fcot house there is a little too big,
in my opinion_
~_Qmrnissioner Carrasr.o: TtJis reminds me of a zoning administrator decisioii
in Gctober Of J977 when the loning administrator resjgn~d because she
thougM that her variance, ve.ry sifr.ilar to this, should be granted, but
she could not make the findj~?s, and it drov~ her crazy. She had bee~
there four month~ when this deCision came before her,
04/28/93
-1 c-
imagine th'9t U,E: Gui,joux's a~.:-re~l1y nice ~-eo~'le, b caus.e they have th2'
~upport of' an of their r;€ighbo~~L Hi:; -is a realTy d ffic'J1t iteJ:l for
me. I would: ike to head in the direction that Cni;;m 5 inner GTazier is
seeking, but! do not see how I can make the finding. Regarding the
third finJing abollt beirg detrir,-'-9ntal to the fieig"toc ~,oo1, the design is
compatible and is going to fit t~e neighborhood, and 1 have no problem
with that third finding tha~ the application will not be detrjm~ntal or
irljurious to the property improvements. I thi~k it will be a benefit to
t~at neighbor[;ood.
The problem 1 have is with Findjngs ~l a~d 2. My reaSGn for having a
problem is due to a r€(ent deci~ior: made by this PianT:ir!g (cmmisslon when
it unanimously recommended to the City Counel1 on Cowper Street. It was
unani:'Tl{lusly overturne<:: by tile City COl.lncir aga';nst the-Plannin9
Comission. That was the fjr1di:19 of e:..ceptionaT o~ extraordil'1ary
circumstances on a very smaTl, subs~andard lot, with the history of the
COOJnc11 looking at that kind of 1c,t and allol'l'lng for second-story
additions. In t~is case, r have a diffis~lt tim~ deciding that thEre are
exc~pt~cnal or extraordina.ry circumstances or condiUorlS applicable to
this property because the hit corlfiguration is longer than normaT. r
would imagine that if you were lJ~king f0r a v~riance fro~ a setback or
fr~m a height poir,t of vie',o!~ I cOl.'ld prDbably !r.3ke that finding based on
the configuration of the lot, but an FAR vari2nce, given that ther@ is
plenty of roo!r. f;;r ~hat FAR, is a '.ery difficult one for me to make.
Tha.t brings me to Findlng #t, that this is necessary for the enjoyment of
i substantial property right. YOJ have the substantial property right in
the FAR that you have right now Giver: that 1 cannot 'l1ake Findings #I and
2, while 1 thin~ this ho~~e is very compatible with the neighborhood, and
glven that the City Council just went in the other direction from what the
Planning Cammissio:1 rec,1mmended just last r:10~th, I cannot sU;Jport this
appeal.
ComtTlissioner Schmidt: 1 would li~,e to sllpport being able to do all of
that which has been proposed. 1 thjnk it fit~ t~e family a~d the
nelghborr,ood. That hi!.iSe would fit ;n Itf")' appropriately witl1 the
~xisting residEnCES there. From dri~i~g through tbe ne~ghborhcod and from
the photograp1'ls I saw t~is c'{erling, F.ost Df th€ homES are tWrJ-story, a;!d I
think the design we havE' seen ",'o:.:ld fit in. As iof'lY arid others l'1a"ve
mentioned, Finding #3 is easy to make, as this project m~ets that, in that
it does fit in and there is a lot of support in t~~ n!lghborhood. I, too,
w~s going tc mention the Ccw~er Stree-t house that Tony meflticned. IrJe were
~ot unanimous in supporting th~t. I voted against that Gne, and I t~ought
it was un~sual at the time that because a substandard lot is substandard
because it is smaller than r,crmal, I,I,'€ wculd let it have a t'Wo-story housE'
or let it have more square footage than normal. J believe that council
allowed the two stor~es bwt did not al'o~ for extra square footage.
In looking at some of ttle oth~r projects mentioned by thp appellant, they
have all been gi~en sorrle extra sq~are footage. It seems that the spi,'it
of having FARs is re~lly to ha~a a house fit on its site and fit in the
neighborhood, This ene, e~en as designed, would fit in the neighborhood,
and r don't think the one on St" Francis that was approved particularly
fits. However you ~rgue it, whether it was the garage or the second
story, It is rellllJ' exh~ squar.,. fMtage or. the secl)nj story and allOWing
O~/2a/93
-J7-
---'-..,,=--------..-..-.-'" ----"L
-
it to fit i:'1 by ha~ing a 9arage t~.a.t flts in the-r:e~ghb\)rhood versus a
c'l.r~ort.
Indeed the Cow?er StreE~ hOI"5~ ~aS a specu1~tion hcvs~, not any particu1a~
person coming in who has 1 j~ed in the reighborhood or who has any history
there. In this casE, ~e have an owner ~ho has been in that house and in
Palo Alto for se~eral gener~tians. Others have said it is certain1y a
priority to support famili~s in Palo Alto, a~d·1 w~uld agree ~ith that
priority.
Another thoug~t is th~t I, too, wculd s~rpDrt a varlance fo~ some
additional square fcatage, but it is hard to meet the findings to allow
this muc~ ad~jtional squ~re footage. There might be a variety of ways to
reduce it some~her~ in the second flJor, possibly taking out a portion of
tIle garage versus the whcle thing and turning it into a carport, makIng it
partially Oller.. If We til-it fiJlo:l' a way to make-the recl'Jr:mendation for a
varia~ce with so~e additional squ~re footage but sOT€what l~ss than what
is profiosed, I would ~tJPport H.at.
Commissio~ __ EC'~.iakian: I want to uk ¥'athy a question befcre making 3.
statement. Se~eral of yo~ have been grop;ng around the same thing, a~d it
is what Nancy appeared to be groping around w~en 1 read the minutes. That
is. som-e additional square f.:.Jtage, but nnt an of 'J'!hat is bBing asked
for. r am curIous as to "tat t:-'a~ n'.Jmber ;5 i~, yeur minds. have any of
you thought about what that nu~~er is going to be?
Comrnission£-r Glazier: Tne nurr;ber in my rr~nd ~s whatever gets t~em up to
what the other three t~o-stary properties are on the cul-de-sac.
believe that would be in t~e neighborhood of 200 to 250 square feet.
Commissioner Oi~l:;jar,: That lIIou:d be an f"AR c,f atJoll".:. D.45. Does that
sound correct? This issue has been on~ cf the toughest issues that I have
had to deal with. I feel it is tougher than some of the ones we had
recently that people tho~gh~ were controversial. It is tough for me
because in my lfoif1d~ this is a classic e;(alT~;;Te of n£"Jtron bomb plannirlg.
where ~e are putting tt,e b~ildin; before the people. That is ~ littl~
disturbing to me, realizing t~at I sit in my ~cuse w1th four chlldren i~
lot ~here 1 got ~n ~ridEr thi ~ri~r lonjflg Dr~lrlances and bujlt my house
o~t ts 0.48 FA?, whic~ js right to the last irch. That is what we k~e~ we
could get at t~e t~m~, and ~~ didn't want to 90 through this particul~r
process. Now I know why. So I am ha~ing a real difficult time with
this. I know ~~at space is req~ired f~r a fa~ily. I li~e ~ith those fuur
children, and those four c~ildre~ don't live lr:: the house just by
themselves and their parents. Tn tOday's day and age, you are going to
have several children over to your house, J~er and a~ove your own
childrer1, all the time. In fact. wt:en ! was talki",;, wit~ Glen~ out in
front of his house, 1 had the RTeasure of watching one of his neighbor's
chlldren stfP past us and en~er thro~gh the bedroom windo~ into the
house. I could appreciate that because I ha~e lived through that. [very
day when I go home, there are at least two rhlldren who are not mine
running arou~d inside.
1 want to emphastze what Bill ,,o,3.S saying. He has emphasized this in the
past at other meetings, a"d so have yC'u, rat, wh~n they were talking about
2817 Cowper Street. Th~t is, o~e of our goals in t~e Comprehensive Pla~
(and r think yo~ tried to use this a~ a flnding when the Cowper property
O~/2e/93
-18 -
'. -~
-
----~-----.. ,-".... .. -"'-'
c.a:r:e up) is to encl)'Jrage l'cu~g fdrr::l:E-s to l;"'e ·ir. ~alo AltD. !t is not
to illcourag-e !:hefT' fro"" lh~ng j~, Palo Alto .. ~er-c we h2"eo 3 family nat
has beEn living at this site, a'1d this ~.as. b':;':I1 th~ family prCJperty slr"Jc~
1921. .He has :Jeen raised in thi~ ~Ol.i5e. he has. his children there. YOLl
cannot determine what that is going to ~ea~ dowr the road , but I k,ow that
in our own ca;e, we have turned arourd ai,d ~i'led our property te our
children, beca~se w~ like living in this co~~un(ty like they do, and ou~
expectat~ons I-<'()uld be that OJr c~ildren .. iol. ... id like that a150. it is a
very difficult i&5UE, because I under~tand on the one side how, a~ Bern
pointed aut when we ~ere d1scu~sing The Ha~ilton. we are bureaucrats, it
s~ems like, and fra~kiy, I do~'t want to wear t~at label. Somewhere. ~e
have to show SCr1',e flexib i,] it..\" ,arJd 100k at t!le Exa,:t set of circumstances
we have, and it is very difficult, someti~es, to fit the square peg in the
round hole. Here, jn a sense, ~e ha~e a peg that is not as square as it
seems.
There are se .... eral things that stand out in my mlfl:!, Dr.e is the ~isto)""y of
the family o~ the site, The other one is t~e size of th~ family, This is
net a famjly that is looking for a ,oupl~ of extra square feet to put in a
bedroom, I know what that is 1 ike, 1 hava been that rDute rnys~lf.
ended up living in a house t~at I wowld have loved to build out to
50 percent of lot caverage, It wo~ld h2ve given us a house that not only
was more functional but would have also given us a house that I think
would ha~e looked more attractiVE. rt would have been a better deSign,
but we could not do that, and my tleart goe-'; out to t/iese folks ti"1at they
ca~not do that. The other thing that a number of you have emphasized Is
that this neighborhoo,1 is a second-story bouse !1eighbortlood. We can argue
it every which way from whcte-ver, like we did wit.h Tamarack COoJrt. Thi~
house stands out of character. rt leaks terrible there. rt s~ouldn't be
there. $omethfng needs to be done, and it shouTd~'t be done to the
current FAR standards, b~cause l'I'hat litE' are going to end up with ;5 a
gunnery tower ~itting Up ther-e, 200 c'r 300 squElre f~et. It is going to
look terrible. So we've get to do so:netning here, and r hope Wo: all stop
to think about that and try and be a litt1e bit flexible tonight to push
t~is thing in a direction t~at giVES them something that is funrticnal.
can understcln-d why the.}, need three bed,oorr,s, the sal'!1e ~s 1 added Orito liy
hOlJse. No different f~'o,~ .YOU folks.
Continuing on, there are so~e unusual circu~stances, in ~j ~ind. ! ~o~ld
hate to see them turn that garage i~tc a carport. That particular garage
is facing right UD against some neighbors whom I tlave known for seYeriT
years. '!hElt W1"Juld not be 50rT1ettling nt') if'I'ould particl'lar1y care for. We
have a Tttter in the packet from them, the Wimberleys. In any direction
that we open this garage. it Is going to be like a trumpet right at their
front door. ~e are sittlng in a cul-de·sac, !f we g!t too much noise
comi~g out of an open carport, ~e are gnlng to disturo the heck out of all
those people in that area. I do not want to encourdge these peo~le to add
a carport. ~e got into U-,is argu:""',2""t about t.he St. Francis IItnere we had
the tail wagging the dog, lurnlng a carport into a garage. Maybe what we
ought to encourage tne~E peor!e to do is to teOlr dc' ... n the garage, build
the thing out the ~ay they want it, come tack to us and ask for a garage,
and then we will put in then. That is the logic we used before.
The point here 1) that a carpert would iook territ-1e in !Mat neig~.borhood
and be of a detriment to the people who are living in the surrounding
area. £t would be very unfair to them.
04/28/93
-19 -
-
.:...-.... ,_ .... ,,, .... ,----, -,-,.'
The fa(t that s~weral of the n~jg~~crs have told us, they know what is
going an there, 2nd in a sense, ~hat they want is 50met~ing that would be
good for the neighborhood and realizing they have a good family who is
going to liye then' for awhile. if rJe car;Mt g'2't ~o",-ethirtg here that is a
reasonable FAR, I am going to gs back to what SIll was saylng before.
That popped into my head this ~~rning, which is. maybe ~e ought to go back
.an<l try to get sam;: sort CIf a~ OHrI aj zcr.'2 ir, her€:. i~e reason those
other couple of h~uies look the w~y that they de is because the Guldoux's,
gc1ng back to tile parerts, bui1t t~@m that ~ay. 1h~t was in keeping with
the neighborhood at th2 time. They chose to keep th£~ that way. If they
had chosen not to de that, if they had r·ea~jz:.e.c, baCK ..... h€rl w€ had the
non-FAR in existence prior to ~~en f built out, they would have probJbly
built those houses o~t a~d they wo~ld lo~k like anything else in the
area. So if we car~ot get sa~et~in9 that is reasonable tonight, and I am
speaking to the appellants as well CIS to my colleaguo?s, I WQt;ld encourag~
somebody to step up and try to get an over1ay ;:ons in t[lere of some scrt,
allowing t.'em to do what they ShDUld be at·iE' to do. If somebody needs
some ~€lp on that, I am wi11ing to gjve the time and the e~ergy, because 1
find this situation not to be what we w~nt there. We don't want to
di~courage fa~jlies from staying In the area, espe:ial1y families who have
lived there fo;" a long time and have partiti~at~d in t~e community. On
that note, I win stop, but I am SI,I.;€: )Iou fol10,",' my drift. Tn my mind, if
we eliminat€ a little rAp., finC'. 1 don't ',ar::t to de something that
eliminates so many bedrooms t~at we make this situation totally
impractical for them. They ~eed the space, and I feel there is encugh
justification in the things that we ha~'e heard tonight, plus Mr. Player's
letter, that ~e can make a case in here that says, given all these factors
.-that it is sitting in a cul-de-sac, that the garag~ is faCing directly
at a neighbor's house, that to turn it into a carport would be a terrible
thin~ to do. baHI for the neighbors and for the sound €ffect in that
cul-de-sac, and several of the other things I have mentioned. r want to
hear what Pat has to sa)!. nopefully ..... 'e can come up with a reasonable
number tonight. I f not that, maybe we cal') encouragE' t~es€ fol ks to come
back with some sort of ~n overlay zone, si~ce there is enough support in
the neighbor:hood.
C()mr'Tlis~ ___ i.Q.r!..!=r CullfilF ~.s t~i~ o~1::1 CC;'f!iT!ls.s:icner who was eon the (Omroi!:S10:'1
it th8 time we passed the FAR, ~e went for a ~~ch ~o~e generous FAR than
what the cJunciT passed. The counctl has slncf changed, and I think this
may be an example of why we need to t~ke another look at that ordinance
and see if it could permit a ljttle mere latitude for variances, or
perhaps for this o·.'erJay 70ne that several of my collEagues ha\fe
mentioned.
In terms of the aDplication, I won't repE-d;t what everyorlE else has said.
~e "ant families. ~'e ,",'a~t to If-eep families in this City, and r do thfnk
there is a w~y in w~ich pr~grams in the COiT!prehensiwe Plan should be used
In support of these va~ia~c€s sc~etimes, e~en thDugh the ordinance is
written in anot~er way. f think it is possible for the ordinance to be
reconsidered.
J would very much l~k€ to acco~mDdate this reqllest. I h~ve no trouble
~ith the t~'rd finding, as se~eral others have mentioned. I don't think
there is any detrime~t to the nejghborhoDd, all of who~ already have
second sterfes or half ~econd stori~s. Even Finding '1, as someone who
04/28/93
-2'2·
,-",
.:: ",r" -..
-
-----~------
hlS lived in twa corner lo!s, r find the~e is a~ e~ceD:ional or
co:'(traordinary circurr:s.tarcce tr:at is not ccmC1011 to other R~1 properties.
Swr~. it is C:0:711:10il to other (orner's N irten{'ctiDns, but the side yard
setback is a ~ery difficult thing to deal ~it~ whe~ you are building a
house O~ a carner lot. Or. the oth-er h.3rid, it does. c,ffer the opportunity
for a locatio~ of a carport in5t~a~ of the garag~. I do~'t know how that
fits in and I am not goiri9 to redesign this hou~e tonight. So the first
and tMird findings 1 do net have too ruch t~ouble with. Regarding the
second finding, rill' questiun to tl"1€ city attorN.'y was about tne unneces:S3~j
hard5hip and 'I'Ihether that cc{;',d M persc·naliz€cf 11" terms of this
particular f3mi'y, 1 guess her answer was that t~at is only in Part B of
the finding and Part A is that a substantial property right must ha~e to
be prover, as being in jEopardy. S~ I don't i<no'.r how tc wor;'; on thc:t, but
I certainly would like to find a way. Perh2~s between now and the time
this goes tc the counctl. t~ere may be some opportun!ty to reconsider
t~Qt.
I would support 3 ~arja~ce for a lower than requested FAR. r think that
the findings rrdgrt be able to be made fc,~ that. 1 a'r! concerned that the
garag5: is considi2'red ~PO?I·.sol1a' space fo'!' p-ersorlal hobbies. ~ That has
noth'lng to do with the land USE or the reaS0n why bUildi!10S: are tllere.
You doni t ask for a vari ance for that. YOll just accommodate YOlIr 1 i ',1fng
to that partlc-1.l1ar k~nd of thing. 'l4e an have hobbies and we iii) have
personal space, but if you arE not using it for tars, and you w~nt to use
~t for something £olse, yet net \.jS~ it fer living space, 1 l1ave a little
difficultj with that. So! t~ink th2t the nu~bEr ~f square feet that is
invol~ed in that garage, if it is not b~in9 used for a garage, certainly
could be u§~d for some of the square footage being req~ested in the
'laT'i ance.
I don't k.no," what the right rll.lmtJ.e'f' of sql.!:a.re feH shou1d be, but it
certainly should be to cut back the landing !pace, and I guess they are
going to h3~e to work en that. i suggest they do that bet~een now and the
time that it goes to the council. I wo~ld suggest they cut b~ck on the
re.ql.lested f1~or area rat ~o that wOl.l1d inc: \.lde tl'le garage as part of a
garage that is: not a g~rage. That, toe, can be adjusted.
! would like to find a way for us to be ab1e to do thls. but gi~e~ the
stri::.tures of the ord'r.anl..12, 12m fi>1dln<;; it 'IIery, ~er) diffi,:<J1t to do.
it does tell me that the ordinancE needs looking at and some revision.
Commissioner Gl.,U.i.~..r; I agre~ w~th Pat. I th~l'ik thE-magical nLlmbers are
wrong. 'The ordinance is wr,at 1S wl'or-g. I arr, gOIng to mar,e a motion a:lci
make a few alterations irl the findings. I would encourage acti~e
participation in crafUng these find,ngs..
MOT1Q..N: I mC)I,'e th03.t W~ G'~€rrl.:(e the dec~t''Cln I)f the zlJrd.t"\g adm'fI"strator
and recommend that the City Coun~il apprc~e the ~ar!ance, based on the
findings and conditions that I win state.
finding tl There are e~ceptional Dr extracrdil'iary circl.l~stances
applicable to the property involved that ~D not apply
ge.nerally to proD€rly ,i\ the same. d ~tr1ct in tilat tile: site '\s
a corner lot subject to a 16-foot s reet side yard setback and
the site 'Ia~ 150 feet of street fro ~age.
---........ -'-~ ... ,-.". >".
04/18/93
-21-
.k
.... ~._ ,.to; '"
-
Finding 11'2 The g:-ant ir;g of t~e 1lppT i::ati:);', i S ~eces~a:""J' for the
pre5e~v~tjo~ an~ enjoy~e~t cf a 5l' ~ta~tial property rjg~t of
the applior.t, in this \:25'2, tel bi.J ld a I"iQ:'11~ that ;s
archit~ctwr-cl1j It.'ell de5ign~,j 6:-1d onsi5tent .... ith the nature
and c~aracter of surrounding h07€S.
That is the or,e I am tt1e 1l1ist ("J'"";".fcrt~~1,e ..:ith, ar.d I wou',d en::ourag~
some llberal mod;fi,:.:tion
Finding #3 Th2 granting of the applicatiDn will ~ot be detrimental or
injurious to property or im~r~vements in the vicinity.
The condition would be that we Jim!t the house to a total square fcotege
of 2,875 ~quare feet) which is ~'hat the t~ree other two-story ~omes on the
cul-de-sac h;ve. This would include the s~ace in the garage, as well.
That would result in abo~t 225 additional square feet abo~e and beyond the
current ordinance,
HCOND: By Cornmissioner Carrasco, My reason f\)r secondi'ng this moti,n ;s
that w~ile we can make these very rigid fin~ings, Vic has expressed it
well that they srrQUlcl be bent and that the neigr.:.orhood has sUPPc1rted th;~
application. It is crying for an overlay zone or S:liile version of that in
this location. I also swpport it because the sq~are footage is limited to
an additional 225 squ~re feet above the curre~t ordinancE, At that level.
I tan feel comfortab1e that we can stretch the findings.
""5, __ Cas:~: Mr. Chai~man, trot;: iTlQ;~.er of the mDtio~ was iookii"l9 for some help
on Findin9 112. It seems as though, based 011 the astimoflY, you could add
that to the architect~ral rompatible sectic~ based on constraints of the
current design, including the 1cad beari~g w~11 proble~s and the chimney
design.
CDmmJ~sioner Glazier: T~at sounds great.
:::!JmmissiQ_r::J~L __ Sdmidt: I OI'or..:ld liH: to tali( about th~ square foohge
number you have proposed, Sill. That figure takes 300 ~quare feet out of
the propo5~d hQuse. ff we tra~51ate that i~to t~e plan, 300 square feet
CD'L)ld take->:L:t tloJ·:J u;csta;rs bedT"o·:r~s. They are s;o~1l bedroo~s upstairs.
We would be giving only an a~jitjo~al 225 squ2re feet. The St. Fr~ncis
Drive hDUS~ got 167 e~:tra ~quare feEt, ~~ic~ was for the garage. I do not
know the story berrind that ene, but we ha.'e dis':l1~sf2d a lot of things
about the property and thE family here tGnight, sa I am wondering if we
could make it a higher numbEr than 225 square feet.
Commissioner G1azi~i:: ! wou',d feel okay abo'Jt it, but I do not how where
to stop. The simplest ben[h~ark I [auld come up with was tha~
2,875 square feet was what the ot~~r fol~s got. So 1 thought it was
appropriate to givp them at least that. If yo~ want to gi~e them more, I
wc~ld like to hear from the other co~~issioners ~bout it. i am
comfortable with ~taying at 2.875 sq~~re feet.
Comissior'_~x~ __ <tkicn: Ob\i'iou:;;iy, I a"T1 not comfortable with stayins at
2,875 square feet. I would 1 ike to see the hOUSE be a 1 ittle bigger for
just the reasons that K<l.thy just statpd. ~'hat we an: trying to do here is
make sure we ha~e SD~e living ~pace for people to li~e in. I am
comfort~b'e with reducing the size of the la"ding, though I understood why
04/2.8/93
-21-
" . -.. " . ,
_ .c' ' "c . ..:.·~ '.
';~~~i
-
th~y put thJt in t~eir plE~~t ;i~~~ my G~1 cersonal experienCE. r wo~ld
love to h~ve that in the hD~~e if 1 ~ere in the same situation. It is
hard to come \.JP' with a magical nu~l')er. WhEn r Tooked at It, I teak t~e
1ijt size times 0.48 fAR, which is what t Ii:;ve. n,at might see;n funny to
Some p,=,op1e, but we are 9iopi:-,g for r.urnbers. l<ie can do it one way by
reducing the land,ng. The lan~ing is 175 sq~ar? fe~t, a~d we ca~ probably
E'lin:; nate 100 s.qUi:re feet of it. Th2t puts us arDund t~o? nU:!1Der I am
talkirJg abot..:t. r don't w"nt tD ti~~.er with the b€jro'Jms so ,n'Jch that we
make them unreasonable: in size. or that 11'';;' elklr:at~ sOrr1'2thirrq that would
not gfve t~e~ the ability to live i~ it. -
If YCJu had gone into H,at hous!:, 2:$ 1 die, and saw \Io'hat the-y have (and I
could appreciate it because I liv~d through it ~yse'f). they ha~e double
bunk. beds in one of the rJoms. Dne Df my chi1dn?:-1 cannot wait t.Jntil their
h1gh Sd1001 senior brotne-r goes to c':J1:ege next year. He;s cnompi;1g at
the bit because he gets o\.Jt of the bunk bedroom ~nd into a room f~r
himself. I know we conl1Dt acco;';'.mDdate €~er.vth;ng here, but let's try to
keep the bedroom space intact as m'Jch as possible. 1 am not sure how to
do that. Majbe they could reduce the mast2r bedroom down a little so that
maybe the number is a little higher than 100 square feet. I'd like to let
you fe1ks think about it.
Chairman Beecham: Let me jum~ in here. r am not going to supp:lrt the
motio!I, but let me help you with it. I am c.onvir.ced by the applicant that
what is designed is s.tructurally what he needs --two s~allish bedrooms
and a ~aster bedroom. 1 th~nk the s~ace Gf the Tanding probably is
unretrievable 'Jecause of the chimney and becaus.e of the staino.·ell
location. You can perhaps move the bathroom i~ a little bit. get rid of a
closet, maybe save 75 feet, maybe laO. As Bill's good intent at the start
was that we t~ke away 300 square fe~t, it probably makes it uneconomical
and structurally unfea5ible to do a good jab. To take ijway 200 square
feet I think is still ~rer'y close to the same answer. I wou1d expect t~at
for the appllcant, if we want to g~ve the applicant a way to have a chance
to b~ild it. I would think the most we could take away is 100 square
f~et. Then let necessity be the mather of a different aesigr.. But that
is the least the applicant is goirg te require to have something usable: up
there. Right now he is p~tti~g up bas.j(al1y a 9~O-sq~are-fDot s.econd
story. rrl gi:ner;;;l, that 1S. nc': a bi';1 SPC,jr,d story.
AlSO. as we shrink the desig'1, r thir.k wrlat the C!pp1~caf1t has looks nIce.
In trying to keep things to fIt with the neighborhood. I think what they
have in th! current proportions does tr:at pretty well. So €VtH1 though r
won't s~pport it, the re~t of you might think abo~t ~ither leaving it as
it is and finding that you can support the findings. (whlch I cannot) or to
reduce the b~ilding by 100 square feet. In that way. yow can give the
applicant a w~y to proceed.
Commission.~ __ L.Qj_~_kiarl: Tfldt ~s ~)3.sical1y t~e thir:kir.g I rrave had, Bern.
If we reduce it by 100 square feet, we e~d up with 3,042 square feet.
w,",ich is an FAR of 0.48. Hat leay>?s a little lump ii'1 some people's
thro~ts, glven what we ha~e talked about in the past. but 1 als0 agree
that by doing that, we keep a structure that is basically in keeping with
the neighborhood and provides the typP of space that this family needs.
It has been shown that they probably are ~oing to be long-standing
residents here. 1 kr:ow ..... e are an gulpjr'~ a little bit, but I want to go
ahead and ,:!'J that. I think we should just ITove arleac and do it.
{}4/28/93
-2 J-
-
----~~---------
Con~i~sjoner Ojakian: ~es, if you co~ld amend your ~otio~ to include the
square footage of 3,042 sq~are fe~t, 1 wDuld appreciate it.
Commtssionorr Glazier: Let's lea~'e my ~O'tlDn the 'foaj it is at 225 extra
squar~ feel. a~d then you make a motion to a~enj my ~otion. let's see how
that goes. Then we can go tack to ~ine at 225 ~quare feet,
Chairman Beec~a~: Vic, would yeu please make a su~stitute ~otjon.
substituting yeur nu~ber and the co~ditjQn?
~: Commjss __ io...,_~ __ r Oi.a.k.ian: H-e s~Jbstitute motion would be nat
amend Commis.si{lrer Glazier's motion to change the s,~ua,:"e foctage-number
(rom 2,875 sq~are feet to 3,042 square f~et.
Commissioner Sch~j~t: 1 want t~ paint out that is about 144 square feet
less than wn~t~e;-propos~.
Chairman Be~ha..rr.; IS that your i:".tent?
Commissicrle1" Ojaki.,9.n: 'That is my intent.
Chairmj(n Beecham: Is that 'i:lt O.~8 FAR?
Comrnissi::mt!r Oi_akian: It is a little over O.~g FAR.
Cha.irr:l_ar. Beecham: ! just \oIanted to kr'1ml if we ha'i.e a valid reason for
that nurcber.
MOTImJ; .h.();'i1itissjonF:r Cullen: will make another substitute m':ltion.
de not want to sit up here and redesign thls house. I think the people
who are If.'ork.ing with it and the square footagE in',rohed and what they ca~.
give up and what they cannot give up is more important to them than our
putting arbitrary fig-ut-iS Qr. this. So jf we ~"He n,>; o::or1.se-r.t of the
applicant, I would 1 ike to continue this item for restudy to see what kind
of a cO:11prorTlise lo ... 'e>" floor area ratio they can cc;,',e in with, ~,avin9 heard
the d~rectior'1 of the commission and what they will support. Some might
support a higher figure, a!1d some lower. BLIt s(!IT1~-..;n'i!re around Tn there H
does need restudy. I think the people involved can de that better than we
can.
C(1mmisS;_Q}l~_.r Oiaid'lB.: I appreci,ate yo'cr :;,.;.kirg that motior:J, Pat. r know
we are groping arcund here, and prQb~bly the people in the public whose
lives are involved with this are saying, what are they daing. I think
what ~e have done here is to have made a clear intent. What we want is
that we want them to be able to add on sufficiently to meet the needs of
their famil, in a way that is appropriate in that neighborhood, while also
sayi~g, let's relook at this and put it in a reasonable size, some n~rnber
that we u.n all live lI,jth. 00'l;0[';'51y, ! am one of those peopli! .. 'ho wants
to support that number and allow them to do the building to a reasonable
04/28/93
-24-
,
.: ~ .. -,,'
I
degree while letting them meet t~ei~ famlly needs. So r appreciate your
brj~gjng that up.
Chairman 8I'ech~: Since Pat's Mtfor"1 is continge!'lt uPOIi il1put from the
applica~t. would you let us know if you are am~r!~ble to thjs?
(Tne apPlicant indlcates yes.)
Commiliig_ner G1azier; want to 3:g~'e2 w~t.h Ioo'hat Pat said. 1 think that
~s oil great l,jea. J~5t to rr;a~e it as crystal clear as possible, it appEars
that there is support O~ the com~ission for so~ethi~g in the neighborhood
of 2,875 square feet. It is not clear that there is stpport for something
mLich ~igher .
. ~1..~ .. £itS~: I think it 1S an O'Jt c:f order i'ilotiOr:. It would be clen if the
substitute motion on the floor m~de before Commi5sioner Cullen's
substitute motion would be acted upon.
COr:I!T:issiQner Ciakian; If r wHhdr~'H my substitute motion, does that
clarify tne situation'!
Ms. Ca...a: Yes, ar:Q I say that because Pat is our parljamentarian.
Cormrdssione;r ~JIllet1: I am scrry, I forgot that two substitute motions
cannot be mc..de.
COffiTTlissionern_Q.i.akian: I so cnoese to wit~ch'i!w my suc'Stitl.Jte mQti011 so
Hat we can mOl'e iihead wit;' Pat's motion and get H.is thing settled.
Chairman Beecb:!m: Fer staff. 1 pr'esume I'!e de not need a date for this to
come back, as it is dependent upon your discussions with the applicant.
Is that correct?
~ .. ~_ly.ll.g: It would be prefErdble if w~ cOlJld continue trois to a date
certain, sa that it will involve renoticing. etc. That date would be
~~J ]2, the very next commission meet ina. if that is acceptable with
e~'~ryene, \01.; h'i.'€' (! light agH,d':l fur that night.
Mr. Pla'ler: I \,;c'uld l',ke to sa) trlat th~ Gt':ld:iux's ha~'~ been workil1g a
really long time en this, so any further delay wuuld just ~ake it mare
costly for them. ~ay 12th as a date certain is acceptable to us.
MOTION PASSES: Cha_irm_-1'i See::;~a:: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? All those in fa~or of continu~ng this item to May 12 to allow the
applfcant and staff to work over ho~ to redUCE the sq~are footage in line
with our discussion tonight, ~ay ~~e' All opposed? That passes
IJnanimouslj on a ~ot€ of 6 0 with Commissioner Cass@l abstaining.
(ommfss;oner Culler.: I will not t1'2 preSEnt on May 12, btJt my COi1'i.r.Jents are on---tfi-e-rec 0 rd .
•
I
-
,>CHN. e .. ,n,,-.. S
~i;J .. t~r [ 5oC"'.l..l
o>ou_. A ."'"~"
~'rr~t>< '" _,-",~u>
"":s.Y",,, ~ ... E
o .. ~ ~ ~UL~
CRIST, GRIFFITHS, SGHCLZ & BIOR!""
April 27, 1993
c~,~. s • .:~ ,
.,"''"E"
Writer's Direct Line:
(415) 321-5005
Members of the Planning commission
CIT~ OF PALO ALTO
Oeparbc:ent of Plannin<,; and
community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
palo Alto l california 94301
Re: 602 Towle Way, Palo Alto, CA
Your File No, 92-V-27
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter is in support of the appeal ot Glen."1 A~
Guidoux and Julia X. Guidoux to the determination of the
Zoning Administrator that the FAa variance to enable Mr. and
Mrs. Guidoux to construct a second story on their home at 602
Towle Way be deni~d~
It is the opinion of the undersigned that granting
of the variance in this particular case is appropriate. in that
factors a~e present which would enable the Planning commission
to make the necessary findings in orde~ to support th~
variance and allow the Guidoux family to expand their home on
Towle Way.
The R-l regulations specifically state that they are
intended to "creat~, preserve and e~~ance ar2as suitable tor
detached dwellings ••• and to creata and preserve variety
among neighborhoods and to relate operr space to existing and
permitted building coverage.R Therefore, as an initial
consideration, one must observe the characteristics of the
To~le Way neighborhood. The majority of the homes on Towle
way are two-story hcmes which have been developed over the
last twenty years and the granting of such a variance to allow
a second st~ry would make the Guidoux' home more in accord
~ith the eXisting characteristics of the neighborhood. As set
forth in the appeal of Guidouxs, there is no opposition to
r~ CR:ST, ClBlY7ITHS. SCHt;l.Z a, tHon'"
~ "
CITY OF PALO ALTO PLANNING COMMISSION
April 27. 1993
Page 2
RE: 602 Tv~le Way, Palo Alto
this variance; in fact, their neighbors are all supportive of
the Guidoux family and hope that they will be allowed to make
the requir~d improvements.
The d.eniat of this requested variance would, in this
case, cause an undue hardship to the Guidoux family. As they
have indicated, there arE presently six children living in a
three-badroom heme. These children are all partioipants in
the Palo Alto School District, and the family has been
longtime residents in the area and will continue to be a
positive support to the neighborhood.
It is my opinion that there are ample facts in this
case to support the findings and would sugqest that the
Planning Co~ission allow the variance as requested and make
the £ollowinq findinge:
1. There are exceptional and extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to this property that
do not generally apply to property in the same district. As
set forth, the lot is a corner lot of irregular shape with
extensive street frontage which can be landscaped in such a
way as to soften the appearance of this home. The house
itself is situated on the lot in a such a ma~~er that it is
impossible to improve the property other t~an by adQing a
second floor as set forth herein. There i~ precedent from
prior decisions ~o support this finding. Tha property is in a
neighborhood in which the vast majority of other homes are
two-story homes, whereas this home is a s~aller, one-story
unit.
2. The granting of the application is necessary
for the preservation and enjoYlUent of a subst.a.ntial property
right of the applicant and. is necessary in order to prevent
unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. As
indicated above, end as indicated in the app~al of Mr. and
Mrs. Guidoux, the 2,651 square foot h<:l':..l:se fJould be inadeq"'.J.ate
for the purposes and needs of this particular family. The
site coverage requirement of the ordinance :maJ.,-es it impossible
to improve this property, except tor the propo:·sed second floor
addition. The family has made evetJ' effort to Llk.e this
addition meet the g~idelines as set for.th by the ~egulatiJns,
-.... _I1_"'!!'-":"------·-----~-~---" L ,
-
.
I
l
1
f
-.
__ ----,0<-
CITY OF PALO ALTO PLANNI~G COMMISSION
Apr!l 27, 1993
Paqe 3
RE: 602 Tovle Way, palo ~lto
and only after considerable redesign have th~y submitted. this
as the requested deslqn. The suggestion of a carport in lieu
of a secured garage in ~is particular neighborhood would
cause a hardship in that it ~oulQ be out ot context in the
n@!qhl:lorhood .. irlt:::e none of the other homes have carports.
Thus, a conversion to a carport would not be an acceptable
alternative to this application.
3. The granting ot the application 'Will not be
detrimental or injurious to property improvements in the
vicinity. In tact, the granting of this vaz-iance is supported
by the neighborhood and it will make ~~i& home more in
conforalty with other homes in the particular area. The
Zoning Administrator has indicated that to grant a variance
would allow the applicant to construct a home, larger and with
more volume than allowed in similar sites in an R-l zone
district. Hovever t in order to make this finding, it is
essential to concentrate on this district and this particular
site. The allowance of this development will bring this home
more in conformity yith the adjoining properties.
Therefore, on ~ehalf of Mr. and Mrs. Guidoux, I
respectfully ask that the ti~dinqs as required by this
variance be made, that the Guidoux family be allowed to make
their adQitlon as deSigned.
SWPjblc
cc: Hr. and Mrs. Guidoux
t ,
~ !
-,"'
----------------------......-~
May 10, 1993
ll€mard ll€echam, Chair
Planning Commission
City o! Palo Alto
250 Hamilto~ A ven iJE
Palo Alto, C'c 94301
Dear Chairman Beecham &: .Members of the Commission:
RECEIVED
t'lf,'{ I 0 1993
OEP.·tt:rr,l,~E~rT OF' P:.ANN1NG
AND COI.:~.; UNiT'!' C :;vacPMENT
I am sorry [cannot attend your mectL.'""lg, but [ am writing to urge you to uphold the
decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny the varlance reque~t for an additional
535 square fet..>t at 602 Towle ""~ay. This is a space more than 10' x 50' or the
equivalent of more L'la..1. four 10' x 12.' rooms.
M you k,.ow, I have had a long-standing intere~i in the problem of o\·er.b'!J.i.lding in
.single family (R-J) zones. During the super-heated real estate market of a few years
ago, the aty struggled for ov~r five years to !'E'\lise the zoni.ng regulations in R-l.
The result was a compromise, which in my opinjon, is more than gem~rous for the
si:re and shape of the typical 6O'x100' lot in Palo Alto. ll€cause of the very personal
nature of R-l homes and t..l-te extremely difficult process that resulted fur new zoning
regulations. 1 urge you to proceed -..vith extreme caution and ("or.servatism in
granting variance:'.. Alth0Ugh it is difficult; I urge you to l>e as objel..--ti \"e a<; you can
in determining whetnel a particular variance recru.est can meet tiw rigid tests, or
findings, required. TlUs means looking at the property, structure, and
neighborhood, and it does not mean looking at the particular people who may
currently ocrupy the site. The structures will remain long after current occupants
are gone.
L"'1 t...'Us respect, 1 can dte tvw'o rdative!y recent requests for variances by young
families that were in fact gra..tted. Af 657 ~ ... feb·me, the Eke family a<;ked for a bigger
seo)nd story for their yOWlg family. Neighbors supported t.hem because they were
'such a nice family·. As soon as the huge hom.e Wa5 built on the 4400 square foot
lot, it was on the market for $659,('(X), An that was accomplished by this exercise wac;
that a mCY'~rate priced home became a high priced horne, and the Fikes we-nt away a
bit richer. The second caSf: was the very controversial va.tiance requested by "Michael
Fleming and hi., family at 11S9 Lincoln Court. The}' had lived in. 10 homes 'Over
nine years and this was going to be their dream house where they would settle
do\tVll at la'it with their five children. \Vith some modificatlon.5, they were allov.'ed
to build, 'Illey lived in the house less than n,,·o yean; and were asking $8:;0 .. 000 fOT it
when they sold it to move to Oregon. So the $250,000 cottage on a cottage (ouii
be<:ame a rdgh end house, and the young family is richer and gone. These are ju&i
two out of many requests I saw grant€'d based on personality rather than objective
fmdings that promptly turned sour.
<, • 7
.>:';-....
. -'",
'--·r -,",' ----:-~::-:-. ---~-'----'---'
The best thing Palo Alto can do to en(ourage young familIes 15 to keep OUI single
famil, zones from becoming speculative rea! estate ali it did in the eighties, and the
way to do that is to be 133 objective a'3 you can in making fmdlngs for variances.
~ow~ v.ith respect to th.€' suggested findings 1.'1 your report dated May 7, 199:3:
FindL"1g #1 essentially says, '"This is a corner lot and t.>"e Cjty's right of way makes it
appear larg.?r than it is: Is this a unique circumstance? !f you make this finding. it
would apply to just about every comer lot in Palo Alto.
Finding 12 essentially says, 'The owner cat1 build some additional space 'without a
variance by converting the garage, or some portion of it to a. carport". It se€nts to
me that this almost argues ilgain.-<;t granting the ,\-'anance b€<:ause the owner has this
choke. Since only one covered carspace is requ:ired, this home has some e)..'pansion
room on the first level/ and many Paio Alto homes function jt1St fine -v."ith carports,
Finding 13 essentially says, 'There are other two gory homes ar(>und and the
neighbors won't have to look at all the junk in the carport'. In how many of our
neighborhoods could this finding be made? I understand that neighbors are
supporting this variance, but so did Hugh Fike's neighbors. It is up to the Planning
Commission and Council to review this in tenn.<; of the overall objectives for our
neighl:>o<hoods and the integrity of OUI zoning.
I urge you to think carefully about the message you send . even though every
variance rt"queb-t is unique -if you accept the proposed rationale for the Tequrred
findings. You "Will be issuing an invitation for variances v."ith even less mrrit than
this one if you grant 3 15% increase in floor area based on these fmdings.
Please uphold the Zoning Administrator's recommendation to deny the va..-iar~ce.
Sincerely.
~~~??: hy/'
Emil}"M. R.mz.e!
1056 Forest Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RECEIVED
APR 211993
·4 ,
, ,
i
1 •
I
-----
• 5 5
' __ 5""~_
RECEIVED
APR 2 7 lS93 ,
~or:-Pl.NItr.NG
" ,"\I~ CO~.I!Mw.lIT'
Nancy Maddox Lytle
Chief Planning Official
Planning Division
Deer Ms. Nancy Maddox Lytle:
April 25, 1993
We are writing this letter in support of the addition our
neighbors Glenn and Juliil Guidoux wish to erect.
A~ far aa we are concerned this addition should be accepted
by the planning commission. The area consists of two story
hones so it ~ould not be like bUi1cinS a monstro~ity in an
area of one etory homes like ~hat has be~n nappening around
Polo Alto.
The Guidoux are a very nice family.
~ouldn't be the same if they were to
couldn't add-on to acoomrnodo~e their
Our ne ig.hborhood
leave because they
family
Please relay thi~ message to the PlanninB Commission.
Thank you,
~!>J~Z;;:~4~--
~il1iam and Brnestine Faxon
610 Wel1sbury Court
Palo Alto, CA 963D6.
,
~,
Ms. Nancy Maddox Lytle
Chief Planni~g Official
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Dear Ms. Lytle:
E.42 TO\llla Pl.
Pal~ Alto, CA 94306
Apr 24 I 1 ~9 3
RECEIVED
APR 2 7 lS93
D!PARl'JoIEHT OF 1'fJ.HtaHG
/.I,,/!) CC/,l~1J"iWr
I'm writing on behalf of the appeal of the Guidoux proposed
variance COL their residence on Towle Way. Jane and I have lived
here on Towle Place in a two-story residence since about 1966.
Why do I fully support the Guidoux proposed variance? It is
because we like the spa~e and liveability of a tYo-story house.
In this neighborhood, they are the norm, and with a corner house,
the city should recognize that it will enhance the overall effect
in the cul-de-sac. if I am correct, the new house next door to
~~em is tyO st~ry. Also I was surprised when I drove past the
other day to see that the old Brickta house, which sits behind
them has been converted to two-story,
Finally, the Guidoux's family I believe was the owner of
much of this raw property in the 50's and 60's when many of the
larqer houses 'VI'ere bu.ilt in this· neighborhood. The .family has
qiven dozen's of us happy lives in Palo Alto. I believe it is
simple justice and simply proper to grant then the variance. The
old folks didn't get to enjoy e larger house, so let us recognize
that with this young couple.
10 tJ/rtf.
-41·· ...
=----.-~.----. -
t",", r-A . 5.n. J/J. r, , V j2~-r->S ~~~~ C~
d.oD -AI ~4-~ ?r...-r-<--tL..u.-<2-
(?tJ _ CULr rJ,J../,,-,,-,,,-, " , '1'13 0'/ I ,_
.du:<Jz.. ;tf,vr,'
•
! .
! ---
~
i
1
•
I
f .
Apr i1 2', 1993
~J. Jos~ph Colonna
Planner
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave~
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Dear Mr. Colonna:
We are writing on behalf of our neighbors, Julia and Glenn
Guidoux, 602 Towle Way~ Palo Alto, and their appeal of the
proposed variance.
The Guidouxs' are requesting a variance \o;-hie!", would allow them to
add a second story addition to their home. This addition would
not only satisfy Lhe personal needs of the Culdoux family {8
rnember5)~ but their proposed plans would also coir.clde with the
design of other homes within the neighborhood. The majcrlty cf
homes in the Towle/Wellsbury neighborhood are two-story homes.
As the owner of resld~nce 611 Towle way, we have no objection to
the proposed variance, and hope the Planning Commission wIll
agree.
Sincer~ly,
~:fft;:~~~
611 Towle Way
Palo Alto, CA 94306
cc: N. Lytle
;.-;
-
.", .
. . ' .. "
" . -"
" -"~
-, , -~
.:.:_----w.::~_: __ ~ ___ , __ . ~_ ~
-------------i--
I
I
I
FAX Coyer Page
ProSt'''ff
72SA Willow Rd.
Men 10 Park, CA 94015
FAX/Phon" (4!5).325-3258
rime:
To
---
FAX Number. 3&-a!d..2!tL __
Company~ fl;j, 1)))0 fJknt1,r'71 !2.!,fJ
Attention: /4ty IlJ J. ft,1Ie<
From
Company: ProStutf_
Name: Bill Wimberlll
Number Of Pages: --«;fd'--':f-L~"'--,~
~------~ :::
--==-=-----.~
~
i I_
I
I
I ,
.• ,,--<
Ms. Nancy Maddo. Lye ••
O1ief PlIl1 nini om,ial
Planning Divisior.
250 Hamil"'" Ave.
P. O. Box 10250
Palo Alto CA 94303
OearNancy.
llie and Pam Wimb<'I)'
604 Towle Wav
Polo Al to CA 94306
Phone: 494-37!4
Due to prlor busine1.~ corumitmenu. we nre unable to attend. planning COaunl rtt;(: meeti.c,:5,
Therefore. we arc forwarding 10 you this I~tter of' support.
We have. resided In Plllu Al\O at 604 Towle Wa)' for die past flfleefl yeus and are considered:o
be the Close-Sf odghburs \Q Gien Illd Julia Guidoux. As for e.s we are. concerned. this variance
should have been gratltro aI the flIn c(mrrmnee meeting. GJen has kepi DS inrormed of this.
project since inception, i.c_1 reviewllig t..~e blue prints, rcviewtng sea.le model and ditcussina data
gathering technique •.
AIl.l,cugh ","'e lU'e untunilia:r with your .selection criteria, it a.ppears to us that the Guidoux5 sre
wen wlthin me guidclLncs and. speciflc.ations as required by sUlTUunding Te6idence:s. Plus., tht"it
famIly 'Size i~ far ~ater 6an tb:: !!.verage for t.hc Cil)' of Palo Alto. This tote.l package p,owd
be granted, lnclur.i1ng the garage to be consi~tcnt ~ith the TeSf of the homes: in the neighborhood.
For additional inCormatiM, we can be cuntal:leJ.l by ph':)[".e at 494-3724 Qr t=AX/Phone 325·32.58.
Rill &: hm Wimb<rly
~a~~y ~dddo~ Lytle
Chl~f P1anning Officl~l
Pla-n"l"ll'nS DivislOT'"1
250 .Yam 1. ) t on ~ven\'le
Pii,lo .:: ... to, CH S',,+3'Jl
RECEIVED
APR 28 1993
oe.""", .M~O COM.\1'v;'7;.~! ~~~
',~ '-.-
;,.,'e arE' .... rIt lTlg thl.S le"'t"ter to reiterate our Sllocort
secoru::I story addil::r.ol", plar-mea by Gleor. &. JulIa (:;1.11001.1;0(
Towle W' ... y~
QUI"" house ~""Cks
~~~t .~recteo by the
"t.aste'fu.11y don@' ana,
l'I£"l.gMbOrhood~
dit-ectly up "to tnell'''s. '50 that WEi wl.ll.be
addition_ .... e-KY.oW that the <IiIdditlC,n wilt be
tnereTClre, TE!'~:':' It. ""111o'P"Jly E'T'",flaY'lCe the
,he GU:ldouxs are no"t bUllclr.g for purposes. of specula't10l'"I,
rath~r, they nave a 'true T,ped; 't-hey have a Jurge f.artli.l.Y, and tl"ley
c::iearly rpqull"e a:::ir:l:r.t::::.e'Y,al 5o-a~e "to make> -t-h~lr nome more
c-oml'ol"'tabie-; w;eo do not t"11"",).( .... h.at It IIoIOUJ.d oe faIr or hUI1,a'nlsClc
cf tMe CIty o¥ P~lD Alto to Oeny them t~lS comfor~.
The Gv:u::oul-CS have el~dys oeel'"1 flr.e nelgl'lo<:;lr"S .o:r,o """1", asse't: to
our Tlelgfltlo .... :,OOd. 811",0 we r,ope thAt t>-.e Pletnn'lYq;; LC,f(lmISSlon W::l. lJ.
1Io, .. ke the right c:eClsiol'"l ar,c g~·a"',c. the Y,ECessar-y var-lar<ee ,"0 theme
"@r.(!::~~ :::., (1 ~C~ J))~ /
E.Di? ~2'lJ!:ob'J·.~y Ct. J
~&I1o H:;'::~, Ck ':::i440(,