HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-04 City Council (6)City of Pa|o Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 13b
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:OCTOBER 4, 2004 CMR: 438:04
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVISIONS TO THE
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-E, R-2, AND RMD) ZONING DISTRICTS
(CHAPTER 18.10 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council accept the Planning and Transportation
Commission’s preliminary recommendations to approve the attached revisions to the
current R-E, R-2 and RMD zoning districts, and to incorporate the revisions into the
Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU) as a single chapter (18.10) comprising all three districts
and the Neighborhood Preservation (NP) Combining District.
BACKGROUND
On April 11, 2004, the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) reviewed and
discussed preliminary recommendations regarding proposed uses, standards, and issues
related to the three Low Density Residentlal (LDR) districts, along with the
Neighborhood Preservation-Combining District. On August 4, 2004, the P&TC
recommended to the Council approval of a stand-alone chapter of the Zoning Ordinance
to encompass regulations for the R-1 districts and subdistricts (a separate item on this
agenda). Many of the revisions to the LDR zones, including changes:.to relevant
definitions, had already been addressed during the R-1 deliberations, so the process was
much less complex for these zones.
ZOU staff met with the Commission’s LDR Working Group to discuss the proposed
changes prior to meeting with the full P&TC. ZOU staff also met with Current Planning
staff to review potential changes to the ordinance. Revisions to the R-1 ordinance were
incorporated where pertinent into the LDR chapter as well.
DISCUSSION
The revised ordinance (Attachment A) reflects the changes recommended by the P&TC.
Revisions from existing ordinance language and requirements are highlighted in a
1~, format. Also included is a Summary of Key Revisions
(Attachment B) that outlines all of the changes from current requirements and highlights
CMR: 438:04 Page 1 of 5
those areas where changes are different than those already discussed and recommended in
the R-1 chapter. The P&TC staff report (Attachment C) provides more detailed
background and discussion on the key issues. The P&TC minutes from August 11, 2004
are also included as Attachment D. A summary of the number of lots (and lot sizes), in
each of the zones is provided in Attachment E.
Planning and Transportation Commission Action
The P&TC agreed with most of staff’s proposed revisions without modification. Outlined
below are a list of those items approved as presented followed by discussion of two
issues where the P&TC further modified the proposed ordinance provisions.
1.Consensus Revisions by P&TC
The following suggested staff revisions for the LDR chapter were approved by the
Commission with little or no changes (P&TC vote is shown for each item):
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Incorporation of the Neighborhood Preservation (NP) Combining District
into the LDR chapter, since it applies only to the RMD District (7-0 vote).
Revised criteria for substandard lots in the R-2 District, similar to those for
R-l, to allow second stories, subject to Individual Review, and to increase
site coverage to 40% for two-story development (6-1 vote).
Revised standards for flag lots in the R-2 District to allow a 10 foot front
setback, rather than the current 20 foot setback requirement (7-0 vote).
Increased allowance of 40% site coverage for single-story development in
the R-2 District, to better accommodate single-story structures (7-0 vote).
Allowance for small (450 square feet or less) second units in the R-2
District on lots of 6,000 to 7,500 square feet, consistent with R-1 lots of
that size (6-1 vote). Second units would still have to meet all setback and
daylight plane requirements of the R-2 District.
2.Maximum House Size in the RMD District
The P&TC (7-0 vote) added a requirement for a maximum house size of 6,000
square feet in the RMD District. Curr.ently, there is such a requirement for the R-E
and R-2 Districts, but not in the RMD. While the chance of having a lot large
enough to accommodate such a residence is highly unlikely, the Commission
preferred to limit the RMD accordingly. The restriction would only apply to
single-family residences, not to duplexes, which are also an allowable use in the
RMD District.
CMR: 438:04 Page 2 of 5
3.Second Units in the R-E District
The P&TC was concerned that staff’s proposed second unit maximum size (1,200
square feet) in the R-E District was too large but that additional opportunity exists
for second units on lots smaller than one acre. The Commission voted (7’0) to
retain the maximum 900 square foot second unit size in R-E and to allow small
second units (450 square feet or less) on lots smaller than one acre in size, but
larger than 7,500 square feet.
The P&TC was also concerned with staff’s proposal to allow second story second
units in the R-E District, since there is no discretionary review process available
comparable to the Individual Review process for R-1. The Commission referred
this issue back to the LDR Working Group for consideration. The Working Group
(Commissioners Cassel, Holman and Burr) met on September 1, 2004 and
unanimously recommended limiting detached second units to 17 feet and one
story, as is the current requirement. They also recommended that parking for
second units be maintained outside of the front setback. The draft ordinance
reflects the Working Group’s recommendation on these issues.
The P&TC also. discussed whether there is a need for some enhanced standards Or review
process for single-family homes in the R-E zone, but referred that issue to the Working
Group as well. The Working Group’s decision at this time is to consider the issue upon
its review of the Open Space (OS) district and to determine if some of the guidelines of
that zone are appropriate to apply to R-E as well. If so, those would be incorporated into
the final version of the ZOU.
Potential for Stand-Alone LDR Chapter
The R-1 District (Chapter 18.12)is being presented to the Council as a stand-alone
chapter that would be adopted ahead of the remainder of the ZOU to facilitate early
implementation. The LDR Chapter (18.10) could similarly be adopted ahead of the rest of
the ZOU, but would require some minor modifications to other sections of the Zoning
Ordinance (related to setback exceptions, accessory structures, etc.). If the Council so
directs, staff would prepare an ordinance for review and hearing by the Planning
Commission incorporating those additional changes and return to the Council for final
action to mak~ Chapter 18.10 effective as soon as possible.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The implementation of the proposed ordinance amendmentg is not expected to impact
staff resources or the City’s budget. Staff anticipates that the clarifications and
reformatting of the regulations will result in an ordinance that is more readily accessible
CMR: 438:04 Page 3 of 5
and understood by applicants and staff, with no increase in the time or resources required
for staff review.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Zoning Ordinance Update is intended to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance
with the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. Staff and the Commission believe that the
proposed LDR Chapter amendments are a significant step in that direction, particularly to
implement Housing Element programs regarding second units and preservation of
existing housing, as well as policies to facilitate understanding of the Ordinance by the
public, officials, and staff. A more detailed comparison of the revisions with the relevant
Comprehensive Plan policies and programs is provided in the P&TC’s August 11, 2004
staff report.
NEXT STEPS
The Zoning Ordinance Update work program has involved intense efforts in several key
areas in the past months, including:
o Recommendation by the Planning Commission of a stand-alone R-1 chapter of the
ordinance, also scheduled for the Council’s October 4, 2004 meeting. This review
included revisions to second unit requirements, modifications required to implement
adopted Housing Element policies .and programs, a few remaining R-1 issues not
resolved in the Single Family Neighborhoods discussions in 2001, and modifications
to the Individual Review and Home Improvement Exception processes.
°Recommendation by the Planning Commission of updated recommendations for the
Office Research and Industrial zoning districts, also scheduled for discussion by the
City Council on October 4, 2004.
¯Extensive review of the "context-based design" (form code) components of the
Ordinance, especially the development of graphics and standards for multi-family,
village residential, mixed use, and transit-oriented development. The design
consultants presented a "context-based design" format to the P&TC on July 28, 2004,
and on August 25, 2004 followed with a review of some of the basic criteria under
consideration for village residential and mixed-use development. A presentation of
the format to the Council will be scheduled in the fall.
Evaluation of possible revisions to the City’s parking criteria, including parking
ratios, shared parking potential, and parking lot design. Staff has worked with a
parking consultant and a Working Group of the P&TC to develop initial
recommendations for revisions to the Parking chapter of the Zoning Ordinance, An
initial approach to parking for the new land use types is in process. Some preliminary
concepts were presented to the P&TC on September 1, 2004 and staff will refine the
CMR: 438:04 Page 4 of 5
chapter with the Working Group. A revised Parking chapter will be presented to the
Commission in late October.
The LDR Chapter of the ZOU will be revisited upoli development Of all of the other
chapters of the Ordinance. Alternatively, the Council may direct staff to develop an
ordinance to implement the LDR Chapter ahead of the remainder of the ZOU. Such an
effort would likely result in Council consideration of the ordinance in November or
December of 2004. Otherwise, the proposed project is scheduled to result in a draft ZOU
for distribution by January 20051 Public hearings would then follow and are anticipated
to take another three to six months.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Low Density Residential Districts: Draft Chapter 18.10
Attachment B: Summary of Key Revisions
Attachment C: August 11, 2004 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report
Attachment D: August 11, 2004 Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes
Attachment E: Table of Lot Sizes for R-E, R-2, and RMD Districts
COURTESY COPIES
PREPARED BY: Jfil~"~a’rdi~ 5:ffanning
DEP~T~NT ~AD ~VIEW:
/,
~S~g~ E SLIE
/ Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
z~MILYAssistant City
CMR: 438:04 Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENTA
Chapter 18.10
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Sections:
18.10.010
18.10.020
18.10.030
18.10.040
18.10.050
18.10.060
18.10.070
18.10.080
18.10.090
18.10.100
18.10.110
18.10.120
18.10.130
18.10.140
4-8-A4~69
Purposes
Applicable Regulations
Land Uses
Development Standards
Permitted Encroachments, Projections and Exceptions
Parking
Second Dwelling Units
Accessory Uses and Facilities
Basements
Standards for Agricultural Uses
Home Improvement Exceptions
Architectural Review
Historical Review
Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP) Standards
18.10.010 Purposes
Three low-density residential districts are defined in this chapter. Requirements for the
Single Family Residential (R-l) District and related subdistricts and combining districts
are included in Chapter 18.12. The specific purpose of each low-density residential
district is stated below:
(a) Residential Estate District [RE]
The RE residential estate district is intended to create and maintain single-family
living areas characterized by compatibility with the natural terrain and native
vegetationve env~rem,,ent. The RE district provides locations ~’or residential,
limited agricultural, and open space activities most suitably located in areas of very
low density or rural qualities. Second Accessory dwelling units and~ accessory
structures or buildings are appropriate where consistent with the site and
neighborhood character. Community uses and facilities should be limited unless no
net loss of housing units would result.
(b) Two Family Residential District [R-2]
The R-2 two-family residence district is intended to allow a second dwelling unit
under the same ownership as the initial dwelling unit on appropriate sites in areas
desi, gnated for single-family use by the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, under
regulations that preserve the essential character of single-family use. Community
uses and facilities should be limited unless no net loss of housing would result.
18.10.020 Applicable Regulations18 10 040 I Deve!,21~
(c)Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District [RMD]
The RMD two unit multiple-family residence district is intended to allow a second
dwelling unit under the same ownership as the initial dwelling unit on appropriate
sites in areas designated for multiple-family use by the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan. The RMD district is intended to minimize incentives to replace existing
single-family dwellings, maintain existing neighborhood character and increase the
variety of housing opportunities available within the community. The Mmaximum
density in this zone shall not exceed w~uld l,o ~,.~,, ~,,.~ a,~Tom .....~ ....~o~.~
{seventeen dwelling units per acre).
18.10.020 Applicable Regulations
The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and procedures
established by Chapters 18.83 to 18.99 inclusive shall apply to all low-density residential
districts.
18.10.030 Land Uses
Table 1 shows the permitted and conditionally permitted uses for the low-density
residential districts.
Table 1: Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Low-Density Residential Uses
ACCESSORY AND
SUPPORT USES
Accessory facilities and uses
customarily incidental to
permitted uses (no limit on
number of plmnbing fixtures)
Home Occupations, when
accessoI3~ to permitted
residential uses.
Horticulture, gardening, and
growing of food products for
consumption by occupants of
the site.
Sale of agricultural products
produced on the premises(1)
Second Dwelling Units
AGRICULTURE AND OPEN
SPACE USES
Agriculture
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
p(2)
_, Subject to
RMD regulations
in:I
P
P
P
18.10.080
18.88.130
18.10.110
18.10.070
18.10.110
ZOU Draft 09-20-04 2
18.10.030 Land Uses!8.10 0Aa I v~ ....1~,,~
EDUCATIONAL,
RELIGIOUS, AND
ASSEMBLY USES
Private Educational Facilities
Churches and Religious
Institutions
PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC
USES
Community Centers
Utility Facilities essential to
provision of utility services to
the neighborhood, but excluding
business offices, construction or
storage.yards, maintenance
facilities, or corporation yards.
RECREATION USES
Neighborhood Recreational
Centers
Outdoor Recreation Services
RESIDENTIAL USES
Single-Family
Two-Family use, under one
ownership
Mobile Homes
Residential Care Homes
RETAIL USES
Cemeteries
Commercial Plant Nurseries
SERVICE USES
Convalescent Facilities
Day Care Centers ’
Small Adult Day Care Homes
Large Adult Day Care Homes
Small Family Day Care Homes
Large Family Day Care Homes
Lodging Bed & Breakfast
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
CUP
P
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
P
¯ CUP
P
CUP
P
P
RMD
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
P
CUP
P
CUP
P
P
P
(1) Sale of Agricultural Products. No permanent commercial structures for the sale or processing of
agricultural products are permitted. .~2) Second Units in R-2 and RMD Zones. A second dwelling unit associated with a single-family
residence on a lot in the R-2 or RMD zones is permitted, subject to the provisions of Section 18.10.070q
and such that no more than two units result on the lot. /
Subject to
regulations
in:
18.88.140
ZOU Draft 09-20-04 3
1Q 1 n nan I Develot~18.10.040 Development Standards .........I
18.10.040 Development Standards
(a) Site Specifications, Building Size, Height and Bulk, and Residential
Density
The development standards for the low-density residential districts are shown in
Table 2:
Table 2: Low-Density Residential Development Standards
Minimum Site
Specifications
Site Area (ft2)
All lots except flag lots(1)
Flag lots
Site Width _(_ft.)_
Site Depth (ft)
Maximum Lot Size
Lot Area (square feet)
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (ft)
Rear Yard (ft)
Interior Side Yard(R)
Street Side Yard (ft)
Maximum Height (as
measured to the peak of
the roof) (ft)
Side Daylight Plane
(side lot lines)
Initial Height (ft)
Angle (degrees)
Front Daylight Plane
(front setback line)
Initial Height (ft)
Angle (degrees)
Rear Daylight Plane
(rear setback line)
Initial Height (ft)
Angle (degrees)
Maximum Site Coverage:
Single stole.development
Multiple story
devel0pment
Additional area
permitted to be covered
by a patio or overhang
R-2 RMD
1 acre 6,000 5,000
As established by 21.20.301 (Subdivision Ord.)
100 60 50 ’
100 100 100
None 11,999 ~
Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant
to Chapter 20.08 of this code may also apply._
30
30
15
24
30
lO
45
16
60
20
20
6
16
30
10
45
16
60
20
20
6
16
35
16 16 15
60 60 45
~,g40%
35%
25%
25%
5%
15
45
40%
40%
Subject to
regulations in:
I
18.10.04(~(c)
18.10.04~ (g)
I
18.10.050
18.04.0301(67)
18.10.050
18.04.030 [44);
18.10.050
18.10.050
18.10.050
18.04.030 (186A)
1
ZOU Draft 09-20-04 4
18.10.040 Development Standards!g.!O.O~0 I Develo~
Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)(2)
......Etr_ _t_ _5_,9_0_ 9_ _s_q_u_a_r_e_ _f_e_e_t_
Square footage in excess
of 5,000 square feet
Additional floor area
permitted for covering of
one parking space (ft2)
Maximum
House Size (ft2)
Minimum Usable Open
Space (ft2)
Residential Density
Minimum site area
permitting two units
Parking
(2)
’ R-2 RMD
.45 .45 .50
.30 .30 .50
2002~2oo
6,000(3)6,000(3)6_~000(3!
450 per unit
1 acre 7,500 5,000
See Sec. 18.10.060 (Parking)
Subj ect to
regulations in:
I
For secon, unit
requirements, see
18.i0.070
s of
ID
t, for
cluded
aze of
Lgle-
18.83
Minimum Lot Size. Ally lot less than the mininmm lot size may be used in accordance with the provisiol
Section 18.88.050.
Exemption from Floor Area for Covered Parkin~ Required for Two-Famib Uses. In the R-2 and R2
distt’icts, for two-family uses, floor area limits may be exceeded by a maximum of two hundred square fe~
purposes of providing one required covered parkhag space.
Maximum House Size. The gross floor area of attached zarages and attached second dwelling units are i~
in the calcnlation of maximum house size. If there is no garage attached to file hduse, then the square foot
one detached covered parking space shall be included in the calculation. This provision applies only to sil
family residences, not to duplexes allowed in the R-2 and RMD districts.
(b) Substandard and Flag Lots in R-2 District~
The following site development regulations shall apply to all new construction on
substandard and flag lots within the R-2 district in lieu of comparable provisions in
subsection (a).
(1) Substandard Lots
A~A)_For the purposes of this subsection (c), a substandard lot shall be a lot with a
width of less than 50 feet or a depth of less than 83 feet and an area less than
83% of theminimum area required by the zoning of the parcel.
(B) Development Standards:
(i)Second story additions or new two-story structures are subject to the
Single Family Individual Review guidelines and review process
described in Section 18.12.110.
(ii)For lots less than 50’ in width, the required street side setback shall
be 10feet.
(iii) Site coverage for a two-story structure: 40%.
ZOU Draft 09-20-04 5
18.10.040 Development Standards Iu. ~ I 0.0A~0 ~Deve!oi~
C_(_~_)__Nothing in this subsection (c) shall affect or otherwise redefine the
provisions of Section 18.88.050(a) as to whether a substandard lot may be
used as a lot under this title.
(2)Flag Lots
A_(_~__A flag lot shall be defined as set forth in Section 18.04.84(B).
(B)Flag Lot Development Standards:
(i)The maximum height shall be 17 feet, as measured to the peak of
the roof.
(ii)There shall be a limit of one habitable floor. Habitable floo~s
include lofts, mezzanines, and similar areas with interior heights
of five feet (5’) or more from the roof to the floor, but shall
exclude basements and shall exclude attics that have no stairway
or built-in access. The chief building official shall make the final
determination as to whether a floor is habitable.
(iii)
(iv)
Front Setback: 10 feet. Flag lots are not subject to contextual
front setback requirements.
Flag 16ts are not subi ect to contextual garage placement
reqmrements.
(c)Maximum Lot Sizes in R-2 and RMD Districts
This provision limits the potential for lot combinations with a net loss of housing
stock and resultant homes that would be out of scale with homes in the surrounding
neighborhood. In the R-2 and RMD districts, no new lot shall be created equal to or
exceeding two times the minimum lot size prescribed for the district, as prescribed
in Table 2. Lots larger than the prescribed maximum raze are permitted only under
the following circumstances: (i) where a Village Residential land use is approved
concurrent with the new lot, resulting in no net loss of housing on the site(s); (ii)
where underlying lots must be merged to eliminate nonconformities and no net loss
of housing units would result; and (iii) where an adi acent substandard lot of less
than 25 feet in width is combined with another lot, resultin~ in no net loss of
housing units on the site.
(d) Garage Doors in R-2 District
In the R-2 district, for garages located within 50 feet from a street frontage, on lots
less than 75 feet in width, the total combined width of garage doors which gac-e-are
parallel to the street ~t ......1~ ~-90 ~ .............. ~, ......~, ....shall not exceed 20 feet.
(e)Special Setbacks
Where applicable, setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to
Chapter 20.08 of this code shall be followed for the purpose of determining legal
setback requirements.
ZOU Draft 09-20-04 6
18,10,050 Permitted Encroachments, Proiections and Exceptions1~.10.040 [Develol~
Certification of Daylight Plane Compliance
Upon request by the building official, any person building or making improvements
to a structure in the low density residential districts shall provide a certification
that the structure, as built, complies with the daylight plane provisions in
subsection (a). Such certification shall be prepared by a licensed engineer,
architect, or surveyor, and shall be provided prior to frame inspection.
(g) Lighting in R-2 District
In the R-2 district, recreational and security lighting shall be permitted only so long
as the lighting is shielded so that the direct light does not extend beyond the
property where it is located. Free-standing recreational and security lighting,
installed ori or later than March 11, 1991, shall be restricted to twelve feet (12’) in
(h) Location of Service Equipment
All noise-producing equipment, such as air conditioners, pool equipment,
generators, commercial kitchen fans, and similar service equipment, shall be
located outside of the front, rear and side yard setbacks. Such equipment may,
however, be located up to 6 feet into the street sideyard setback..All such
equipment shall be insulated and housed and any replacement of such equipment
conforms to these standards where feasible, uT~ ........~ ....+ ~° +~ ~’~ ~’~ in thc
.... ~ ..........., .............~w~ ...........ao~ ~ .........a acent
All se~ice equipment must meet the City Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10.
18.10.050 Permitted Encroachments, Proj ections and
Exceptions
The following projections and encroachments into required yards, daylight plane and
height are permitted, provided a projection shall not be permitted to encroach into a
special setback, as established by the setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, except as noted in (a)(1)(D) below.
(a) SetbaeldYard En~roachments and Proieetions
.(1)Horizontal Additions
In the R-2 district and the RMD district, where a single-family dwelling legally
constructed according to existing yard and setback regulatio,ns at the time of
construction encroaches upon present required yards, one encroaching side(first
floor wall) of the existing structure at a height not to exceed 12 feet, may be
extended in accord with this section, Only one such extension shall be permitted
fo th life f h b ildi ~,T .....~, ~.~;+;,... ~.~11 t.~ .a~++~ + ........~r+e o suc u ng ..........................~ ......................
ZOU Draft 09-20-04 7
18.10.050 Permitted Encroachments, Proiectionsand Exceptions" 1 .........Q 1 n nan II 13 ..... ....1~.,.~
the Pa!o ~DI~o )&’minima! Code. This subsection shall not be construed to allow the
further extension of an encroachment by any. building which is the result of the
granting of a variance, either before or after such property became part of the city.
Front Yard. In cases where the existing setback is less than 20 feet, bm
atleast 14 feet, the existing encroachment may be extended for a
distance of not more than 100% of the length of the encroaching wall to
be extended; provided, that the total length of the existing encroaching
wall and the additional wall shall together not exceed one-half the
maximum existing width of such building.
Interior Side Yard. In cases where the existing setback is lessthan 8
feet, but at least 5 feet, the existing encroachment may be extended for
a distance of not more than 100% of the length of the ~
encroac~n~entencroaching wall to be extended, but not to exceed 20
additional feet.
Street Side Yard. In cases where the existing setback is less than 16
feet, but at least 10 feet, the existing encroachment may be extended for
a distance of not more than 100% of the length of the encroaching wall
to be extended, but not to exceed 20 feet.
(D)Special Setbacks. In cases where a Special Setback is prescribed
pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of the Municipal Code, and the existing
setback is less than the Special Setback distance, but is at least 14 feet
for the front setback or at least 10 feet for the street side yard setback,
the existing encroachment may be extended for a distance of not more
than 100% of the length of the encroaching wall to be extended,
provided that the total length of the existing encroaching wall and the
additional wall shall to~ether not exceed one-half the maximum
existing width of such building.
Rear Yard Encroachments for Portions of Homes
A portion of a main building that is less than half the maximum width of the
building may extend into the required rear yard no more than six feet and with
a height of no more than one story, except that a comer lot having a common
rear property line with an adjoining comer lot may extend into the required
rear yard not more than ten feet with a height of no more than one story.
3_(_~__)__Allowed Projections
(A) Cornices, Eaves, Fireplaces, and Similar Architectural Features
For cornices, eaves, fireplaces, and similar architectural features, excluding
flat or continuous walls or enclosures of usable interior space, the following
projections are permitted:
(_i)A maximum of two feet into a required side yard. Fireplaces in a
required side yard may not exceed five feet in width. Fireplaces not
ZOU Draft 09-20-04 8
18.10.050 Permitted Encroachments, Projections and Exceptions!8.10 0A0 I Develop
exceedin~ five feet in width may project into a required side yard no
more than two feet.
(ii)A maximum of four feet into a required front yard
(iii)A maximum of four feet into a required rear yard
(B)Window Surfaces
Window surfaces, such as bay windows or greenhouse windows, may extend
into a required side or rear yard a distance not to exceed two feet, or into a
required front yard a distance not exceeding three feet. The window surface
may not extend into any yard above a first story.
(C)Detached Storage Structures
In addition to the provisions for location of accessory structures under
Section 18.12.080 (b), the following further projections are permitted. For
structures not over six feet in height or twenty-five square feet in floor area,
used exclusively for storage purposes, the ’following projections are
permitted:
(!")A maximum of two feet into a required side yard
(ii)A maximum of four feet into a required front yard
(iii)A maximum of four feet into a required rear yard
(D)TT .................. ........ ~ D~r,~oPat~os" ang Decks, Stairways, Landings, Balconies, or
Fire Escapes
For uncovered porches (less than 30 inches above grade), patios, decks,
stairways, landings, balconies, or fire escapes the following projections are
permitted, provided these projections are not permitted above the first story:
(_i~) A maximum of three feet into a required side yard
(JIB) A maximum of six feet into a required front yard
(iiiG) A maximum of six feet into a required rear yard
(E)Canopy or Patio Cover
A canopy or patio cover may be located in the required rear yard or that portion of
the interior side yard which is more than 75 feet from the street lot line
measured along the common lot line. Such canopies shall be subject to the
following conditions:
(i~) A canopy or patio cover shall not be more than 12 feet in height.
(JIB) The canopy or patio cover shall be included in the computation of
building coverage.
(iiiG)The canopy or patio cover and other structures shall not occupy more
than 50 percent of the required rear yard.
ZOU Draft 09-20-04 9
!DeveL!o!~18.10.050 Permitted Encr0achments, Proiections and Exceptions! g. 10.OqO I
(ivG)The canopy or patio cover shall not be enclosed on more than two
sides.
(Fr) Pools, Spas, and Hot Tubs
(ii )
(iiiC)
Pools, spas, and hot tubs may extend into a requiredrear yard a
distance not to exceed fourteen feet, provided that a minimum setback
of six feet from the property line shall be maintained.
No swimming pool, hot tub, spa, or similar accessory facility shall be
located in any portion of a required front or street side yard.
No swinmaing pool, hot tub, spa, or similar accessory facility shall be
located closer than six feet from an interior side yard property line.
(b) Height and Daylight Plane Exceptions
The following features may exceed the height limit established by the specified
districts:
(1)
(2)
RE and R-2 Districts: In the RE and R-2 districts, flues, chimneys, and
antennas may exceed the established height limit by not more than 15 feet.
RMD District: In the RMD district, flues, chimneys, exhaust fans or air
conditioning equipment, elevator equipment, cooling towers, antennas, and
similar architectural, utility, or mechanical features may exceed the height
limit established in any district by not more than 15 feet, provided that no
such feature or structure in excess of the height limit shall be used for
habitable space, or for any commercial or advertising purposes.
(c) Daylight Plane Exceptions
The following features may extend beyond the daylight plane established by the
applicable district, provided that such features do not exceed the height limit for the
district unless permitted to do so by subsection (b):
(1) RE and R-2 districts:
Television and radio antennas;(A)
(B)
(C)
Chinmeys and flues, provided that chimneys do not extend past the
required daylight plane a distance exceeding the minimum allowed
pursuant to Chapter 16.04 of this code;
Dormers, roof decks, gables, or similar architectural features, provided
that
(D)
(i)the sum of the horizontal lengths of all such features shall not
exceed 15 feet-on each side; and
(ii) the height of such features does not exceed 24 feet.
Cornices, eaves, and similar architectural features, excluding flat or
continuous walls or enclosures of usable interior space, provided such
features do not extend past the daylight plane more than 2 feet.
ZOU Draft 09-20-04 10
18,10.090 Parking!8 in nan I Develol~
(2)
(A)
18~10.090
RMD District:
Television and radio antennas; and
Chimneys and flues.
Parking
Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for all permitted and conditional
uses in accord with Code Chapters 18.40 and 18.43 of this title. The following parking
requirements apply in the R-E, R-2, and RMD districts. These requirements are included
for reference purposes only, and in the event of a conflict between this Section 18.10.090
and any requirement of Chapter 18.40 or 18.43, Chapter 18.40 or 18.43 shall apply:
(a) Parking Requirements for Specific Uses ....
Table 3 shows the minimum off-street automobile parking requirements for
specific uses.
Table 3: Parking Requirements for R-E, R-2, and RMD Uses
Use Minimum Off-Street
Single-family residential use (excluding second
dwelling units)
Two family (R2 & RMD districts)
Second dwelling unit, attached or detached:
>450 sfin size
<450 sfin size
Other Uses
Parking Requirement
2 spaces per unit, of which one must be covered.
3 spaces total, of which at least two must be covered
2 spaces per unit, of which one must’be covered
I space per unit, which may be covered or uncovered
See Chapter 18.40
(b) Parking and Driveway Surfaces
Parking and driveway surfaces may have either permeable or impermeable paving.
Materials shall be those acceptable to Public Works Department standards. Gravel
and similar loose materials shall not be used for driveway or parking surfaces
within 10 feet of the public right of way.
(c)
(1)
Parking in Yards
No required parking space shall be located in a required front yard, except as
provided for second dwelling units in Section 18.10.070.
ZOU Draft 09-20-04 11
18.10.070 Second Dwelling Units .........I ~
(2)No required parking space shall be located in the first ten feet adjoining the
street line of a required street side yard, except as provided for second
dwelling units in Section 18.10.070.
(d)Tandem parking
Tandem parking shall be permitted for single-family uses and for single-family
uses with a permitted second dwelling unit.
(e) Bicycle Parking
For two family uses, at least one Class I bicycle parldng space shall be required.
(f)Design of Parking Areas
Parldng facilities shall comply with all applicable regulations of Chapter 18.83
(Parking Facility Design Standards).
18.10.070 ...........Second Dwelling Units ..........
The intent of this section is to provide regulations to accommodate second dwelling nnits,
in order to provide for variety to the City’S housing stock and additional affordable
housing opportunities. Second dwelling units are intended as separate self-contained
living units, with separate entrances from the main residence, whether attached or
detached. The standards below are provided to minimize the impacts of second dwelling
units on nearby residents and to assure that the size, location and design of such
dwellings is compatible with the existing residence on the site and with other structures in
the area.
(a) Second Units in the R-2 and RIND Districts
Second dwelling units are allowed on R-2 or RMD lots that meet lot size requirements in
Table 2 to accommodate two units on a lot. For R-2 zoned lots of 6,000 square feet or
greater, but less than 7,500 square feet, a second dwelling unit of 450 square feet or less
is permitted, subject to all other regulations of the R-1 Chapter outlined in section
18.12.070.
(b) Second Units in the R-E District
The following regulations apply to second dwelling units in the R-E district:
1. Minimum Lot Sizes
In the RE district, the minimum lot size for a second dwelling unit in excess of 450
square feet is one acre. Provided, for flag lots, the minimum lot size shall be 35%
greater than the minimum lot size established by Section 21.20.301 of the
Subdivision Ordinance. The minimum lot size for a second dwelling unit that is
450 square feet or less shall be 7,500 square feet, including for a flag lot.
ZOU Draft 09-20-04 12
18.10.070 SecondDweltingUnits!E.10.0~0 [Develop
2. Development Standards for Attached Second Dwelling Units
Attached second dwelling units are those attached to the main dwelling. Attached
unit size counts toward the calculation of maximum house size. All attached
second dwelling units shall be subj oct to the following.development requirements:
a. The minimum site area shall meet the requirements specified in subsection
(1) above.
.b,Maximum size of living area: 900 square feet. The second dwelling unit
and covered parking shall be included in the total floor area for the site. Anx
basement space used as a second dwelling unit or portion thereof shall be
counted as floor area for the purpose of calculating the maximum sizeofthe
unit.
C0 Maximum size of covered parking area for the second dwelling unit: 200
square feet.
Maximum height: one ~ ......d 17.... : ....feet 30 feet.
Except on comer lots, the second dwelling unit may not have an
entranceway facing the same lot line (property line)as the entranceway to
the main dwelling unit, and ~-exterior staircases to second floor units shall
be located toward the interior side or rear )ard of the property--.
3. Development Standards for Detached Second Dwelling Units
Detached second dwelling units are those detached from the main dwelling. All
detached second dwelling units shall be subject to the following development
requirements:
a.The minimum site area shall meet the requirements specified in subsection
(b) above.
bo Minimum separation from the main dwelling: 12 feet.
Maximum size of living area: 900 square feet. The second dwelling unit
and covered parking shall be included in the total floor area for the site.
Anybasement space used as a second dwelling unit or portion therof shall
be counted as floor area for the purpose of calculating the maximum size
of the unit.
d.Maximum size of covered parking area for the second dwelling unit: 200
square feet.
e. Maximum height: one story and 17 feet.
f.The detached second dwelling shall be architecturally compatible with the
main residence, with respect to style, roof pitch, color and materials.
ZOU Draft 09-20-04 13
18.10.080 and Faclhtles .........Accessory Uses ¯ ¯ ’Devel0t~
4. Street Access
The second dwelling unit shall have street access from a driveway in common with
the main residence in order to prevent new curb cuts, excessive paving, and
elimination of street trees. Separate driveway access may be permitted by the
Zoning Administrator upon a determination that separate access will result in fewer
environmental impacts such as excessive paving, unnecessary grading or
unnecessary tree removal, and that such separate access will not create the
appearance, from the street, of a lot division or two-family use.
5. Parking
The following parking criteria apply to both detached and attached second dwelling
units:
go Two parking spaces shall be provided for each second dwelling unit, with
at least one of the spaces being covered; provided, however, that if the
floor area of the second dwelling unit is 450 square feet or less, only a
single parking space is required, and it may be covered or uncovered.
&. uc ar n s e
locaed out of required Dont setbacks and not closer than 15 feet ~om the
street in a street side setback. New parking areas creaed in the stieet’side
setback shall be of pe~eable materials if required by the Pla~ing
Director.
18.10.080 Accessory Uses and Facilities
Accessory uses and facilities, as referenced in Section 18.10.030, shall be permitted when
incidental to and associated with a permitted use or facility in the R-E, R-2, or RMD
districts, or when incidental to and associated with an allowable and authorized
conditional use therein, subj ect to the provisions below and of Chapter 18.88_ of this Title.
(a)Types of Accessory Uses
Accessory uses and facilities include, but are not limited to, the following list of
examples; provided that each accessory use or facility shall comply with the provisions of
this title:
(1)Residential garages, carports, and parking facilities, together with access and
circulation elements necessary thereto;
(2) Facilities for storage incidental to a permitted use; and_
ZOU Draft 09-20-04 14
(b) Location and Development Standards .........I Develop
(3)Recreational uses and facilities for the use and convenience of occupants or
employees, or guests thereof, of a principal use or facility;
(b)Location and Development Standards
Except as otherwise provided in this section, accessory buildings shall at all times
be located in conformance with requirements for principal buildings, and shall not
be located in any required front, side, or rear yard.. See Section 18.10.050(a)(3)(C)
for allowed encroachments for small storage structures. Accessory buildings may
be located in a required interior yard subject to the following limitations:
An accessory building shall not be used for living and/or sleeping purposes
unless the building was legally constructed for or was legally converted to
living and/or sleeping purposes prior to October 13, 1983.
(2)An accessory building shall not be located in a required front yard, required
street yard, or required rear yard of a through lot.
(3)An accessory building shall not be located in a required interior side or rear
yard unless the building is at least seventy-five feet from any street line,
measured along the respective lot line. Provided, on coruer lots, accessory
buildings including detached garages and carports may be located in the rear
yard if located at least 75 feet from the front street and at least 20 feet from
the side street property lines.
(4)Accessory buildings located within a required interior yard as permitted by
this section shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight
plane beginning at a height of eight feet at the property line and increasing at
a slope of one foot for every three feet of distance from the property line, to a
maximum height of twelve feet.
(5)No such accessory building shall have more than two plumbing fixtures.
(6).Accessory buildings located within a required interior yard, as permitted by
this section, shall not individually or cumulatively occupy an area exceeding
fifty percent of the required rear yard.
(7)The minimum distance between separate buildings located on the same site
shall be as required by Title 16; provided, accessory buildings in the
Residential Estate (RE) district shall be separated from the principal building
by at least three feet.
(8)A principal building and an accessory building, meeting the requirements of
Title i 6 and each located on a site as otherwise permitted for principal
building and accessory buildings, may be connected by a structure meeting
the definition of a breezeway. Such structure, or breezeway, shall be a part of
the accessory building.
ZOU Draft 09-20-04 15
18.10.090 Basements ......... I Develo~
18.10.090 Basements
Basements shall be permitted in areas that are not designated as special flood hazard
areas, as defined in Chapter 16.52, subject to the following regulations:
(a) Permitted Basement Area
Basements may not extend beyond the building footprint and basements are not
allowed below any portion of a structure that extends into required setbacks, except
to the extent that the main residence is permitted to extend into the rear yard
setback by other provisions of this code.
(b) Inclusion as Gross Floor Area ’
Basements shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area, provided
that:
(1)
(2)
basement area is not deemed to be habitable space; or
basement area is deemed to be habitable space but the finished level of the
first floor is no more than three feet above the grade around the perimeter of
the building foundation_.
Amy basement space used as a second dwelling unit or portion thereof shall be
counted as floor area for the purpose of calculating the maxinmm size of the unit
(but may be excluded from calculations of floor area for the total site). This
provision is intended to assure that second units are subordinate in size to the main
dwelling and to preclude the development of duplex zoning on the site.
(c) Lightwells, Stairwells and Other Excavated Features
Excavated features shall not affect the measurement of the grade for the purposes
of dete~lnlng ...........~oss floor area, so long as such features meet the
following provisions:
(1) Ligh~ells; stai~ells and similar excavated features along the perimeter of
the basement, ~,,0~ ~ 1~.~* .... 11~ ~.n ~+~ ..... uo shall not affect the
measurement of grade, provided that2
(A)such features are not located in the ~ont of the building;
(B)such features shall not exceed 3 feet in width;
(C)the cumulative length of all such features does not exceed gg-fee430%
of the perimeter of the basement;
(D) such features do not extend more than g3 feet into a required side yard
nor more than 4 feet into a required rear yard, but where a side yard is
less than 6 feet in width, the features shall not encroach closer than 3
feet from the adjacent side property line;
(E)the cumulative length of any features or portions of features that extend
into a required side or rear yard does not exceed 15 feet in length;
ZOU Draft 09-20-04 16
18.10.090
(2)
(F)the owner provides satisfactory evidence to the planning division prior
to issuance of a building permit that any features or portions of features
that extend into a required side or rear yard will not be harmful to any
mature trees on the subject property or on abutting properties; and
such features have either a drainage system that meets the requirements
of the public works department or are substantially sheltered from the
rain by a roof overhang or canopy of a permanent nature.
Below-grade patios, sunken gardens or similar excavated areas along the
perimeter of the basement that exceed the dimensions set forth in subsection
(1), are permitted and shall not affect the measurement of grade, provided
that:.
(A)
(B)
such areas are not located in the front of the building;
All such areas combined do not exceed 2% of the area of the lot or 200
square feet, whichever is greater; that each such areas does not exceed
200 square feet, and that each such area is separated from another by a
distance of at least 10 feet. Area devoted to required stairway access
shall not be included in the 200 square foot limitation.
(c_)
(E)
(E)
(G)
the cumulative length of any excavated area or potion thereof that
extends into a required side or rear yard does not exceed 15 feet~
such features do not extend more than 2 feet into a required side yard
nor more than 4 feet into a required rear yard;
the owner provides satisfactory evidence.to the planning 2ivisien
director prior to issuance of a building permit that any features or
portions of features that extend into a required side or rear yard will not
be harmful to any mature trees on the subject property or on abutting
properties;
such features have either a drainage system that meets the requirements
of the public works department or are substantially sheltered from the
rain by a roof overhang or canopy of a permanent nature;
any roof overhang or canopy installed pursuant to subsection (_F) is
within and is counted toward the site coverage requirements established
in Section 18.10.040;
(H) such areas are architecturally compatible with the residence; and
ZOU Draft 09-20-04 17
18.10.1 10 Home Improvement Exceptions!g. !n,..,,~nAr~ I ~,,~r~ ....,"~’~"
(_i)such areas are screened to off site views by means of landscaping
and/or fencing as determined appropriate by the ~
.......... ~atorplanmng director.
18.10.100 Standards f~r A~ricultural Uses
In the RE district, agricultural use shall be allowed subject to the following regulations:
(a) Keeping and Raising of Livestock.
Keeping and raising of livestock, poultry, or other animals may be conducted
accessory to a residential use, and raising of animals for commercial purposes is
prohibited.
(b)Required Site Area for Keeping of Livestock.
(1)At least 21,528 square feet (0.5 acre) of site area shall be required for each
horse, mule, donkey, cow, steer or similar livestock.
(2)At least 21,528 square feet (0.5 acre) of site area shall be required for each
three goats, hogs, sheep, or similar livestock.
(c)Location of Livestock Facilities.
Barns, stables, sheds, chicken houses, and other similar facilities for the shelter and
feeding of animals, exclusive of domestic household pets, shall be located a
y 1 (p rty ) o.,~ o~,ml ~,~ 1~,~,~ ~minimum of 40 feet from an ot line rope line, ~. ...................
18.10.110 Home Improvement Exceptions
Home Improvement Exceptions may be granted for existing single-family residences in
the R-E, R-2,~ and RMD districts, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.12.120 (R-1
Chapter).
18.10.120 Architectural Review
Architectural Review, as required in Chapter 16.48 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code, is
required in the R-E, R-2, and RMD districts whenever three or more adjacent residential
nnits are intended to be developed concun’ently, whether through subdivision or
individual applications. Architectural review is also required for second dwelling units of
more than 900 square feet, when located in the Neighborhood Preservation Combining
District (NP).
18.10.130 Historical Review and Incentives
Historic home review, as required in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code, is
required in the R-E, R-2, and RMD low density residential districts for alterations or
ZOU Draft 09-20-04 18
18.10.140 I Neighbo
modifications to any residence designated on the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category
1 or Category 2 historic structure or located within a locally designated historic district.
Exemptions to gross floor area requirements are available for historic homes pursuant to
the definition of Gross Floor Area in Section 18,04.65(C2). Home Improvement
Exceptions provide for additional square footage and certain other exceptions for historic
homes pursuant to Section 18.12.120 (R-1 Chapter).
18.10.140 Neighborhood-Preservation Combining District (NP)
(a)Purpose & Applicability.
The neighborhood preservation combining district is intended to modify the regulations
of the RMD two unit multiple-family residential district areas where it is deemed
essential to maintain the visual and historic character of existing neighborhoods. The
combining district is intended to foster retention of existing single-family structures, to
foster additions to existing properties without demolition of sound residential structures,
and to assure compatibility of design of new residential units with existing structures on
the same or surrounding properties.
Properties in the (NP) combining district are subject to the following regulations:
(b) Design Review
(1) Purposes
The purpose of design review of properties in an (NP) combining district is to
achieve, compatibility of scale, silhouette, facade articulation, and materials
of new construction with existing structure on the same property or on
surrounding properties within a combining district.
(2) Design Review Required
For properties on which two or more residential units are developed or
modified, design review and approval shall be required by the architectural
review board in compliance with procedures established in Chapter 16.48 for
any new development or modification to any structure on the property and for
site amenities. No design review is required for construction of or
modifications to single-family structures that constitute the only principal
structure on a parcel of land. No design review is required for construction of
second dwelling units on a parcel except when the second unit exceeds 900
square feet in size.
(3) Design Review Guidelines
The architectural review board shall, at its discretion, develop specific design
review guidelines for each specific area to which this combining district is
applied.
ZOU Draft 09-20-04 19
18.12.160 GrandfatheredUses18.1a nan I Deve!ot~
Exceptions to Development Standards
(1) Applicability
Subject to the provisions of Section 18.35.030 and Chapters 18.67 through 18.81 and the
general purposes of this title to foster retention of existing single-family structures and to
maintain the existing historic and general character of the neighborhood, the ~
a~ministrator planning director may grant exceptions to site development regulations
(except limitations on residential density), parking regulations, and from the special
setback requirements of Title 20 applicable to the underlying zone district where
combined with the neighborhood preservation (NP) combining district. This exception
procednre is the exclusive procedure for procuring an exception to development
standards in the NP combining district. It is not necessary for the property owner to
obtain a variance
(2) Findings
The zoning administrator may only grant an (NP) District Exception if, from
the application or the facts presented at the public hearing, he finds:
(A)The granting of the exception will facilitate the preservation of an
existing residential structure on the same property and will be of benefit
in maintaining the existing historic and general character of the
surrounding neighborhood, and
(B)The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
(3). Conditions
In granting NP District Exceptions, reasonable conditions or restrictions may
be imposed as deemed appropriate or necessary to protect the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purposes of this
title.
(4)Procedures
Please refer to Chapters 18.76 and 18.77 for further information regardin~ the
procedures applicable to requests for exceptionsl
~60 C "
[Grandfathered and other nonconforming uses will be relocated and addressed in the
Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Facilities chapter of the Code.
ZOU Draft 09-20-04 20
ATTACHMENT B
SUMMARY OF KEY REVISIONS
TO THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CHAPTER
Text In Bold Represents Changes From R-1 Requirements Already Discussed by P&TC.
FORMAT
1)The Low Density Residential chapter encompasses the R-E, R-2, and RMD zoning districts.
The NP overlay district is relocated to this section as it is currently combined only with
RMD district, but the related process is located in the revised procedural section [18.77] of
the Code.
2)The chapter is organized to outline allowable uses and basic development standards in tabular
form, and then to deal with other key standards (second units, exceptions for setbacks and
height, basements, etc.) in subsequent sections. There are references where necessary to other
sections or chapters of the Code.
3)Grandfathered uses and other provisions for nonconforming uses and structures will be
relocated to and revised with a future chapter regarding Nonconforming Uses and
Noncomplying Facilities.
4)All references to metric measurements have been deleted.
ALLOWABLE USES
5)Changes made to R-1 are duplicated, but all accessory facilities are permitted uses (No CUP
as in R-l), and are merged into one category in the Land Use table.
6)Small adult day care homes have been included as a permitted use (currently not permitted, but
large daycare homes are with a use permit).
BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
7)In R-2 zone, site coverage for single-story development is increased to 40%.
8)In R-2 allow second stories for substandard lots (but not for flag lots); also increase
coverage for substandard lots to 40% for two-story development; reduce front setback for
flag lots to 10 feet. Note: substandard/flag lots don’t apply in R-E and RMD.
9)Similar to R-E and R-2, add maximum size for single-family residence (6,000 square feet)
in RMD district.
10)In R-2, provisions for one-story limitations on flag lots have been revised to specify that lofts,
mezzanines and similar areas "with interior heights of 5 feet oi more from the roof to the floor"
are considered second floors.
11)Similar to R-1, provisions are added to limit the location of new noise-producing equipment out
of the side, ,(except street side), rear and front setbacks, and require enclosure and insulation for
equipment.
12)
HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES
Provides for maximum lot sizes for new lots, not to equal or exceed 2.0 times the minimum lot
size for the applicable district, intended to limit lot combinations and reductions in number of
housing units. (Housing Element Program #5); allows exceptions for village residential,
required mergers to eliminate nonconformities, and mergers of parcels of less than 25 ft, width.
ENCROACHMENTS AND PROJECTIONS
13)Provisions are added for extending existing encroachments (i.e. the one time exception for side,
street side or front additions) to include into Special Setback extensions, similar to the existing
SmmnaryLDR.09.20.04
Summary of Low Density Residential Changes
Page 2
SUMMARY OF KEY REVISIONS
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
TO THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CHAPTER
Text In Bold Represents Changes From R-1 Requirements Already Discussed by P&TC.
provisions for extending into street side yard and front setbacks.
Other allowable encroachments and projections do not change.
SECOND UNITS
A purpose statement is included, emphasizing housing goals but also discussing compatibility
and minimizing neighbor impacts.
Attached and detached second units in the RE zone could be a maximum of 900 square feet in
size (currently 900 sf for detached, 250 sf for attached) if the lot size exceeds one acre; second
units of up to 450 sfwould be allowed on lots less than one acre, but in excess of 7,500
square feet. Other changes are the same as in R-1.
R-2-now allows second dwelling only on lots over 7,500 sf. If smaller than 7,500 sf, but
greater than 6,000 sf (minimum lot size for zone), would allow small unit up to 450 square
feet, subject to other R-1 standards for second units. No special requirements for RMD
units (already allows for second dwelling on lots over 5,000 sf).
In RE zoning district, attached and detached second story second units are permitted.
In RE zoning district, for smaller units (450 square feet or less, attached or detached), only on’e
parking space would be required, and it could be either covered or uncovered.
In RE zoning district, parking spaces for a second unit must be located outside of setbacks,
except that one space could be located up to 15 feet from a street side property line. Also,
the screening requirement for parking is eliminated.
In RE zoning district, open space requirements for second units are eliminated, assuming that
on a single-family lot adequate open space is available.
BASEMENTS
22)Clarifying language is added to indicate that basement floor area of a second unit is counted
against the maximum size of the second unit, but is not counted against the site floor area
maximum.
23)Clarify in code that in setback areas, no basements are allowed under accessory buildings.
24)For llghtwells and below-grade patios, modified 25’ linear requirement to allow 30% of
basement perimeter to have light wells/patios with some further restrictions on sizes of patios as
noted below.
25)For below-grade patios, the requirement for terracing and landscaping is eliminated
(landscaping or fencing above to screen from offsite views would still be required); and to
allow up to 2% of lot size, or 200 square feet (whichever is greater) for patios.
26)Lightwells are allowed to extend 3 feet (changed from 2 feet) into required side yard to make it
consistent with building code requirements for these features.
PARKING
27)Small second units (450 square feet or less) would require only one parking space - other
¯second units and main residences would still require two spaces (one of which is covered).
Second unit parking spaces must be located outside of setbacks, except where otherwise
provided in street side setbacks in the R-E zone.
28)Parldng for uses other than residences (e.g., churches, schools, community centers, etc.) are not
included in this chapter, but reference is made to the parking chapter (18.83).
Summary of Low Density Residential Changes
Page 3
SUMMARY OF KEY REVISIONS
34)
35)
36)
37)
38)
39)
4O)
41)
42)
43)
44)
Note:
TO THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CHAPTER
Text In Bold Represents Changes From R-1 Requirements Already Discussed by P&TC.
AGRICULTURAL STANDARDS
29)In RE zon+, the separation of livestock facilities from residences (40 feet) is deleted -
outdated requirement; retains 40 foot setback from property lines.
HIE
30)Reference to the R-1 chapter; available for existing single-family residences in the low
density zones.
ARB
31)Reference is provided to architectural review requirements that apply where three or more
adjacent residential lots are developed concurrently. ARB review is also required when
detached second dwelling units >900 sq ft are constructed in the NP combining district.
HISTORIC RESOURCES
32)Reference is provided to historic review process and requirements. Reference is also provided
to incentives for exemptions and HIEs.
NP COMBINING DISTRICT
33)No changes are recommended to criteria or process; applicable to all RMD sites.
DEFINITIONS
"Accessory dwelling" is eliminated - it is supplanted by accessory building and second
dwelling unit definitions and requirements.
A definition of"Bed and breakfast" is added, applies only in RMD zone.
"Carport" is modified to delete reference to having "no more than two sides enclosed" and to
add "which is covered with a solid roof."
"Family day care home" provisions are modified to be consistent with State law.
"Daylight plane" is revised to "Compatibility plane" and to make several clarifications in
understanding. Side compatibility plane clarified to not apply to street side.
A definition of"Dwelling unit, second" is added.
"Gross floor area" is modified as per R-1 changes, but would also apply definitions to low
density districts.
"Guest cottage" is deleted.
"Lodging" is deleted as it is no longer applicable.
"Lodging unit" is modified to apply strictly to hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast inns.
Reference to residential density is deleted.
Definitions of "Garage," "Porch," and "Vaulted Entry Feature" are added; definition of
"Structure" is replaced.
text in bold represents changes from R-1 requirements already discussed.
ATTACHE/raNT C
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:,
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Curtis Williams, Contract Planner
August 11, 2004
DEPARTMENT: Planning
& Community Environment
Zoning Ordinance Update - Revisions to Low Density R~sidential
(R-E, R-2, and RMD) Zoning Districts, including the Neighborhood
Preservation (NP) Combining District
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission. (P&TC) review and
recommend to the City Council preliminary approval of the Low Density Residential
Chapter (18.10) of Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as
outlined in Attachment A. This chapter also incorporates the provisions of the
Neighborhood Preservation (NP) Combining District.
BACKGROUND:
Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU) staff and the City attorney’s office have reformatted
and drafted a new Chapter 18.10 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, to encompass the R-E,
R-2 and RMD zoning districts, along with the related Neighborhood Preservation (NP)
Combining District. The ’Chapter was Wepared with the assistance of Current Planning
staff and the Low Density Residential Working Group. Unlike the R-1 Chapter, this
Chapter is not intended for adoption until the remainder of the Zoning Ordinance Update
(ZOU) is completed.
The P&TC is completing its review of the R-1 Chapter 18.12 of the Zoning Ordinance
and has previously recommended preliminary approval of Chapter 18.24 related to
industrial, office, and research zoning districts.
Comprehensive Plan Policies
The Low Density Residential. chapter of the ZOU is designed to implement several
relevant policies in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, including the updated Housing
Element. Most of these were cited in preparing the R-1 chapter, and include:
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Program H-5: "Address the loss of housing due to the combination of single family residential
lots. Consider modifYing the R-1 zoning district to create a maximum lot size to prevent the loss
of housing or housing opportunities." ¯
Program H-7: "As pal~ of the ZOU process, modifY the provisions, such as parking requirements,
minimum lot size, coverage, and floor area ratio limits, that govern .the development of second
dwelling units, in single family areas to encourage the production of such units."
Program H’8: "As pm~ of the ZOU process, modifY the Zoning Code to allow second dwelling
units that are incorporated entirely within the existing main dwelling, or that require only a small
addition and limited exterior modifications, to be approved through a ministerial permit on sites
that meet the minimum development standards, including the parking requirement."
Program H- 11 : "As part of the ZOU process, amend the zoning regulations to permit residential
lots of less than 6,000 square feet where smaller lots would be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood." (To be addressed as part of Village Residential)
Policy H-8: "Promote the rehabilitation of deteriorating or substandard residential properties."
Program H-30: "Require developers of new residential projects in the R-1 and R-2 zoning
districts to preserve and incorporate, where feasible, existing rental cottages or duplexes within
the project. Explore the feasibility of requiring the developer to replace any units being
demolished as a result of new construction."
Policy L-4: "Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality
of its commercial and public facilities. Use the ZOU as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable
qualities."
Policy L-12: "Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or
remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures." (Achieved
primarily through Individual Review and Architectural Review)
Program L-12: "Where compatible with neighborhood character, use Zoning and the HIE process
to create incentives or eliminate obstacles to remodel houses with features that add street life and
vitaliW."
Policy L-57: "Develop incentives for the retention and rehabilitation of buildings with historic
merit in al! zones."
DISCUSSION:
Attachment A comprises the proposed Low Density Residential Chapter (18.10) of the
Ordinance. The chapter is provided in a redlined version to indicate substantive changes
made to the current code provisions. Attachment B is a summary of the changes to the
existing code.
Staff believes that many of the substantive items of discussion for these zones have
already been addressed with the Commission’s review of the R-1 Chapter. To the
maximum extent possible, language for similar provisions reflects wording from the R-1
Chapter. Some of the carryover provisions from R-1 include:
City of Palo Alto Page 2
most of the allowable uses,
limits on noise-producing equipment,
maximum lot sizes,
many of the second unit criteria,
basement standards,
parking provisions,
incentives for historic structures, and ’
references to ARB and HRB review processes.
The definitions applicable to R-1 are used in the Low Density Residential districts as
well, including the reVisions to the definition of"gross floor area." Also, a similar format
is used, relying on tables of allowable uses and development standards rather than text to
describe the basic parameters for development. Some of the key R-1 provisions, such as
contextual setbacks and garage placement, and the Individual Review Process, do not
apply in these zones.
The following sections outline Staff’s analysis and recommendations of substantive issues
identified for discussion by staff and the Low Density Residential (LDR) Working Group
as policy issues for review by the full Commission:
1. Neighborhood Preservation (NP) Combining District
The Neighborhood Preservation (NP) Combining District is an overlay that currently
applies only to the RMD zone (and it applies to all of the RMD zone). Staff therefore has
included the district within the Low Density Residential Chapter. The purpose of the
overlay is to "foster retention of existing single-family structures, to foster additions to
existing properties without demolition of sound residential structures; and to assure
compatibility of design of new residential units with existing structures on the same or
surrounding properties." The overlay provisions include ARB review of any site with
~two or more structures (a site limited to a single-family residence does not require design
review) and an exception process to allow flexibility in site development standards,
somewhat analogous to the HIE process. Reference is made to the procedural
components (submittals, notice, appeals, etc.) of the exception process in Section 18.76
of the Code, which outlines those procedures in detail.
Staff proposes incorporating all of the current NP provisions into the new chapter, with
one exception. In order to accommodate second dwelling units associated with a single-
family residence, second dwellings less than 900 square feet in size would be permitted
without design review.
2.Substandard Lots in the R-2 District
Substandard lots are not addressed in the R-E and RMD zones, but are restricted in the R-
2 zone, in much the same way as for R-l, including a limitation of 17 feet and one story
in height. The Commission made several modifications to the substandard lot provisions
for the R-1 zone, and staff has suggested applying two of those to R-2 as well. In
City of Palo Alto Page 3
particular, the draft ordinance would allow for second stories in R-2, subject, however, to
the Individual Review process specified for second stories in R-l, since these lots are
often adjacent to single-family residences. Also, the lot coverage limitation of 35% for 2-
story development is proposed to be increased to 40% to allow for greater flexibility for
first floor buildout, limiting the need for second stories.
Staff has also modified the subsection on flag lots (18.10.040(b)(4)) to reduce the front
setback to 10 feet, sinceit really acts more as a side setback on a flag lot. Second stories
will continue to be prohibited andthe 17’ height limitation will remain for R-2 district
flag lots.
The LDR Working Group has identified two primary policy questions for substandard
and flag lots:
A.Should substandard lots and flag lots be addressed in the R-2 district in the same
way as in the R-1 district, allowing second stories and increased coverage?
B.Should substandard lots be defined and addressed for R-E and RMD lots (there is
currently no definition or special requirements for these zones)?
3.Lot CoveraRe for Single Story Development in the R-2 District
Lot coverage for single story (and 2-story) development in the R-2 district is currently
limited to 35%. The revised ordinance would allow for 40% lot coverage for single-story
development, similar to increases allowed in R-1 to allow for more of a site’s floor area.
on the first floor, minimizing second floor square footage.
4. Second Dwelling Units in the R-2 and R-E Districts
Two dwelling units on a lot are allowed on R-2 and RMD lots above specified sizes
(7,500 square feet in R-2 and 5,000 square feet in RMD). Since the minimum lot size in
R-2 is 6,000 square feet, however, it is possible that an R-2 lot would be restricted to a
single-family residence while the same R- 1 lot could have a "small" second unit. In order
to provide for a similar opportunity in the R-2 zone, the ordinance proposes to allow for a
second unit of 450 square feet or less on an R-2 lot of 6,000-7,499 square feet, subject to
all other R- 1 requirements for second units. No provision is. needed in the RMD zone,
since the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet already allows for two units.
In the R-E district, second unit requirements are for the most part similar to requirements
in the R-1 zone. Two modifications are proposed, however. The maximum size of second
units would be increased (from 900 square feet) to 1,200 square feet, recognizing the
larger size of the lots in R-E. Also, second story (or 2-story) second units would be
permitted, even though Individual Review is not required in the R-E district. Again, staff
believes that the larger lot sizes and setbacks in this zone allow for more flexibility for
second units.
The LDR Working Group has identified these two changes as primary policy questions
for second units in the R-E district:
City of Palo Alto Page 4
A.Should the maximum second unit size be increased to 1,200 square feet? ~
B,Should second story detached units be allowed and, if so, should there be any
special criteria?
Other Issues
Attachment C provides a more comprehensive list of changes for these zones. If there are
other revisions on the list or other issues that have not been outlined here, those should be
discussed at this meeting as well.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Adoption of an ordinance is not proposed at this time, so no environmental review is ¯
required. Upon integration with the rest of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Update, the
appropriate environmental review will be prepared with the comprehensive ordinance.
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS:
The Low Density Residential Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance will allow for the
provisions of low density residential districts, other than R-l, to be located in one chapter
of the code, and allows for standardizing some of the regulations across the three districts
and in many cases with the R-1 provisions as well.
Upon recommendation by the Commission, staff expects to proceed to the City Council
with the preliminary Low Density Residential. chapter in the Fall of 2004. The Multiple
Family Residential chapter of the Zoning Ordinance, including the RM-15, RM-30, and
RM-40 districts, will be presented to the Commission in August or September.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Low Density Residential Chapter (18.10) of the Zoning Ordinance
B. Summary of Key Revisions
COURTE SY COPIES:
City Council
Dan Sodergren, Contract Assistant City Attorney
Pria Graves
Joy Ogawa .
Zoning Ordinance Update Binder
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Curtis Williams, Contract Planner
John Lus~~PlanningManager
Department/Division Head Approval:
;rote, Chief
City of Palo Alto Page 5
ATTAC~NT D
DRAFT EXERPT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.9
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
:MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26
ROLL CALL: 7:00 PM
Wednesday, August 11, 2004 at 7:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto; California 94301
Commissioners:
Phyllis Cassel - Chair
Bonnie Packer - V-Chair
Karen Holman
Patrick Burr
Michael Griffin
Annette Bialson
Lee I. Lippert
Staff:
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
John Lusardi, Planning Manager, Special Projects
Amy French, Current Planning Manager
Chris Riordan, Planner
Curtis Williams, Consultant
Susan Ondik, Planner
Robin Ellner, Staff Secretary
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
1.Zoning Ordinance Update: Low-Density Residential
2.195 Page Mill Road and 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891, and 2901 Park Boulevard [03-PC-
01, 04-CPA-01, 03-EIA-18] "
3.ZOU - Chapter 18.40 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements - continued to
the Regular Meeting of August 25, 2004 ....
Selection of Chair and Vice-Chair
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of June 30 and July 14, 2004
Chair Griffin: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Wednesday, August 11
Regular Meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission. Will the Secretary please call
the role? Thank you.
That takes us to Oral Communications.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to anyitem not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
DRAFT EXERPT
Chair Casse : Thank you. There being no other nominations I will call fora vote. Well, would
anyone else like to talk to those items or make any comments? Then I would like to call for a
vote. All those in favor of Bonnie please say aye. (ayes) All those in favor of Karen please say
aye. (ayes) The motion carries with Bonnie becoming the Vice-Chair with Commissioners
Bialson, Eippert, Cassel, Holman and Packer voting yes and Commissioners Burt and Griffin
voting for Karen. The vote is five to two. Thank you.
Congratulations, Bonnie. Do you want to sit there for the rest of the evening?
Commissioner Griffin: I thought I would. Do you have a better place for me to go?
Chair Cassel: Not tonight.
Commissioner Griffin: I see what you are saying. I would be pleased to change with Bonnie.
Chair Cassel: Let’s swap signs again. Does everyone have all of their belongings in the right
place? Okay.
The first item on the agenda is Unfinished Business. This is a public hearing and the item is the
Zoning Ordinance Update: Low Density Residential. This is an item that has been continued to
us from last week when we were unable to begin it. This is revisions to Low Density Residential
(R-E, R-2, and RMD) Zoning Districts, including the Neighborhood Preservation Combining
District. Commission’s review and recommendation to the City Council preliminary approval of
the Low Density Residential Chapter (18.10) of Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the.Palo Alto
Municipal Code. Would the Staff pleaSe make a report?
UNFINISHED B USINESS :
Public Hearings.
Zoning Ordinance Update: Low-Densi~, Residential. Revisionsto Low Density
Residential (R-E, R-2, and RMD) Zoning Districts, including the Neighborhood
Preservation (NP) Combining District. Commission’s review and recommendation to the
City Council preliminary approval of the Low Density Residential Chapter (18.10) of
Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SR Weblink: http://\~vw~ci~y~fpa~a~t~.~rg/ciwagenda/pub~ish/p~mming-transp~rtati~n-rneetings/36~5~pdf
Mr. Curtis Williams, Consultant: Thank you Chairman Cassel and Commissioners. We would
like to talk to you today about our recommendations for the Low Density Residential chapter of
the Zoning Ordinance Update. This chapter would include what is presently the R-E, Residential
Estate Zone, the R-2, which is two family residential and the RMD which is two unit multiple
family residential zone. Those three zones, you have a map that we provided to you that shows
where those zones are located. It is 8.5 by 11. It is also up on the wall over there in an enlarged
version.
Chair Cassel: There are some in the back for the public if they would like them.
Mr. Williams: Right. Just to very briefly run through what those zones are the R-E, Residential
Estate Zone, is the relatively large lot, minimum one acre single family zone. It does allow some
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
DRAFT EXERPT
agricultural uses and second units as welt andis generally located up into the foothills along
Page Mill Road and Arastradero.
The R-2 zone, the two family residential zone, is the City’s basic duplex zoning and allows two
units on a lot of a minimum 7,500 square foot size. Otherwise the lot would be limited to single
family use. It does allow some institutional and other types of uses with conditional use permits
The RMD zone, two unit multiple family zone, is very similar in many respects to the R-2 in that
it allows two units as well but has some differences in that it is technically considered a multiple
family zone. It has somewhat more intense development standards and it is also characterized by
being combined with the Neighborhood Preservation District, the NP Combining District, which
allows basically for an overlay of architectural review for second dwellings in that zone. That is
provided primarily because much of the zone is of some historical significance and is generally
single family. A lot of it is still single-family residences that are in proximity to more intense
uses. So it is provided with that overlay. We have also tried to address that NP overlay as part
of the Zoning Ordinance Update in this chapter. I will get into that in a minute.
This chapter was developed by taking much of the input from the changes from the R-1 Chapter
that you just went through, concluding last week, and incorporating it where appropriate in these
provisions. By the way the definitions that you discussed last week are really Low Density
Residential definitions that apply to not only R-1 but to these zones as well.
The Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element, the various policies regarding increasing
housing variety and housing stock, providing for second units, input from the Current Planning
Staff as to existing issues that they deal with, our community meetings and workshops, focus
groups on the Housing Element and on second units. The Low Density working group did
review this draft a couple of weeks ago and the Commission’s direction that you provided .......
through the R-1 Chapter we have also taken that into consideration. A lot of the changes that are
in this document are really changes that you have discussed inthe R-1 Chapter so the basic
formatting for instance is si-milar in terms of using tables and essentially the structure of the
ordinance. The noise producing equipment section is worded the same as the R-1 version,
Providing for maximum lot sizes in pretty much the same way as R- 1 did. The basement, patio
and lightwell changes are incorporated here as well. Parking, particularly small second unit
parking requirements. The setbacks revised for accessory structures somewhat are incorporated
in here as well. As I mentioned the definitions are all the same. The definitions that you worked
on with the R-1 Chapter are not back before you because you have essentially resolved those ......
with that work that you did, .......
There were some changes that you made last week that are not reflected in the ordinance that is
before you. Susan put together a handout that hopefully you have, but it is also up here on the
screen, of a few items that were changed that we will incorporate into the LDR, Low Density
Residential, Chapter. One is related to the definitions in that definition section using the term
daylight plane and the revised definition that we had for that, The porte-cochere definition that
we added and the gross floor area changes particularly the ones that deal with porte-cochere and
carport being open on three sides. We don’t really have to deal with them again you acted on
that last week. The term compatibility plane wherever it appears currently in this Low Density
Residential Chapter will be revised to say daylight plane. The maximum lot size provision last
week you added a fourth exception to that for the R- 1 Chapter where the number of iots did not
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
~9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
,35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
DRAFT EXERPT
decrease and the number of units would not be decreased. So there is this fourth exception there
and that will be reflected in this chapter as well but isn’t right now. Then you als0 asked for a
connection to the historic listing process in terms of the Category 1 and Category 2 structures
that we added to that section of R-1 and we will do that as well. We have an identical section
here in the Low Density Residential. So we will make all those changes and your motion should
incorporate those. We will try to remind you to incorporate those changes as well.
We have identified about a half dozen issues that are different from what you discussed in the R-
1 area and these are where w.e would like to get your input. I will go through them relatively
quickly and then we can come back and discuss them individually as we have done before on R-
1. These are all changes but some of them may be minor enough that you don’t hopefully feel
that you need to discuss all of them. The first one is this neighborhood preservation combining
district and the overlay for that. That is identical to the RMD zone. It covers all of the RMD
zone and the RMD covers all of the NP combining area. So our thought here was to incorporate
that NP zone, those criteria and the process and the additional design review, into this chapter.
So we have relocated that section to this chapter of the code and we haven’t changed any of the
content or the process itself in there we have just relocated it out of a whole separate chapter of
the current Zoning Ordinance into this chapter. There are some process related items as far as
the application appeal process that are in our code the 18.76 and 77 or whatever the numbers are
that regard the recent amendments to the processing and those still will be back there. They are
referenced in this section of the Low Density Residential.
Secondly, the substandard lots in the R-2 district the existing ordinance provides very similar
requirements in R-2 zone as we saw in the R-1 zone of limiting substandard lots to one story in
height and 17 feet. We have suggested changes similar to those changes that you offered in the
R-1 zone to allow second stories but if that is going to be done to refer them back to the
Individual Review process to look at those with the thought being that a lot of these are mixed
single family duplex type areas and that that would be appropriate there. Then also similar to in
the R-1 zone would increase the site coverage to 40% for two story structures.
The third area of changes is flag lots in the R-2 district. Again as was done in the R-1 zone we
would retain the single story limitation there but change the front setback again to ten feet rather
than the existing 20 feet.
Lot coverage in R-2, currently the allowable lot coverage in the R-2 zone is 35% and we have
suggested increasing that to 40% again somewhat analogous to the fact that in R-1 there is a
higher percentage of coverage allowed for single story development and this would provide for
that in the R-2 zone as well.
There are a few changes as far as second dwelling units go. These might be some of the more
substantial changes in this chapter. Currently, obviously the R-2 and RMD districts generally
allow for two units on a lot so you wouldn’t need to address shcond dwelling units there,
however, the R-2 zoning district only allows that if you have more than 7,500 square feet in area
whereas the minimum lot size in R-2 is 6,000 square feet. So we have tried to provide an option
where if someone has a single family home on a 6,000 square foot lot or in between those two
numbers they could as well have a small, as we define it 450 square foot, second unit there which
essentially gives them parody with a single family home that would be developed on an R~I lot
to have that kind of second unit. Otherwise they would have to meet all of the other R- 1 criteria
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
DRAFT EXERPT
that are spelled out for a second unit. In the RMD zone the minimum lot size is down to 5,000
square feet and a property owner can have a second dwelling on a site that is over 5,000 square
feet so we didn’t feel it was necessary to add any provisions forsecond units because most all the
lots can already have them. Then in the R-E zone where you have one acre or more lot size we
suggested a couple of changes. One is that instead of a 900 square foot limit on the size of a
second unit that that be increased to 1,200 square feet recognizing the larger size of the lots and
greater setbacks and such.. Then secondly also to allow two story second dwelling units whether
they are attached as a second story of a house or if they are detached again with the underlying
assumption that these are larger lots and have greater setbacks and such. Otherwise the criteria
listed are pretty much similar to the R-1 requirements for second units.
So those are what we see as the substantive changes in the chapter. What we would like if for
you to discuss those and confirm or revise what we have prepared and then offer a
recommendation that we can more forward to the Council with. We have not determined yet
whether this will take the form, much as the Industrial Manufacturing districts did, of a
recommendation for a preliminary recommendation that then sort of gets set aside until the
whole ordinance comes together or whether we might have an opportunity to come back to you
with a specific ordinance at a future time and actually adopt this chapter. Like the R-1 Chapter
there probably isn’t much if.anything outside of this chapter that needs to be changed in the
current ordinance to make it effective. So we may have an opportunity to do that with this as
well. I would glad to answer any questions.
Chair Cassel: Commissioners, what I am proposing is that we go to the public hearing ifw~
have any and then that we go down these pages with these issues. Pat.
Commissioner Burt: The Staff Report referenced Attachment C and I wasn’t able to locate
which of the items that was referring to, is it this item?
Mr. Williams: Where was it referenced? Attachment C should be Attachment B. A more
comprehensive list of changes for these zones that is a longer list that details some other changes
as well but those again are generally ones that you have made with the R-1 provisions. I am
sorry for that oversight.
Chair Cassel: Do we have any cards from the public? There are no cards from the public. If
anyone wishes to speak you need to fill out a card and we will hear you now. There being no
cards I will then close the public hearing and bring the questions back to the Commission. Let’s
go to this screen up here where it says Neighborhood Preservation Overlay District. I thought
we might go through these and confirm that we agree with these or not. We can do this rather
rapidly if we agree. If you have questions we could have questions and then we will see if we
agree with these item. Is there anyone that has questions on the Neighborhood Preservation
Overlay? Bonnie.
Vice-Chair Packer: If you will bear with me I have one quick question in general about the
RMD zone. I was wondering why ther( was no maximum house size. I was just doing a
comparison between all the different zones and notice there is no maximum house size in the
development standards. It would sort of help me understand this kind of zone if I understood
that.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DRAFT EXERPT
Mr. Williams: We currently don’t have a maximum house Size in the existing code and that’s
why I think we carried.that through. For the most part it is probably because it is called a
multiple family zone even though it is really a duplex zone. I don’t know that there couldn’t be
and there is not really a reason why there couldn’t be a maximum on it if it is a single-family
home that we have a maximum for that. There are a lot of single family homes in that district
although they tend’to be on way smaller lots that would never allow that large a house and with
the lot combining provisions in there probably couldn’t get to that size a house.
Chair Cassel: Are there any other questions? Do we all agree with the Staff recommendations
on this? Could I have a motion?
MOTION
Commissioner Griffin: I so move.
SECOND
Commissioner Lippert: Second
MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
Chair Cassel: All those in favor? (ayes)
Number two, the substandard lots in the R,2 district. The Staff recommendation is similar to the
changes in the R-1 to allow second stories on substandard lots, second stories subject to the
Individual Review process and increase site coverage to 40% for two story overlay structures.
Do we have questions? No questions? Any discussion? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Just for consistency purposes I had opposed allowing second stories on
substandard lots in R-1 and I just want to be on record as at this point I still do but I look forward
to the discussion that would broaden the IR process and see if some of my concerns would be
alleviated with that.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Is there a motion?
MOTION
Vice-Chair Packer: I will move the Staff recommendation on substandard lots.
SECOND
Commissioner Lippert: I’ll second.
MOTION PASSED (7-1-0-0. Commissioner Holman opposed)
Chair Cassel: All those in favor? (ayes) Done.. Karen.
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DRAFT EXERPT
Commissioner Holman: I was opposing the motion just because of the reason I stated
previously.
Chair Cassel: I’m sorry, then the motion was six to one with Karen Holman voting no.
Item number three, flag lots in the R-2 district. Staff recommendations as in R-1 retain one
story, 17-foot limit and change front setback to ten feet. Are there any questions? Shall we
move that one? Is there any discussion? No discussion.
MOTION
Commissioner Bialson: I will move the Staff recommendation.
SECOND
Vice-Chair Packer: I will second.
MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
Chair Cassel: Any other discussion? Then all those in favor please say aye. (ayes) That passes
seven to nothing.
Lot coverage in the R-2 district. The Staff recommendation is to increase allowable site
coverage from 35% to 40%. Are there any questions?
MOTION
Commissioner Lippert: I will move that.
SECOND
Commissioner Bialson: Second.
MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
Chair Cassel: Any other discussion? All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) Passed seven to
nothing.
Now we are up to where there will be some discussion I suspect. Five-A, second dwelling units,
R-2. The Staff recommendation here is to allow R-2 lots meeting minimum lot.size of 6,000
square feet but less than that required for two dwelling units which is 7,500 Square feet to have
small second dwelling units of 450 square feet or less with single family residence otherwise it
must meet all other R-1 criteria. Are there any questions? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: What was Staff’s rationale for making this or what was the purpose for
recommending this reduced lot size for a second dwelling unit?
CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
DRAFT EXERPT
Mr. Williams: The rationale was because if you have a lot that is less than 7,500 square feet you
are limited to a single-family dwelling. If you had a 6,000 square foot lot which is the minimum
in the zone with a single family dwelling you therefore would not be able to have even a second
unit on it whereas if this was an R-1 property with 6,000 square foot lot size you would be able
to have a second unit. So we just felt that was providing some parody here and not penalizing
people because they had a single family house that they still should be able to have a second unit
with that single family house. It is only a 450 square foot second unit. Just like in the R-1 zone
you have to have more than 8,100 square feet before you can have a unit over 450 square feet.
With a 6,000 square foot you could have the 450 square foot unit. So it essentially is equivalent
to that. If you are less than 6,000 square feet in either the R-1 or R-2 zone you couldn’t have a
second unit.
Chair Cassel: Are there any other questions? Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: Are there any units that are legally existing nonconforming that have
two units?
Mr. Williams: I am sure there are. You mean existing that have a second unit or that have a
duplex type situation?
Commissioner Lippert: Just two units.
Mr. Williams: I don’t know. I don’t think we have an idea of how many there are but I am sure
there are some existing either single family with a second unit on the lot or duplexes that are less
than 7,500 square feet.
Commissioner Lippert: If they do exist would they be permitted to continue?
Mr. Williams: Yes. The code allows for continuance of existing nonconforming uses and
structures.
Commissioner Lippert: One last question. How would they go about documenting that or
presenting that to the Staff so that they don’t lose that entitlement?
Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: We do require them to show us an old building pe, rmit
either from the County or the City or some other documentation. If there isn’t a building permit
sometimes it shows up on Sanborne Maps or older deeds or restrictions of some sort. So we do
ask for documentation.
Commissioner Lippert: Would utility bills suffice?
.Ms. Grote: They have in the past, yes. If there is a utility bill there is usually something else that
goes with it, some other kind of verification.
Commissioner Lippert: Would parcels that have multiple addresses assigned to them?
Ms. Grote: Not typically just an address alone. Again if there are two addresses there is usually
some sort of a building permit or some other kind of verification. Something shows up on an
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
DRAFT EXERPT
older [Sanborne] Map or some verification that this is a separate unit and had an address
assigned to it legally in the past.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay. One last question. If those buildings or properties were to
undergo renovation would they also be permitted to expand and yet retain that entitlement?
Ms. Grote: An existing or a legally nonconforming use cannot be made bigger. So it cannot
expand.. The building footprint cannot be enlarged.
Mr. Williams: They could do repairs or upgrades to the structure of it or cosmetic things but not
expand the square footage. However, it is possible that some of these may have very small units
that could go to the 450 square foot number or maybe they have the 450 square foot and the
other unit could be a bigger main unit that could expand. So if it was something that now
complied or could comply with this it might provide in some instances an opportunity for some
expansion that doesn’t exist today.
Commissioner Lippert: Thank you.
Chair Cassel: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: As a nonconforming use my understanding would be that if the
improvements were destroyed,by fire or other causes they could not rebuild. Is that correct or
could they rebuild?
Ms. Grote: Actually they could if it is a natural disaster, fire or something like that.
Chair Cassel: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Perhaps what Lee was getting at too and maybe not is we have had
discussions in the past about I don’t think at the Commission actually but at public meetings we
have had conversation about how to get illegally located second urfits to come in and kind of
give a free pass to them to come in and make them safer. I don’t know that we have ever been
able to resolve that but maybe Staff would like to comment on that.
Mr. Williams: I know we have talked about second unit amnesty and that kind of thing of
opportunities for doing that. That is something as I recall we have said we would revisit as part
of the whole nonconforming grandfathering discussion when we get there towards the end of this
process.
Ms. Orote: One of the difficulties with that is many illegal units are illegal or nonconforming
because they are located in a setback and that would be difficult to grant variances for those or to
legalize those because it puts living area within setbacks which isn’t something that we have
supported in the past.
Mr. Williams: We should probably just clarify that the term nonconforming in the code sense is
a legally existing structure. So there is a distinction. If there is an illegal structure out there that
never had a permit then that does not make it a nonconforming under the code and allow the
kinds of upgrades that we were talking about and that Commissioner Lippert asked about. But
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
DRAFT EXERPT
there may be an opportunity through some kind of amnesty program or something like that to
allow some of those to be considered conforming if they bring them up to building code or
something like that.
Chair Cassel: Are there any other questions? Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Mine is more going into comments.
Chair Cassel: Eee.
Commissioner Lippert: How does California state law with regard to its encouraging and
allowing for second dwelling units fit into this?
Mr. Williams: Well I think one thing is this whole provision apart from the nonconforming issue
the whole provision about allowing a single family home in the duplex zone to have a second
unit is very consistent with that. It provides for that. The Housing Element policies that provide
for increased second unit opportunities are very consistent with that. As far as the
nonconforming aspect of it goes I don’t think there is anything in state law that suggests that you
should find some way to allow illegal structures or nonconforming structures but that is the
approach that some cities take. So it is another opportunity to provide ways if there are
appropriate safeguards for neighbors and such that we can consider as far as legalizing
nonconforming and/or even illegal structures in some cases.
Commissioner Lippert: Let me just ask Staff, and this is very dangerous but I will ask it anyway;
a political question. We have the general Comprehensive Plan, which really tries to shoehorn in
and get more affordable housing, and yet here what we are talking about are legal and maybe
even in some cases illegal nonconforming second units. Wouldn’t it make more sense to try to
encourage those people and work with those people to bring those units into compliance or in
some ways allow for some flexibility so that we are not having a reduction in affordable housing
stock?
Ms. Grote: I don’t think that the Comprehensive Plan wanted to see additional housing units at
the expense of neighbors or, neighboring uses. So I think there is a balance to be struck between
what the City would want to support in terms of providing opportunity and yet actually
increasing the opportunities for second units and impacts on surrounding neighbors. So I do
think there is a balance there. To date we have not supported putting permanent living space in
setbacks that might have a negative impact on neighbors.
Chair Cassel: Lee, we are going a direction that doesn’t I think affect the discussion here in
terms of what we are going to .do with this ordinance although it is an interesting discussion. If
there are no other questions, go ahead Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I was trying to.locate and perhaps Staff could help with this second
dwelling units in the RMD district.
Chair Cassel: Why don’t we get to that when we get to RMD?
Commissioner Holman: I’m sorry I went to the next page.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DRAFT EXERPT
Chair Cassel: Annette, you want to make a comment?
MOTION
Commissioner Bialson: I was going to propose that we move Staff’s recommendation. The
reason being that I think some parody between the R-1 treatment and R-2 is appropriate. I do
think that this would be in conformance with the general thrust of the Comprehensive Plan and
the attempt by the state to encourage these second units. That is the extent of my comments.
Commissioner Griffin: Is there a second?
SECOND
Vice-Chair Packer: I’ll secondl
Chair Cassel: Are those your comments, then? Bonnie, do you have any comments?
Vice-Chair Packer: I don’t have anything to add.
MOTION PASSED (6-1-0-0)
Chair Cassel: does anyone else want to have any discussion? Then I will call a vote. All those
in favor please say aye. (ayes) That passed seven to nothing.
Commissioner Lippert: Nay.
Chair Cassel: Six to one with Commissioner Lippert voting no.
Did you want to make a comment as to why?
Commissioner Lippert: I have made enough.
Chair Cassel: Now we are at second dwelling units, RMD, two dwelling units are permitted in
the RMD District for lots of 5,000 square feet or more, minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet,
units greater than 900 square feet require ARB review. The Staff recommendation is that we
make no changes. Karen, you said you had a question?
Commissioner Holman: Just a clarification. I was trying to find it real quick and couldn’t. I
know in the past there was a property in the RMD District and it had a second unit being
proposed on a property that had an historic building and it went to ARB and skipped HRB. I was
trying to find and I can’t find my dog-eared page where that process is such that that wouldn’t
happen again because it caused quite a confusion.
Mr. Williams: You are saying that it was an historic structure or it didn’t go because the NP
zone I don’t think required HRB review.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
DRAFT EXERPT
Commissioner Holman: I think it was an RMD with an NP overlay. There was one building
already on the property that was an historic house and there was a second unit proposed. I may
be a little bit off on this it has been a couple of years so Staff feel free to interject here. I believe
what happened if memory serves was that because a new building was being proposed in the
RMD that it just went to the ARB and skipped the HRB. When actually the NP overlay would
have required it to go to HRB as well as ARB because of the historic house on the site. So I just
want to make sure that that was covered and I couldn"t quickly find my dog-eared page to see
that that would be the process.
Mr. Williams: Well, what I am having difficulty understanding from that is that the provisions
of the NP combining district require the Architectural Review Board, ARB, to look at any new
development or modification to any structure on the property and site amenities for that second
unit on an RMD (NP) lot. There is nothing here that requires HRB to review unless I assume it
is an historic Category 1 or Category 2 structure, which would be a separate permit. It is not
related to the NP issue as much as the fact that it is designated that way.
Commissioner Holman: So is what you are saying is that unless the work was being done on the
historic building.
Mr. Williams: Right. Alterations of an historic structure, historic being Category 1 and
Category 2.
Commissioner Holman: Okay. I will pass on it but maybe somebody could double check with
Advance Planning.
Mr. John Lusardi, Planning Manager, Special Projects: Just to add to that and the situation you
are talking about the structure was not a Category 1 or 2 but the second structure was a .
compatibility issue and that was referred to the Preservation Planner. The Preservation Planner
was involved in that at the time of that review process and commented on that for the ARB. As
Curtis said, now if it were Category 1 or 2 it would have to get both an ARB and an HRB
review. It is also the discretion of the Director to refer a project to the HRB and we will
certainly take that into account in the future.
Commissioner H01man: Thank you.
Chair Cassel: My understanding is that the ARB only reviews it when there are two or more
structures on it not if it is a single structure.
Mr. Lusardi: They would review it if the second structure were larger than 900 square feet.
Chair Cassel: Are there any other questions or any other issues on this RMD? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: It may not be a point that has application here but Bonnie earlier had raised
the issue of whether the standard maximum dwelling size should apply in this district. My
understanding is that there is a very good chance that there are no lots under which someone
could build out the maximum size but I still think it would be a good practice to include the same
R-1 maximum dwelling size if it is not already stated here.
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 14
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Cassel: Bonnie.
DRAFT EXERPT
1
.2
3 Vice-Chair Packer: I was looking at this chart that was at our desk and I don’t know how many
4 parcels are that large but it looks like in the RMD the range of lot sizes goes up as high as 22,500
5 square feet. Without a maximum size I think we just have to discuss it: If it is a multi family
6 zone then there are no maximum sizes in the multi family districts and that makes sense but if
7 there is a single family home that could be built on a 20,000 square foot lot and there is no
8 maximum house size then we have something that is incompatible with our other zoning codes.
9 So I just thought maybe we want to discuss the parameters of this and perhaps just have it a
maximum size for a building that is only for single-family purposes. I am getting body language
and encouragement to make a motion.
o
Second dwelling unit; (RMD) - Vice-Chair Packer moved to adopt staff
recommendations and to have a maximum house size on the RMD with a second
from Commissioner Burt to be consistent with the R-1 district (7-0).
Second dwelling units (R-E) -
a. On size of second dwelling units - Commissioner Burt moved with a
second from Commissioner Lippert (7-0);
b. On 2-story second dwelling unit, attached or detached - Commissioner
Burt moved with a second from Vice-Chair Packer to allow second
stories only when its in attached only to a two story unit regardless to the
lot size and not allowed to do it to a detached garage (7-0).
c. Commissioner Holman moved with a second from Commissioner
Lippert to return the second dwelling issue in the RE district back to
Commissioners for further review and recommendation (5-2-0-0,
Commissioners Burt and Packer voted no).
Commissioner Bialson move with a second from Vice-Chair Packer to forward to Council (7-0).
The following were notes taken by staff to summarize Commission discussion due to audio
failure:
3. Second dwelling units (R-E) -
Commissioner Holman: Why proposing larger units & second stories in RE?
Curtis Williams: State law encourages 2nd dwelling unit requirements to relate to the
zone/property and RE zones are typically larger lot sizes (requirement of 1 acre to have 2nd unit).
A 1-acre RE site also has greater setback requirements, so think it is appropriate to allow a
somewhat larger unit. Drawbacks to 1200 s.f. unit is that it’s likely another bedroom (3 versus 2)
& it is a change from existing.
Commissioner Burt: In RE zOne, why did staff not consider making more similar to R-1 by
allowinga smaller unit on smaller than 1-acre site. Also have concerns regarding the 1200 s.f.
¯ 2na unit ± think more like a home than 2nd unit.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
.15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DRAFT EXERPT
Curtis Williams: Did not consider allowing smaller unit on smaller size lots. Commission may
wish to do so.
Vice-Chair Packer: Also have concerns regarding 1200 s.f. unit- not sure same characteristics
as a smaller 2nd dwelling unit.
Commissioner Bialson: So 900 sf is typically 2 BR? And 1200 sf would be 3 BR?
Curtis Williams: Yes, 900 sfwould likely be up to 2 BR and 1200 sfup to 3 BR.
Commissioner Lippert: Wish there was opportunity for more research giving new direction of
allowing smaller units on smaller lots, such as how many lots is that exactly. Why not allow all
RE lots to have greater size of 2nd unit - maybe not the 1200 sf one.
Commissioner Holman: Also feel 1200 sf is too large and not characteristic of a 2nd unit- starts
to become 2nd home. Not sure appropriate in these zones.
Commissioner Butt: RE zone is definitely transition between R-I and OS, so should probably
have two tiers of allowed 2na units similar to R- 1, a small unit on certain lot size & up to 900 sf
on rest.
Commissioner Burt: Motion that in RE, lots greater than 7500 sfbe allowed to have 2nd unit 450
sf (or less) and lots 1 acre or more be allowed to have 2nd unit 900 sf (or less)
Not sure who seconded- multiple 2nds
Chair Cassel: Motion passes 7-0
Staff: What about second story in RE?
Commissioner Holman: Can staff clarify that 2"~ stories still have to meet other requirements
such as daylight plane, setbacks, etc.?
Curtis Williams: Yes, must ’comply with development standards such as setbacks and daylight
plane requirements.
Commissioner Lippert: City does not have slope-density calculation to further limit floor area,
correct?
Lisa Grote: Correct.
Vice-Chair Packer: Would support second stories in RE. If allow in R-l, why not in RE?
Especially since they can construct 2-story home anyway on those lots.
Chair Cassel: Regarding slope concerns for 2 stories - in some cases because of slope a 2-story
home may fit better with the surroundings.
CiO~ ofPalo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
DRAFT EXERPT
Commissioner Lippert: Or in sloped area may be more visible giving appearance of 3-story
structure.
Commissioner Bialson: Motion to allow 2nd stories in RE on lots 1 acre or more. (Motion
withdrawn after below discussion and substitute motion)
Curtis Williams: Commission should clarify whether that’s both attached and detached, or just
attached. And the prior motion might affect decision underway, since now allowing small 2na
units on smaller lots.
Commissioner Burt: Don’t think should allow a 2 story 2nd unit if existing home is a one st6ry.
Might be okay if existing home is 2 stories to allow an attached unit, but not sure about detached
unit.
Commissioner Burt: Substitute Motion to allow attached 2nd unit with existing 2,story home, but
not detached 2-story second unit (so no units over garages either).
Commissioner Holman: Question - so what about 2nd story addition with 2nd unit included?
Commissioner Burt: Not sure that would be appropriate. R-1 zone has other review processes
that RE does not. Although maybe Commission should consider whether RE should have
similar review process. Wondering if there are o~her things in RE zone that should be addressed
since it is a transition between R-1 and OS?
Commissioner Lippert: Like the idea of addressing compatibility in RE zone. It is a complex
area transitioning between R-1 and OS. As far as basements and hillside construction, other
jurisdiCtions do use slope density ratios to further limit floor area and would like to consider that
for Pal0 Alto. Hillside construction is quite different.
Commissioner Griffin: Seem to recall something that is set differently With slopes and grade, can
staff respond? And how does it affect floor area?
Ms. Grote: Grade for the purposes of height is determined differently with greater slope. If the
first floor is more than 3’ above grade (whether hillside or not) then the basement floor area
counts.
Vice-Chair Packer: Should we look at RE district again when we look at OS district?
Commissioner Holman: 2nd Substitute Motion to recommend that the 2nd story for 2nd units
come back to Commission after have chance to discuss in Cormnittee.
Commissioner Lippert: Second.
Commissioner Cassel: Motion passes 5-2 with Commissioner Burt and Packer voting no.
Ms. Grote: There are two different things being discussed here, each with there own different
time/staff commitments. Going to subcommittee with 2nd story for 2nd units is a more focused
discussion that the subcommittee could address over next month or two, But a reevaluation of
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
DRAFT EXERPT
the RE zone would require much more staff time, especially since unclear what the focus would
be. The ZOU issues discussion over last couple of years have not indicated specific problems in
RE zone that is why for the most part no changes are being made to this zone. The OS is now
scheduled to go to Commission at the end of October. But if Commission requires other items to
come back to them such as the RE and R- 1 items, it does delay consideration of other matters
just due to staff time. This has happened with Parking.
Commissioner Burt: Would like discussion on whether Commission wants to further discuss RE.
Don’t know what problems would be in RE, but could anticipate that because transition zone to
OS maybe some changes need to occur. What does rest of the Commission think?
Chair Cassel: Remember discussions held with the Comprehensive Plan review and adoption, as
well as the issues that framed the ZOU scope and do not recall any issues in RE. So, should we
really go out of our way to try to "fix" something that’s not "broke". Especially since Council is
wanting ZOU to proceed through them in the Fall of this year.
Commissioner Griffin: Do have 2na unit change in RE, and by expanding the allowance of 2nd
units there may be some further issues or concerns that arise.
Commissioner Burt: Can we refer the question of further analysis of RE to the Subcommittee for
recommendations?
Ms. Grote: Yes, you can do that. No motion is needed.
Chair Cassel: Do Commissioners have further issues, or can we have a motion regarding the
Chapter?
Commissioner Bialson: Motion to refer LDR Chapter to Council.
Vice-Chair Packer: Second.
Chair Cassel: Motion passes seven to zero.
Commissioner Holman: Would just like to state for the record that although forwarding Chapter
to Council she has voted against some specific recommendations.
Ms. Grote: Record of votes on issues, since so many different elements will be provided to
Council.
Chair Cassel: With that we will come to the second item under new business. Would staff
please present this item to the Commission?
NEW BUSINESS:
Public Hearings.
m 195 Pa~e Mill Road and 2825~ 2865~ 2873~ 2891~ and 2901 Park Boulevard [03-PC-
01~ 04-CPA-01~ 03-EIA-18]*: Request by Court House Plaza Company for review of an
application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use,
City of Palo Alto Page 18
ATTACHMENT E