Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-06 City Council (9)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:DECEMBER 6, 1999 CMR:425:99 SUBJECT:SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY POLICY ISSUES-AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY ADVISORY GROUP This is an informational report and no Council action is required. BACKGROUND A concern with the issue of single family neighborhood design compatibility led to City Council action, on March 23, 1998, directing staff to incorporate in the Planning Division’s Work Plan potential changes to regulations to address the quality of residential neighborhoods. In subsequent discussion of this issue, the Council in December 1998 tabled the discussion of design review of non-historic structures to a date following adoption of the revised Historic Ordinance. The community’s concern with this issue continues, particularly the demolition and new construction of single family homes. A thoughtful identification of the problems associated with these changes is included in a document titled, "The Future of Residential Structures in Palo Alto." This document, prepared by a group of concerned individuals representing a variety of viewpoints, was presented to the Council in March 1998 (see Attachment A). As part of its initial review-, Planning staff has contacted approximately seventeen cities located in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties and other selected cities for information about single family design review programs and regulations. This information makes clear that a rapid change in neighborhoods due to continuing land appreciation is a concern to neighboring communities, as well. A matrix and summary of the information collected to date is attached (see Attachment B). Based on research and discussions with a number of individuals on an informal basis, staff has identified a work program that contains several elements. As described in the CMR:425:99 Page 1 of 6 City Manager’s Report on a Voluntary Design Assistance Program (VDA) in April of this year, the work program includes three components: establishment of a Voluntary Design Assistance Program; proposed review of the Zoning Code with the intent of proposing several changes in the short-term primarily to address bulk and massing issues; and longer-term review of methods and opportunities to achieve neighborhood compatibility. Any proposed solutions will need to balance property rights interests with the communities’ justified interest in maintaining the integrity of existing neighborhoods. There are two distinct components to this issue. One relates to the private domain, those issues that primarily affect the adjacent property owners’ concerns with privacy, air, and shadowing. The second relates to the public domain, those issues that affect adjacent property owners and the larger neighborhood. These are "streetscape" issues involving the relationship to the existing neighborhood pattern. There are a number of techniques and methodologies to address both the private and public domain issues and staff will be reviewing and analyzing all available options. DISCUSSION Voluntary Design Assistance Program The VDA program offers site and architectural design assistance to any person proposing to substantially remodel or construct a new or replacement single family residence. The assistance is intended to ensure the residence is compatible with the existing neighborhood. As an incentive, projects completing the VDA program receive priority for building permit review and an expedited Home Improvement Exception (HIE) process. Participation in the program is voluntary and there is no fee for this service. The program has achieved some success. Since its inception in late April of this year, the VDA program has assisted approximately 12 applicants, of which 7 have completed the process and obtained building permits. Participants in the process have ranged from homeowners with zoning and design questions to professional architects and designers looking for ways to architecturally refine their projects. To increase the number of participants, staff has initiated a pro-active marketing program to send brochures to all neighborhood and community associations. Copies will be mailed to designers and architects and, using a list from the State Department of Consumer Affairs, Contractors License Board, copies are being sent to selected contractors located in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. To date, over one thousand brochures have been mailed. Brochures also are available at the Development Center and are routinely given to customers. An analysis of the current program and potential changes is also underway to identify ways to make the program more effective. These changes might include additional incentives; especially shortening processing time for participants. Staff would particularly CMR:425:99 Page 2 of 6 like to involve designers of replacement homes for demolished single family homes. There have been 40 demolitions (as of November 4, 1999) since tracking began for VDA purposes May 1, 1999. Staff is interested in involving applicants for these projects in the VDA program. Since the program’s inception in April 1999, at least one of the applicants for a demolition permit has utilized the design services available. A more comprehensive analysis, evaluation and proposed changes to the ’ program will be provided to the City Council in the near future. R-1 Zoning Code Revisions The compatibility of new and remodeled single family residences within neighborhoods is based on a number of individual elements, which individually and collectively affect neighborhood fit. These include: height; massing; lot coverage; architectural style and characteristics; setback .patterns; house, garage, and driveway placement; craftsmanship, light; and privacy. The R-1 Zoning Code regulates specific elements of single family design including Floor Area Ratio (FAR), setbacks, and height. Planning staff is reviewing the R-1 Zoning Code to identify ways in which regulations could be amended to address, in particular, bulk and massing issues. The Zoning Code changes will be made in a two-phase approach. The first phase will include those changes which can be made relatively quickly, and address the most prominent bulk and massing issues. Proposed changes could include: Increased lot coverage for new single story residences and additions similar to the increased lot coverage that exists for properties located in a Single-Story Overlay District. This would remove the current potential disincentive for single story construction. Modification of the daylight plane regulations to require architectural encroachments (e.g., dormers and gables) in the daylight plane to be "broken" into separate elements to decrease the potential mass and bulk created by uninterrupted elements. ¯Adding language to preclude particularly inappropriate architectural features such as monumental entries. Staff will be meeting with representatives from the neighborhoods and the design community to solicit additional ideas and comments on the staff proposal. Initiation of the first phase code amendments is anticipated in early January 2000. The second phase would include those changes which would require more extensive analysis or which may more appropriately be included in the comprehensive Zoning Code Update. Examples of a second phase might include an indexed FAR to create a better CMR:425:99 Page 3 of 6 relationship between lot size and allowable house size, clarification of the calculation of FAR (e.g., second story equivalencies), and the size and location of garages. Longer-Term Review Clear, understandable adopted guidelines are a necessary component for a design review option. Palo Alto’s single family design guidelines ("Single Family Residential Design Guidelines for Palo Alto") provide an excellent foundation for compatible single family residential construction and a basis for the VDA program review. Staff will be analyzing both the need for changes and/or additions to the guidelines and methods to ensure compliance with the R-1 Zoning Cod~ Design review is not the only option. Prescriptive approaches, such as the Zoning Code have the advantage of specifying quantifiable standards; however, it is more difficult to address all elements of the streetscape and neighborhood fit using this approach. Staff intends to create a Single Family Neighborhood CompatibilityAdvisory Group to advise the Director of Planning and Community Environment on final recommendations to City Council to comprehensively address concerns related to the compatibility of new and remodeled single family residences within neighborhoods. Members of the Advisory Group will be invited by the Director of Planning Community and Environment to represent a variety of"stakeholders" including neighborhood representatives, members of the design community, builders, the Real Estate industry, and one member each from the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board. The Advisory Group will be comprised of approximately thirteen members. Annette Glanckopf Ashton, Carroll Harrington and John Northway have agreed to act as co-chairs of the Advisory Group. Planning staff will be soliciting letters of interest from the community within the next few weeks. To ensure extensive broad public input, the meetings of the Advisory Group will be published and open to the public. Additionally, a minimum of two public workshops will be scheduled at a date and time that will allow the broadest participation. It is anticipated that one workshop will focus on identifying community concerns as perceived by a broad spectrum of participants with a second workshop to provide community input on potential options and solutions. The work program for staff and the Advisory Group will be intensive. It is anticipated the Advisory Group will be meeting twice a month for one and one-half to two hours. The estimated five-month work program will include: 1.Discussion of issues and problems using "The Future of Residential Structures" as the initial basis for discussion. 2.Participation in a self-guided or guided tour. CMR:425:99 Page 4 of 6 3.Review of the changes actually occurring in the community. 4.Review of Comprehensive Plan policies. 5.Review of the R-1 Zoning Code, staff-initiated Zoning Code changes, and other potential changes to the Zoning Code to address identified neighborhood compatibility issues. 6.Discussion of prescriptive techniques to address specific building and streetscape issues. 7.Review of methods used by other cities to address neighborhood compatibility, either prescriptively or through a design review process. 8.Review of City development procedures and polices. 9.Review of Residential Design Guidelines and the potential for augmenting the guidelines to address identified problems. 10.Discussion of ministerial and discretionary review alternatives. 11.Participation in community workshops. 12.Development of final recommendations for City Council review and adoption. Techniques that may be utilized include a Visual Preference Survey and a presentation focusing on design issues associated with single family residences and neighborhood compatibility by the American Institute of Architects (AIA). Staff has already discussed such a presentation with the local AIA chapter. The intent is to provide a shared vocabulary and foundation to discuss design issues. Other speakers and material will be utilized as they are deemed to be helpful to the discussion for staff and the. Advisory Group. The Advisory Group will be convened in January 2000, for a first meeting with an anticipated final transmittal of recommendations for Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission, and City Council public hearings beginning late April or May 2000. Planning staff has begun work on various approaches to improve the compatibility of new construction in existing single family neighborhoods. This work effort includes the voluntary VDA program and efforts to improve and expand the program, and the identification and initiation of Zoning Ordinance changes. There has also been an extensive review of options to address various elements that contribute to neighborhood fit and streetscape character. Staff anticipates providing the City Council with recommendations in late spring 2000. Extensive community input will be an important part of this work effort. Community input on the Zoning Code changes will be informal until public hearings before the Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission and City Council. The creation of an Advisory Council will provide a more structured input to staff on proposed options and final recommendations to the City Council. CMR:425:99 Page 5 of 6 ATTACHMENTS A. "The Future of Residential Structures in Palo Alto - February 19, 1998" B.Comparison of Design Review Process for Selected Santa Clara and Counties and Selected Other Cities San Mateo PREPARED BY: Joan D. Taylor, Associate Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Carroll Harrington Annette Glanckopf Ashton John Northway G. EDWARD GAWF Dii~.ior of Planning ¯ ager Community Environment CMR:425:99 Page 6 of 6 Attachment A TH 0 FUTURE RESID NTIAL STRUCTURES IN PALO ALTO Report To the Palo Alto City. Council March 23, 1,998 THE FUTURE OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN PALO ALTO Introduction: Change or Conserve? As flae juggernaut of change rolls through Palo Alto’s stable neighborhoods, newer, larger and costlier homes seem to spring up across the street, down the block and next door at a rate not seen here since the 1950’s. Older, smaller and more modest dwellings that for years have been part of our town’s character are yielding one after another to the forces of good economic times, escalating family preferences and the growing lure of Palo Alto itself. Although an interim ordinance meant to protect historic houses is on the books, it is under attack by some members of the community for diverse reasons and is being revised. In addition, its rules appear to have had the unintended, but not unforeseen consequence of making redevelopment in post-1940 neighborhoods even more tempting. Complaints about lost privacy, structures that don’t belong and wrecked neighborhoods have intensified. A number of new and established residents view this trend with great alarm. They think we are losing the essence of what makes Palo Alto a desirable place to live. But objections must be well defined before they can be evaluated rationally and transformed into policy. To this end, neighborhood groups from College Terrace, Barron Park, Crescent Park, Charleston Meadows, University South, Midtown and elsewhere have met informally over the past few years to puzzle over the issues and propose actions to address their concerns. After a lively, well-attended meeting of the Midtown Residents’ Association on the subject in March 1997, a small group of concerned homeowners set up a private discussion forum to share some grievances about swift residential growth and change in their relatively young neighborhood. From this seed grew the idea for a process to develop a new, citywide single-family residential policy that might guide and shape the inexorable transformation of Palo Alto and soften its impact on bystanders. The first step in the expanded process was to identify the underlying problems of residential change so they can be addressed. Five structured two-hour roundtable 1 THE FUTURE OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN PALO ALTO discussions were planned and pulled together by Annette Glanckopf Ashton, John Northway and Susan Frank. Thirty-six invited "stakeholders" attended, including homeowners, architects, renters, builders, planners, housing advocates, historical presevcationists, attomeys and members of the City Council, Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, Historical Resources Board, and city staff. Although the stakeholders came from a variety of groups, we spoke for ourselves, not for any organization. We needed to know what each individual really thinks. 2 THE FUTURE OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN PALO ALTO The,Problem: It’s All the Way You Look at It We called the sessions "The Future of Residential Structures in Palo Alto." After each participant had an opportunity to state the major problems from her or his persona] viewpoint, we made an effort to organize the initial comments into some reasonable order. It became obvious that one meaningfi~ way to analyze the issues is as a clash between two perspectives, conservation and change. The group decided to exclude those issues surrounding the current dialogue on historic preservation in Palo Alto. Within the two umbrella concepts CONSERVE and CHANGE, the stakeholders identified five broad groupings of other issues about residential structures: Economic Forces, Social and Emotional Factors, Architecture and Design, Property Rights and Neighborhood Character. Over several sessions, we organized and refined our concerns and opinions into these five categories. Lists of problem statements took form. In the final version we incorporated points about Neighborhood Character into the other categories because the pervasive theme of "neighborhood" ran through nearly every issue. On the left side of each list is the viewpoint of those who, for many valid reasons, want or need to CONSERVE their existing environment; they tend to use vocabulary like "rescue," "care for," "strengthen," "retain," "protect," "save," "remodel." On the right side is the viewpoint of those who, for different but equally valid reasons, want or need to CHANGE residential structures or even entire neighborhoods; they tend to use terms like "expand," "rebuild," "tear down," "develop," "improve," "redesign." Although this approach of posing two dueling ideologies was somewhat arbitrary, it did help us to dissect a complicated situation. The problem statements that follow represent our initial efforts to take a closer look at residential development in Palo Alto. Plenty of overlap, contradictions, omissions, paradoxes and inconsistencies remain to be sorted out. Many observations appear moderate; but some are deliberately stated in the extreme, because such extreme positions are actually taken or heard daily by citizens of Palo Alto and reflect perceptions about the quality of life here. Most of us stand somewhere on the 3 THE FUTURE OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN PALO ALTO continuum between extremes; but we believe that understanding the entire range of perspectives will help Palo Altans and our policy makers to reconcile some of our differences and learn to accept the rest. We have to make clear that many of us at the sessions disagreed with some of the problem statements proposed by others, That was just the point: consensus may be difficult to achieve. However, our problem-definition process showed that a f~ank exchange of divergent viewpoints often leads to mutual understanding and respect. If we can agree on the questions and share fundamental goals, we can resolve even the most contentious issues. Palo Altans do value the goal of continuing to live in neighborhood harmony and will shape a workable plan to reduce casualties in the expanding battle between conservation and change. 4 THE FUTURE OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN PALO ALTO Problem Statements About ECONOMIC FORCES From the Viewpoint Of Those Who Prefer Or Need to CONSERVE: From the-Viewpoint Of Those Who Prefer Or Need to CHANGE: Fierce demand is transforming modest and livable Palo Alto neigh- borhoods into battlegrounds for development and quick profits at the expense of existing residents. Smaller, less costly homes are being replaced by larger, more costly ones, insidiously changing the economic profile of the city and raising concerns that Palo Altans and their children may be priced out of their home town. Recently, builders and developers have been criticized unjustly for providing the kind of housing Palo Altans want to live in now. Groundless worries about uncon- trollable personal matters tend to threaten the housing market’s free evolution and our Palo Alto economy’s continued growth and prosperity. Because of huge financial incentives, even some long-time residents feel pressure to rebuild comfortable smaller residences, trade up or move out of Palo Alto. Stunning, speedy appreciation of property has raised the stakes for developers, who adversely impact neighborhoods with structures of inappropriate scale and design. The rush for gains is leading to con- struction of poorly designed houses, using cheap materials and shoddy workmanship. The overused tear-down or "scrape" practice creates landfill, uses up resources and energy, wipes out affordable housing and erases long- standing neighborhood contexts. A very large percentage of Palo Altans’ net worth is tied up in their homes, so they need to remain free to preserve or even increase their assets. Some Palo Alto neighborhoods haven’t achieved their economic potential because they haven’t kept up with current code, safety and design standards. Responsible, careful developers and builders have been blamed for the excesses of a few bad actors. Several inefficient, unwieldy city requirements promote tear- downs, increase costs and housing prices and frustrate even modest reconstruction. 5 THE FUTURE OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN PALO ALTO Problem Statements About SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL FACTORS From the Viewp_~ Of Those Who Prefer Or Need to CONSERVE; Many new structures fill the entire building envelope and seem to be built without concern for others’ privacy, getting new occupants off to a poor start with their neighbors. The abrupt and constant pace of new construction gives neighbors little opportunity to evaluate and digest the changes and makes them insecure about the future of their surroundings. Bulky and over-designed new residences shake the crucial elements of "home," such as human scale, neighborly connec- tions, personal privacy, aesthetic harmony and social stability. Prevailing neighborhood character and atmosphere are being sacri- ficed to the financial interests of absentee developers and owners. Because new or replacement homes are often large and expensive, renters, non-professionals, students, young couples, seniors and people of modest means are being pushed or left out, ~kewing the sodal mix. .Major changes in familiar designs, architecture, lot coverage, house size or mass, public space design or land- scaping cause the neighbors personal and potentially financial distress. From the Viewpoint Of Those Who Prefer Or Need to CHANGE: A form of closed-mindedness is making neighbors less toler- ant of new structures and new residents, undermining the core sense of community Rebuilding and redevelopment are causing unwarranted anxiety; they are necessary and desirable to prevent obsolescence, eliminate eyesores and expand Palo Alto’s housing inventory. Many existing homes lack space or design for non-traditional 21~t Century alternatives, like media areas, home offices and the capa- City for novel families Or multiple careers, vehicles and age levels. Some residents don’t realize that much of the new construction is ordered by their own neighbors, who respect their surroundings. The maxim that i~alo Alto needs a variety of housing options has been misinterpreted by some to mean that new or large homes have no justifiable place in our heighborhO0ds. Most Palo Alto neighborhoods have always varied within their boundaries, but it now appears that uniformity and consistency have become more fashionable. 6 THE FUTURE OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN PALO ALTO Problem Statements About ARCHITECTURE,, AND DESIGN From the Viewpoint Of Those Who Prefer Or Need to CONSERVE: From the Viewpoint Of Those Who Prefer Or Need to CHANGE: Although there is no universally accepted standard of good design in Palo Alto, never before have so many houses been thought by so many neighbors to be ugly, bloated, glitzy or simply intrusive. Many Palo Altans believe that most new houses, especially those built for speculation, lack reasonable size, contextual scale, appropriate appear- ance, durable craftsmanship or con- cern for neighbors’ light and privacy. Even some otherwise well-designed and executed houses have become eyesores because they are out of proportion to or inconsistent with the style of existing nearby structures. Facades designed for internal privacy, combined with excessive height, mass and lot coverage, shut out the rest of the neighborhood like fortresses. New landscaping is being exaggerated and overdone or uses far too many exotic trees, shrubs and ground covers incompatible with the neighborhood. in the scramble to maximize returns via square feet eccentric rooflines, setback exemptions, high floor area ratios, tall entries and odd window size, shape and location have spawned a new breed of architectural monstrosity. Neighbors tend to compare new or redesigned houses to existing structures, as if there were some fixed point in time when buildings were architecturally perfect and should never evolve further. Because of a few bad houses, the entire work product of builders -- most of it carefully designed, using excellent, very durable craftsmanship and good quality materials -- has been scorned. Well-educated, affluent clients often ask architects to create distinctive, unconventional or "statement" houses for their lots in established neighborhoods. Some residents don’t accept their new neighbors’ social, cultural, or personal preferences for privacy and fully enclosed living spaces. New landscape design is personal and taste-driven and requires time to mature, enrich the environment and mitigate construction shock. Sometimes existing residents characterize houses that don’t suit their personal tastes as "bad," choosing to ignore the fact that "every ugly house has a proud owner." 7 THE FUTURE OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN PALO ALTO Problem Statements About PROPERTY RIGHTS From the Viewpoint Of Those Who Prefer Or Need to CONSERVE: Many residential lots are being developed to the technical maxi- mum, infringing on highly valu- able rights of adjoining properties to light, privacy, beauty and good neighborhood ambiance. Palo Alto’s lenient zoning, building and design standards make it too easy to build any house people can afford, over time transforming our city into one more affluent enclave. Property owners who build outland- ish, excessively costly houses tempt stable neighbors to expand or move away, either to realize property values or to rejoin a balanced community. Current and prospective regulations condone violating most Palo Altans’ norms of aesthetics and taste. Residential builders and developers haven’t taken community preferences and interests into account voluntarily when planning property use and improvements. Palo Alto’s building ordinances are riddled with loopholes and exceptions, allowing some older neighborhoods to deteriorate by becoming overbuilt, unfriendly, characterless and unaffordable. From the Viewpoint Of those Who Prefer Or Need to CHANGE: Some property owners are being discouraged from building to the extent allowed by existing laws, thus losing the expected use of their lots and part of the value of their properties. Palo Alto’s restrictive zoning and building laws, combined with neighborhood design pressures, thwart diversity, creativity and personal freedom. Property owners hindered from improving their homes feel cor- nered and move away to either more expensive or less desirabJe areas, sacrificing value. Current and prospective regula- tions discourage Palo Altans from experimenting with designs. Unlike some other cities, Palo Alto doesn’t use its own funds to compensate property owners for community mandated restrictions on their classical property rights. Palo Alto’s building ordinances are overly restrictive and complex, making even modest improve- ments economically infeasible and causing some property to deteriorate by stagnation. 8 THE FUTURE OF IN PALO ALTO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES Participants and Affiliation- Ken Alsman Annette G. Ashton Ann Barbee John Barton Pat Burt Tony Carrasco Phyllis Cassel Lylm Chiapella Dick Clark Howard Churcher Sandy Ealdns Susan Frank Sylvia Gartner Pria Graves Barbara Gross John Hanna Karen Holman Leannah Hunt Bob Moss Dena Mossar Carol Murden John Northway Bonnie Packer Bob Peterson Marlene Prendergast Emily Renzel Dave Ross Kathy Schmidt Micki Schneider Linda Scott George Stern Judith Wasserman AIA Lanie Wheeler Shirley Wilson Professorville Resident; Ret. Dir. of Econ. Dev., Mt. View Midtown Resident Professorville Resident: Former Member, HRB P.A. School Board Member; Architect University South Neighborhood Group Fmr. Member, Planning Commission and ARB; Architect Planning Commissioner Midtown Resident Midtown Resident Developer Palo Verde Resident; Member, P.A. City Council CEO, P.A. Chamber of Commerce Midtown Resident College Terrace Resident Board Member, P.A. Chamber of Commerce Crescent Park Resident; Attorney Crescent Park Resident; Member, PASH President, Palo Alto Board of Realtors Barron Park Resident Professorville Resident; Member, P.A. City Council Crescent Park Resident; Member, HRB Scale Resident; Fmr.Mbr. Planning Comm, ARB; Architect Palo Verde Resident Architect; Member ARB Crescent Park Resident; Ex. Dir., P.A. Housing Corp. Crescent Park Resident; Fmr. Member, P.A. City Council Midtown Resident; Former Member, ARB Planning Commissioner; Architect Crescent Park Resident; Member, P.A. City Council Professorville Resident; Former Member, HRB Midtown Resident; Attorney Midtown Resident; Public Arts Commission; Architect Greenmeadow Resident; Member, P.A. City Council Crescent Park Resident; Former Member, ARB; Architect 9 THE FUTURE OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN PALO ALTO City. Staff Resource Group Lisa Grote Barbara Judy Ken Schrieber Zoning Administrator, City of Palo Alto Preservation Architect; Consultant, City of Palo Alto Planning Director, City of Palo Alto 10 Attachment B COMPARISON OF DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS FOR SELECTED SANTA CLARA AND SAN MATEO COUNTIES AND SELECTED OTHER CITIES The attached information is part of an on-going review of the methods used by other cities to address neighborhood compatibility concerns. This survey focuses on design review procedures. Staff’s research for the survey included the majority of cities in Santa Clara County andthe cities of Menlo Park, Burlingame, San Rafael and Santa Barbara. Cities were chosen for their proximity and/or demographic-quality of life similarities to Palo Alto. Of the seventeen cities contacted, information on thirteen of the cities is included in the attached material. The majority of the cities surveyed require some form of design review for detached single family homes. Three cities, Gilroy, Milpitas, and San Rafael (not included I the attached written material) require single family design review only for hillside development. Campbell requires design review for only one geographical area of the city. Mountain View requires single family review only when an applicant requests a change from zoning code standards, such as a variance. What was most notable during staff’s review was the number of cities that recently adopted ordinances requiring single family design review or are contemplating such an ordinance. Both Cupertino and Burlingame have adopted ordinances within the last year; Menlo Park, San Jose and, most recently, San Mateo have either initiated ordinance changes or are reviewing their existing procedures. In each of these cities, city planners have identified community concerns regarding inappropriate new construction, typically characterized as incompatible based on privacy, massing, size, and relationship to the existing streetscape, as the reason for the proposed changes. In two other cities, concerns about neighborhood compatibility or the existing process have resulted in an identification of the need to review residential design guidelines, as is the case for Santa Clara and Los Altos. Although not a part of this report, staff has copies and will be reviewing the design guidelines developed in other cities. The summary table and narrative for each city is attached. Burlingame A moratorium on all new second story residences and second story additions was adopted in March 1998. Following the moratorium, an ordinancewas adopted requiring single- family design review for new two-story residences and second-story additions. The initial analysis of a project proposal is completed by a consultant and forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review. One planning position was added to the department following adoption of the ordinance due to the increased workload. Burlingame’s Planning Commission is now considering a proposal to require design review, as well, for new single-story homes and some single-story additions. If recommended by the Planning Commission, the proposal will go the City Council for action in late October or November 1999. Campbell Single Family Design Review is only required in those areas of the city with a residential "S" overlay and a Neighborhood Plan, generally the southwest portion of the City (San Tomas area). For single family projects in this area, the Planning Commission reviews all new houses with a minimum 8,000 square foot lot size and the staff reviews all new houses on 6,000 square foot lots and all additions. Staff also "works with the applicant" to try to ensure appropriate design in other areas of the city, although there is no legal authority to impose more than the requirements of the applicable zoning districts. Cupertino Cupertino recently (June 1999) adopted an ordinance to address issues associated with single family design compatibility. The ordinance is intended to address issues regarding building mass, setbacks, and height. The ordinance adopted by Cupertino is unique in its approach to the issue of privacy. Landscaping is required for any new two-story dwelling or two-story addition for areas within a cone of vision defined by a 30-degree angle for any second-story window. The required landscaping is defined as an 8-foot minimum height with 24-inch box for trees and a 6-foot minimum height requirement and a 15- gallon requirement for shrubs. The intent is to have partial screening within 3 years. The window size and/or window location relative to adjacent property must be shown on the plan set. Such window placement and size should, based on the adopted Residential Design Guidelines, be sensitive to adjacent property owner’s privacy considerations. There is a waiver procedure for both privacy requirements (i.e., landscaping and window placement) if signed by the adjacent property owners. Initial review and approval is by Planning Staff. There is a Planning Director hearing only if a request for such hearing is filed (i.e. "on demand"). The decision of the Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The construction of a second-story decks, and any dwelling which is greater than 35% in Floor Area Ratio and a two-story residences requires a hearing before the Residential Design Review Committee (RCDC). The RCDC, which meets twice per month, was created by the adopted ordinance and includes the Planning Director, a Planning Commissioner and an architect. The decision of the RCDC may be appealed to the Planning Commission. Los Altos The City of Los Altos requires design review for all single family residential construction. If the project is for a two-story residence or an "unusual architectural approach" is proposed, as determined by the Director of Planning, the project would be reviewed by the Architectural and Site Control Committee (A&S), a subcommittee of the Planning Commission. Notification is to the adjacent property owners. A&S decisioris may be appealed to the City Council. All other single family residential review is by staff and decisions may be appealed to the A&S. The Los Altos Planning Commission has, during the past year, been reviewing their Residential Design Guidelines with specific discussions related to neighborhood compatibility and the maintenance of community character. The review has been conducted by staff and a City Council appointed Task Force with the assistance of a local architect. The issues and notes from the Los Altos "brainstorming" sessions and workshops are very relevant to Palo Alto. City Council action on the revised Residential Design Guidelines is anticipated in the near future. Los Altos Hills The Planning Commission, with several exceptions, reviews all single family dwellings. Staff approves certain projects "over-the-counter" including additions (in floor area) of less than 900 square feet or less than 250 square feet and greater than 19 feet in height, and additions (increase in development area) of less than 3,000 square feet. With 500 foot noticing, staff can approve additions (increase in floor area) of 900 to 1,500 square feet or 250 to 500 square feet and greater than 19 feet in height and additions (increase in development area) of 3,000 to 7,500 square feet. This latter review is comprised of comments from Planning, Engineering, Pathways and Environmental Design and Protection Committee. The Planning Director typically conducts a public hearing (Site Development Hearing) once a week or, as needed. The decision of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission. As a "streamlining" or "fast-tracking" measure, new residences and major additions can be reviewed at a Site Development Hearing (rather than the Planning Commission) if the project is in compliance with all applicable codes and polices at the discretion of the Planning Director. The potentially subjective nature of design review has, recently, been a controversial issue in the town. Los Gatos Design review is required for all single family residences. A Minor Residential review is required for all new second-story additions, any addition greater than 100 square feet to an existing second-story, and reductions in the side/rear yard setbacks for an accessory structure. Staff provides a one-week review with a 10-day neighborhood notification period. The typical review period would be three to four weeks. The application submittal requirements include streetscape drawings, photographs of the surrounding streetscape, and a shadow study. The project may be appealed to both the Planning Commission and the Town Council. If an historic structure, the project is also referred to the monthly Historic Preservation Committee meeting. Any new single family home is reviewed during a weekly "Development Review Committee" meeting. This committee is comprised of representatives from several City departments. Meetings occur weekly. The decision of the Development Review Committee may be appealed to the Planning Commission and the Town Council. The typical review period would be 30 to 60 days. Iftl~e new single family residence involves the demolition of an existing historic home, the project will be referred to the Historic Preservation Committee and, in addition to the requirement for submittal of streetscape drawings, photos, and shadow studies, an independent historic consultant’s report may be required. Finally, analogous to Palo Alto and most other small cities, Planning staff reviews any single story additions submitted for a Building Permit. While the primary purpose is zoning conformance, the staff also reviews for consistency with design standards. Presumably, as the permit is ministerial, the staff works with the applicant on a voluntary basis to ensure compatible design. The Los Gatos residential design.standards are guidelines, established to "reflect current Town policy for community design." An applicant may make a written request for a modification from the guidelines if the project might be adversely affected. Such a request must receive Site and Architectural review and a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Approval can only be made based on findings that "such modification will not be detrimental to the health, safety, general welfare and quality of life of the project residents and surrounding neighborhood." There is an appeal to the Town Council. Finally, Los Gatos has identified an increasing community concern with two-story dwellings. As identified in the guidelines, "The Town has identified a trend towards the development of two-story houses and second-story additions in the Los Gatos residential community". "While there are many creative second-story designs, the Town is concerned that property owners and developers are restricting their design alternatives to only second story. A continuation of this trend could jeopardize the character of our neighborhoods." "...Property owners and designers are encouraged to strongly consider single-story designs as viable development alternatives. If a second-story design is chosen, the applicants shall be required to explain why a single-story design does not work." Menlo Park The City of Menlo Park does not require design review for single family residences; however, the City Council recently reviewed a two-phase approach to address neighborhood concerns about the incompatibility of new structures in existing neighborhoods. The first phase would require an enhanced neighborhood review of all residential projects requiring discretionary review (i.e. orhy those single family residences on sub-standard lots or an applicant requesting a variance). The enhanced neighborhood notice would include a pre-submittal meeting with neighbors, an increase in noticing requirements from the state mandated 300’ to 500’ and two sets of notices; one within five days of the application, the second approximately 20 days prior to the public hearing date (rather than the state mandated 10 days). The notice would include copies of the site plan and elevations of the proposal and the site would be posted with a sign providing details of the proposal, contact individuals and the Planning Commission hearing date. The City Council approved only the early notification procedure in October of this year. The second phase will assess additional review procedures that would be applied to residential design projects that are not currently required to obtain discretionary permit approval from the Planning Commission. Mountain View In Mountain View, single family design review is required when a variance is requested, there is a floor area bonus request (although there is a current moratorium on such requests), and for development on small lots (less than 40 feet wide and less than 5,000 square feet). Review is by. the Development Review Committee (DRC) for variances and floor area bonus requests, and by the DRC acting on behalf of the Zoning Administrator for small lot development. In either case, the appeal is to the City Council. The Mountain View Planning Commission is currently reviewing a potential ordinance to prescriptively address second-story window placement by defining size and location of windows in the zoning code. San Jose San Jose has initiated an ordinance for design review for single family residences. The ordinance establishes thresholds which will "trigger" design review. The thresholds as currently proposed by staff are as follows: any new home, those single family residences .listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, a square footage increase of 100% or more over the size of the original house, any second story addition within 10’ of the required front setback and/or exceeds 60% of the 1 st floor area, remodel resulting in a FAR greater than .45, and removal of more than 50% of the exterior walls. The majority of single family residential development in San Jose occurs under Planned Development zoning with concurrent design review so the proposed ordinance will primarily affect in- fill projects in existing traditional neighborhoods. San Jose is also amending its design guidelines to more specifically address issues associated with such neighborhoods. San Jose is also proposing to amend the R-1 standards to require a maximum height of two stories/30’ and adopt an FAR Initial review would be by staff with a noticed (300’) hearing (3x/month) before the Planning Director. Appeal would be to the Planning Commission. San Jose’s City Council is expected to take action on this proposal in early December 1999. Santa Barbara Single Family design review in Santa Barbara is regulated by two ordinances. The first requires design review for all single family homes located in the Hillside Design Districts, located on an average slope greater than 20%, or requiring grading of more than 250 cubic yards. Also, single family homes are regulated by the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance and single family design review is required for all new homes, alterations of more than 500 square feet and those requiring grading, although there is no quantitative threshold for such grading.. The impetus for the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance was a concern for preserving the streetscape and single-story character of many Santa Barbara neighborhoods. An Architectural Board (ARB) review is required for the majority of projects, although staff reviews minor changes. The ARB is composed of nine members representing the design professions and the community-at- large. One member of the ARB (an architect) reviews a significant number of projects as "consent calendar" items. Staff estimates that this may be as high as 95% of all projects. Full board review is required for all new houses, significant alterations, and staff or ARB identified controversial projects. Noticing (100’) is not required for all projects. Staff estimates that approximately 15 to 20% of the projects are noticed. Appeal of an ARB decision is to the City Council. Planning Commission review is required in the Hillside Design Districts, if the total combined square footage of any new structures or additions is greater than 6,5000 square feet, and the amount of grading is greater than 500 cubic, yards. Noticing is 450’ for the Planning Commission and the appeal would be to the City Council. Santa Clara Single Family design review is required for all new residences. Staff typically reviews single-story residences; an Architectural Review Committee, which meets two times per month, reviews all second-story and single-story residences, at the discretion of the Director. There is a 100-foot noticing requirement established by an interim City Council policy and included in a proposed ordinance. The decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission and the City Council. The City of Santa Clara does not have a Floor Area Ration or second story setback requirement. The Residential Design Guidelines were adopted 8 to 10 years ago and are currently under review with a final document anticipated by the end of this calendar year. Saratoga By ordinance, design review and a hearing before the Planning Commission is required for all two-story residences, one-story residences over 18’ in height, when the lot area is less than 5,000 square feet, when the floor area exceeds 6,000 square feet, and any other single family residence at the discretion of the Director of. Planning. By policy, staff reviews all single story residences that do not meet the above criteria for review by the Planning Commission. In all cases, notice is given to the adjacent property owners. Staff "works out" the conditions of approval for single story residences based on the adopted Residential Design Guidelines. Sunnyvale Single Family Design review is required for all single family residences with the following exceptions: Additions of less than 20% of floor area receive staff level review, typically "over-the-counter." All additions greater than 20% require staff level design review with a two-week time-line. No fee is charged. Sunnyvale does not require any notification of single family proposals. Staff decisions may be appealed to the Planning Commission