HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-13 City Council (8)City of PM0 Ailto
Manager’s Repor
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JANUARY 13, 2003 CMR:ll2:03
STATUS REPORT ON ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - URBAN
DESIGN AND FORM CODE
This report provides, the City Council with information regarding the progress of the
Zoning Ordinance Update, particularly relative to the urban design and form code
elements of the Update. The City’s urban design consultants will make a presentation on
their progress at the Council meeting. Comments of the Council will assist in directing
the urban design work effort. A subsequent Council discussion is tentatively scheduled
for January 21st to review the Planning and Transportation Commission’s preliminary
recommendations for modifications to the City’s industrial and manufacturing districts.
BACKGROUND
The Comprehensive Plan (Plan) includes Program #L-51 to "Use illustrations and form
code methods for simplifying the Zoning Ordinance and to promote well-designed
buildings," and Program #G-17 to "Use illustrations and a fotw~ code to simplif), the
Zoning Ordinance, to ~nake it more understandable to readers, and to promote well-
designed neighborhoods." Additionally, the Plan includes programs (L-10, L-13, and L-
14) to create and apply zoning standards for Mixed Use, Village Residential, and Transit-
Oriented Residential prototypes, with an emphasis on assuring compatibility with
neighboring residential areas. Other Plan policies and programs speak to enhancing the
City’s design criteria and guidelines for development. During the Issues Identification
phase of the Zoning Ordinance Update, members of the public, boards and commissions,
and the City Council emphasized the need to better visualize the City’s standards and
expectations with graphics and a form-based approach to the Code.
On February 6, 2002, the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) reviewed a
discussion paper and heard a presentation by consultant Joel Russell regarding New
Urbanism and how the concepts of that planning approach might be applicable to Palo
Alto. In particular, the new land use types appeared to offer an ideal opportunity for
developing a form-based approach, as did future coordinated area plans. A number of
CMR:I I.:0~Page 1 of 4
opportunities were also identified to intervene in the current Zoning Code to provide for
enhanced design and to better accommodate mixed uses, a fundamental element of New
Urbanism.
In May 2002, the City contracted with the team of Urbsworks, Inc. (Portland, Oregon)
and Van Meter Williams Pollack (VMWP) to provide urban design services in support of
the Zoning Ordinance Update. The team’s primary function is to develop a form code
approach to the Ordinance. It will develop this approach by providing a visual/gaphic
understanding of the current code constraints, identifying desirable building forms for
certain types of development (including multi-family, village residential, mixed use, and
transit-oriented development), and then translating those desirable forms into a code
format. Another key work item for the consultants will be to test various prototypes of
development to determine their viability and desirability before adopting code changes.
Parking and economic consultants have also been retained to assist in assuring that the
updated standards are realistic.
The team presented an initial overview of its work scope to the P&TC on July 24, 2002
and to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Historic Resources Board (HRB) on
August 15, 2002. A visual representation of current constraints to multi-family and
mixed use development, especially on small lots, was provided for the P&TC on August
28~ 2002. On September 4, 2002, the architects provided background on form codes, and
outlined an example of their approach to 1) identify constraints caused by the current
zoning, 2) develop prototypes based on Comprehensive Plan policies, and 3) translate the
prototypes into a graphic code format. This information was also provided to the ARB
on November 21, 2002.
DISCUSSION
The initial phase of the consultants’ work is intended to demonstrate how a form-based
approach might be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance Update. Attached is a
summary analysis presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission on
December 18, 2002. The presentation summarizes much of the work to date and
provides:
o
o
A constraints analysis, including graphic representations of buildings and site
layouts resulting from current regulations for multi-family, village residential
and a variety of mixed use site scenarios (downtown, neighborhood
commercial, and neighborhood center);
Graphic representations of prototypes that could result from implementation of
Comprehensive Plan policies; and
A discussion of what development standards might need to be addressed to
achieve the design envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan.
While the analysis and prototypes are not intended at this time to be specific
modifications to the Zoning Ordinance, it is important for the Council to provide
CMR: 112:03 Page 2 of 4
direction to the consultants as they move into Phase 2 of their work, i.e., formulating
specific prototypes and revised zoning standards for these development types.
Upcoming Work Efforts
In February, the consultant team will present the P&TC with its outline for how to update
the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate design-related provisions. This will form the basis
and scope for the second phase of design work, which is likely to include modifications
to code text, suggestions for a number of prototypes to prepare and test, and/or processes
(such as planned development or coordinated area plans) that could include design-
oriented components.
An update is scheduled for the ARB retreat for January 30, 2003. The P&TC and ARB
have also designated members to serve on a committee to work with the consultants,
minimizing the number of study sessions required by the ful! Commission and Board.
In addition to moving forward with the urban design component of the Update, the work
pro~am calls for ongoing efforts in several key areas in the coming months, including:
Council review of and direction regarding the Commission’s preliminary ordinance
recommendations for the industrial and manufacturing districts. This review is
tentatively scheduled for January 21, 2003.
Review of the Low Density Residential (R-E, R-l, R-2 and RMD) zoning districts,
and related combining districts will begin in February or March 2003. This review
will include second units, modifications required to implement adopted Housing
Element policies and progams, new State legislation, a few remaining R-1 issues not
resolved in the Single Family Neighborhoods discussions in 2001, and minor
modifications to the Individual Review process.
Evaluation of possible revisions to the City’s parking criteria, including parking
ratios, shared parking potential, and parking lot design. A transportation and parking
consultant has been retained to update the City’s standards, and has extensive
experience with varied development types as well as neighborhood protection
strategies. Focus goups and an initial study session with the Planning and
Transportation Commission will be scheduled in February or March.
Continued review by the City’s environmenta! consultant of the potential
environmental consequences of proposed revisions, including coordination with the
City’s updated traffic modeling work.
The proposed project is scheduled to result in a draft Zoning Ordinance Update for
distribution in December 2003. Public hearings would then follow and are anticipated to
take another three to six months. Specifics of the suggested timeline for the project are
provided in the attached work program table.
CMR: 112:03 Page 3 of 4
RESOURCE IMPACT
Staffing for the Zoning Ordinance Update is at less than full strength with the transfer of
a Planning Technician to the Development Center, and the diversion of the Senior
Planner and Planner’s time to high priority special projects, such as the Opportunity
Center. While the updated work progam and approach does not anticipate additional
staff, funding will be needed to complete the work of the design consultants. Staff will
bring details of the consultant budget needs to Council when the Phase 2 scope of work is
drafted, likely in March 2003. The overall schedule for the Update will need to be
adjusted as a result of the staffing shortage.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Zoning Ordinance Update is intended to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance
with the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: "Introduction to Urban Design Prototypes," from Van Meter Williams
Pollack and Urbsworks, Inc., dated December 18, 2002
Attachment 13: Zoning Ordinance Update Work Program
PREPARED BY:
J~o’tiJnLusardi, Plannin~-~ Manage
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: \
;LIE
*Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY~-~RRI~--~ ~ -
Assistant City Manager
CMR: 112:03 Page 4 of 4
Attachment A
Van Meter Williams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
December 18, 2002
iNTRODUCTiON TO URBAN DESIGN PROTOTYPES
City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance Update
This report contains a series of urban design prototypes showing a range of sites and building types that
may be evaluated in the update of the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance.
There are a total of seven prototypes in this report:
o Proto .type 1 - CN commercial/residential mixed use
o Proto .types 2 and 3 - Village Residential
o Proto.type 4 - RM-30 multifamily
o Prototype 5 - Downtown commercial/residential mixed use
o Proto .types 6 and 7 - Neighborhood center commercial/residential mixed use
Each prototype includes two scenarios. The first aims to conform to Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies while strictly following existing zoning regulations. These scenarios are labeled with an "A"
(1A, 2A, 3A, etc.). The second scenario makes
changes to the existing regulations to better
achieve the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. These scenarios are labeled
with a "B" (1B, 2B, 3B, etc.). Each prototype is
illustrated with a site plan and an axonometric
drawing, together with ext descriptions that
discuss how the zoning regularions impact the
designs.
The relevant data for each prototype is
summarized in a table. In the middle of each
table is a summary of existing zoning regulations
for reference. This side-by-side comparison
allows one to see how making changes to some of
the regulations can impact building programs,
and gives guidance to which standards might be
considered for revision and which should remain
unchanged.
The seven prototypes in this report are meant to
show the range of site and building types that
may be evaluated in the future, and are not
intended to reflect all possibilities. For each
prototype, a number of variations would be
possible based on variations in construction type,
parking arrangement, and program and design
objectives. These variations should be identified
and prioritized in the next phase of this study.
Each prototype includes two scenarios: the first (the "A
scenario) follows existing zoning regulations. The
second (the "B" scenario") makes changes to zoning
regulations to better reflect Comprehensive Plan goals.
The description sheets for each prototype pair are
accompanied by a data sheet that summarizes the key
data, with the existing regulations shown in the middle
of the sheet for reference.
Van Meter Williams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
COHPREHENSIVE PLAN: NEW LAND USES
Comprehensive Plan Policy L-13 calls for an evaluation of"alternative types of housing that increase density and
provide more diverse housing opportunities. "
Village Residential
o Described as duplexes, townhouses, courtyard housing, second units, and small lot single family homes.
¯ Calls for amending zoning regulations to permit residential lots of less than 6,000 square feet where smaller
lots would be compatible with the neighborhood.
o Calls for evaluating the option of putting multiple small homes on a lot instead of one large home.
Mixed Use
¯ Calls for the creation of four new mixed use zoning types:
-"Live/Work" combination of living area and office, retail, or light industrial in the same space;
-"Retail/Office";
-"Residential/Retail";
-"Residential/Office"
o Calls for evaluation of effectiveness of existing incentives that encourage mixed use and residential
development on commercially zoned land, and determine additional incentives to be provided.
o Encourage the development of housing on parking lots by adopting incentives that will lead to housing
production while maintaining required parking.
Transit-Oriented Residential
° While type of unit or building is not described, calls for consideration of minimum density standards.
o Design guidelines should be developed that ensure that such housing is compatible with the University
Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue centers where it may be permitted.
° Housing Program H-1 calls for increased housing density (20-25 units/acre) immediately surrounding
commercial areas and neighborhood centers served by public transportation.
Multifamily (general, but would apply to any of the above)
¯ Multifamily buildings, entries, and outdoor spaces should be designed so that each unit has a clear relationship
to a public street.
¯Housing Program H-2 calls for consideration of minimum housing densities for multifamily zones.
¯Housing Program H-3 calls for evaluation of zoning incentives such as reduced parking or open space
requirements, density bonuses, or reduced lot coverage standards to encourage the development of diverse
housing types including smaller, more affordable units suitable for families with children.
Neighborhood Commercial
o Zoning requirements revised to better address land use transitions.
° Existing zoning and permit regulations revised as needed to minimize constraints to adaptive reuse,
particularly in retail areas.
o Zoning and other regulations revised as needed to encourage the revitalization of aging retail areas.
o Zoning Ordinance revised to require parking behind buildings rather than in front of them.
Parking
o Housing Program H-6 calls for modifying parking requirements to allow higher densities and reduced housing
costs in areas appropriate for reduced parking requirements.
¯ Parking requirements should be evaluated for specific uses. Design criteria should be developed based on a
standard somewhere between average and peek conditions.
Van MeterWilliams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
|A: Ch~/CS HIXED USE Existing Regulations Prototype
6,500 sf (65’ x 100’) site o CN mixed use residential/commercial o surface parking
Scenario 1.A consists of a mixed-use building with
one or two residential units over a small
commercial space, with surface parking behind.
The main determining factors are the allowable
lot coverage, providing space for the parking and
driveway, and the daylight triangles on the sides.
With the parking using up nearly half of the site,
and the building setback 25 feet for the required
arterial setback, there is little room left for the
commercial space. At just 380 square feet, it is
not viable for most uses.
apartments. Alternatively, they could be
combined to form a single 900 square foot one-
or two-bedroom unit. The size of the units is
limited by the allowable site coverage, reduced
further by the side setbacks and daylight planes.
It does not make much difference whether the site
is adjacent to existing residential: the sideyard
daylight planes would be relatively similar in
either case, and the building is far enough to the
front of the site to not be impacted by the rear
daylight plane.
The residential units are also very small. At 450
square feet each, they could only be studio
Van Meter Williams Pollack
U rbsworks, Inc.
|B: CbI/CS ~i|XED USE Comprehensive Plan Prototype
6,500 sf (65’ x 100’) site ° CN mixed use residential/commercial ° surface and tuck-under parking
Scenario 1B maintains the same building program
as Scenario 1A: two residential units above ground
floor commercial space. FAR, lot coverage,
parking ratios, and residential density are all
consistent with existing CN and RM- 15
standards.
To bring the prototype closer to Comprehensive
Plan objectives, Scenario 1.B makes the following
changes to the CN/RM-15 standards:
1.Reduce the front setback/bring the building up
to the street. This brings the ground floor
commercial space to a better position, up to the
sidewalk, and allows the building to better
relate to the street and contribute to a more
continuous frontage. It also brings the building
further away from uses to the rear, such as
existing residential uses.
2.Eliminate side setbacks and daylight planes.;
retain rear setback and daylight plane. The
elimination of side setbacks and daylight planes
is consistent with the pattern of other buildings
in the neighborhood commercial district. It
allows the building to have better proportions
and more usable commercial and residential
space. Both the commercial and residential
spaces can be larger, making the commercial
space more viable and the residential units more
livable.
5. Reduction in amount of usable open space.
Usable open space for the residential units is
provided through a common roof deck adjacent
to the units and with private balconies for each
unit. This distribution allows the open space to
have better proximity to the residential units,
and to be more in proportion to the number of
residential units on the site.
All other CN and RM-I5 standards remain
unchanged.
Van Meter Williams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
2A: VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL Existing Regulations Prototype
17,000 sf (I 00’ × 170’) site ° Multifarnily Zoning District ° a~cached garage parking
This is the first of two prototypes for a 17,000 sq
ft site with existing residential uses to the side and
rear. Because the are no existing zoning standards
for Village Residential, the RM-15 zoning
standards have been adopted for the program.
Scenario 2A includes five 2-bedroom units, both
detached and attached. Each unit includes a two-
car garage, and there are two guest parking spaces
at the rear of the site. Conceivably this plan
could be divided into lots.
In this scenario, the forms of the buildings are
greatly impacted by the sideyard setbacks and
daylight planes required in the RM-15 zoning for
projects adjacent to existing residential uses.
Second stories are set back 20 feet, creating space
that is only wide enough for two relatively small
bedrooms side by side. The attached two-car
garages allow the second stories to extend over the
garage and be as large as possible, but because the
garage space is counted towards the FAR, the FAR
is maximized with only five units, rather than the
six units that would otherwise be allowed for a site
of this size in an RM-15 district.
Usable open space includes yards to the rear of
each unit, as well as a common green space at the
rear of the site. The need to provide two on-site
guest parking spaces reduces the size of the
common green space somewhat.
Van Meter Williams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
2B: VILLAGE RESiDENTiAL Comprehensive Plan Prototype
17,000 sf (100’ x 170’) site o Multifamily Zoning District o attached garage and surface parking
Scenario 2B maintains a similar program and
building pattern as Scenario 2A, with five
detached units, each with an attached garage.
One of the units includes an attached 400 sq fr
in-law unit over the garage, bringing the number
of units up to six. This is accomplished by
providing all but one unit one-car garages, rather
than two-car, and providing the second spaces in
small surface spaces adjacent to the unit.
To bring the prototype closer to Comprehensive
Plan objectives, Scenario 2.B makes the following
changes to theRM-15 standards:
1. Morph the RM-1 5 setback standards with those
of the RM-1 district. Since village residential is
meant to take on qualities that are compatible
with existing single family neighborhoods.
This allows larger, more usable floorplans,
particularly on the second stories. The setbacks
and daylight planes shown in this scenario are
identical to those of the R-1 regulations.
2.Eliminating the on-site guest parking
requirement. The shared driveway and
clustered development maximizes street frontage
for on-street guest parking. This allows all the
units to have two bedrooms, with two spaces
per unit (one for the accessory unit).
Alternatively, the parking could be reduced to
create a larger common green space.
All other RM-15 standards remain unchanged.
Van MeterWilliarns Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
3A: VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL Existing Regulations Prototype
17,000 sf (100’ x 170’) site ° Multifamily Zoning District ° attached garage and surface parking
Scenario 3A aims to create a cottage cluster
oriented around a central green common. The
most significant difference between this scenario
and Scenario 2A is that much of the parking is
provided in a common surface lot, rather than in
individual attached garages for each unit. This
allows an additional unit to be accommodated on
the site within the allowable FAR, and allows the
common green space to be more sizable and
centrally located.
Three of the units include two (or possibly three)
bedrooms, and three units have one bedroom with
a small loft. Two of the units have attached two-
car garages, and the remaining parking (including
guest parking) is grouped in the common lot.
The one bedroom units each have 1.5 spaces per
unit.
Like Scenario 2A, the forms of the buildings are
greatly impacted by the sideyard setbacks and
daylight planes required in the RM-15 zoning for
projects adjacent to existing residential uses.
Second stories are set back 20 feet, constraining
second story space.
Van MeterWilliams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
3B: VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL Comprehensive Plan Prototype
17,000 sf (100’ x 170’) site o Hultifamily Zoning District o a~r~ched garage and surface parking
Scenario 3B maintains a similar program and site
plan as Scenario 3A, with six detached and
attached units, and a combination of attached
garages and common surface parking.
bedrooms, and some units to possibly have
three bedrooms. The setbacks and daylight
planes shown in this scenario are identical to
those of the R- t regulations.
To bring the prototype closer to Comprehensive
Plan objectives, Scenario 3.B makes the following
changes to theRM-15 standards:
1. Morph the RM-15 setback standards with those
of the RM-1 district. Since village residential is
meant to take on qualities that are compatible
with existing single family neighborhoods.
Like Scenario 3A, this allows larger, more usable
floorplans, particularly on the second stories. In
this case, it allows each unit to have two
Eliminate th~ on-site guest parking
requirement. The shared driveway and
clustered development maximizes street frontage
for on-street guest parking. This allows all the
units to have at least two bedrooms, with two
spaces per unit. Alternatively, the parking could
be reduced to create a larger common green
space.
All other RM-15 standards remain unchanged.
Van Meter Williams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
4A: RH=30 HULTIFAHILY Existing Regulations Prototype
17,000 sf (100’ x 170’) site o RM-30 Zoning District o semi-depressed parking
This prototype uses the same 17,000 sq ft site as
the Village Residential scenarios (Scenarios 2 ~nd
3), except with the RM-30 standards. Nine units
are allowed under RM-30, as opposed to the 6
allowed in the RM-15-based Village Residential
site. This prototype is based on semi-depressed
underground parking, with two levels of
residential units above. Because the podium is
semi-depressed, the garage space is counted
towards the 0.75 FAR that is allowed with semi-
depressed, attached or tuck-under parking. The
result is a small apartment or condominium
building with eight one-bedroom units.
Counting the parking towards the FAR is the
greatest constraint in this scenario. The FAR is
maximized at 0.75, but only a portion of the site
is built upon. This results in a reduction in either
the number or sizes of the units, and creates a
disproportionally large amount of open space.
While ample, well-designed and well-located open
space is necessary and desirable, in this case the
amount is very large compared to the number and
sizes of the residential units.
Van MeterWilliams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
4B: RH-30 HULT|FAHILY Comprehensive Plan Prototype
17,000 sf (100’ x 170’) site o RM-30 Zoning District ° semi-depressed parking
In this scenario, eight townhouses are built over a
semi-depressed parking podium. This is a
building prototype commonly found in other
nearby communities.
To bring the prototype closer to Comprehensive
Plan objectives and allow this building prototype,
Scenario 4.B makes the following changes to the
RM-30 standards:
1. Do nor count the semi-depressed garage area
towards the FAR. A semi-depressed parking
podiums is a practical and less costly alternative
to underground parking, and does not represent
the same overall mass and bulk as a full
building level. When properly detailed with
stoops, stairways, walls, and landscaping, the
exposed portion of the podium can either blend
with the landscape architecture of the site,
and/or form an architectural base for the
building. By not counting the podium towards
FAR, the overall usable living space can be
increased, which allows units with better
proportions and sizes, and a better utilization of
the site.
2.Reduction in front yard setback.. This may be
something that varies based on the project
context: in a more urban setting, such as El
Camino Real, it may make sense to bring the
building up to the sidewalk similar to the
commercial buildings. Although the arterial
setback was originally conceived to create a
buffer for residential uses along an arterial, there
are now many good area examples of residential
buildings built closer to busy streets (such as 10
feet), so the 25-foot setback may be a bit
excessive. In a residential context, matching or
approximating the residential setback might be
desirable. In this example, the front yard
setback is reduced to 15 feet to allow the
building to better relate to the street/
All other RM-30 standards remain unchanged.
Van MeterWitliams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
=~A: DOWNTOWN HIXED USE Existing Regulations Prototype
12,000 sf (100’ x 12.0’) site o CD-C mixed use residential/commercial °° underground parking
This prototype places mixed use building with
residential over commercial on a 12,000 sq ft
corner site in the downtown CD-C district, with
two levels of underground parking. For purposes
of developing the prototype, the site is assumed to
have a commercial building on one side and an
RM-30-based residential or PC project to the rear
(sidestreet) side.
Unlike the CN and CS districts, in which a
residential mixed use building takes on all of the
development standards of the respective RM
districts, in the downtown CD districts only the
residential portion of the building takes on the
RM standards (in this case, RM-40). The
commercial portion of the building many retain
the CD standards. Hence, in this example the
ground floor has the coverage allowed by the CD-
C standards (including a 10-foot setback adjacent
to the residential neighbor), and the upper
residential floors adopt the RM-40 standards.
20 feet on the side street to match the setback of
the adjacent RM-30 project because the entire
frontage is within 150 feet. 45 degree daylight
planes are to the side and rear. Because the entire
site is within 150 feet of the RM-30 property, the
entire project takes the 35 foot height limit
imposed by the RM-30 standards.
The residential portion of the building has the
45% site coverage maximum of the RM-40
regulations, and the full 1.0 residential FAR
allowed under the CD-C mixed use provisions.
This creates twelve one- and two-bedroom flats.
There is 7,885 square feet of commercial space,
which utilizes al! of the available ground floor
space except for space required for the ramp down
to the underground parking, the residential lobby,
and the setback adjacent to the RM-30 site. This
means that the full commercial FAR is not fully
utilized, so the building does not utilize the full
FAR that would otherwise be allowed.
Because the project shares a street frontage with
the adjacent RM-30 site, the building is set back
Van MeterWilliarns Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
5B: DOWNTOWN WilXED USE Comprehensive Plan Prototype
12,000 sf (100’ x 120’) site ¯CD-C mixed use residential/commercial ° underground parking
Scenario 5B maintains a similar program as
Scenario 5A, except with additional residential
space.
To bring the prototype closer to Comprehensive
Plan objectives, Scenario 5.B makes the following
changes to the CD-C/RM-40 standards:
1. Modi .fy the side daylight planes to correspond
to the adjacent use. This scenario eliminates
the daylight plane adjacent to the commercial
building, but maintains the daylight plane
adjacent to the residential building
2. Modify the requirement to match the frontage
setback with the adjacent residential use.
Rather than changing the first 150 feet of side
street frontage (in this case, the entire frontage)
to match the adjacent RM-30 site, this scenario
takes an average of the two adjacent setbacks for
the frontage within 50 feet of the RM-15 site.
In this case, the building is set back 10 feet,
(which represents the average of zero on one
side and the 20-foot RM-30 setback on the
other side), which creates a transition between
the residential RM-30 site and the commercial
street-oriented character of the CD-C district.
3.Modifv the requirement to reduce height within
150 feet of residential. In this case, the 150
foot distance is reduced to 50 feet, which seems
reasonable considering the context. This could
be a contingent upon design review to ensure
compatibility between the specific buildings.
4.Mlow more flexibili .ry between maximum
commercial and residential FAR’s. In this case,
there is still a substantial amount of commercial
floor area, but the residential FAR is allowed to
exceed 1.0 as long as the overall building does
not exceed the 2.0 maximum. This allows a
greater number of units and a better mix of unit
sizes.
All other CD-C/RM-40 standards remain
unchanged.
Van MeterWilliarns Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
6A: NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
MIXED USE, RESIDENTIAL EHPHASlS
Existing Regulations Prototype
178.750 sf (4.1 acre) site ¯CN mixed use residential/commercial o surface, tuck-under and
underground parking
This prototype together with Scenario 7 considers
the re-use of an approximately 4 acre
neighborhood commercial site. This scenario
provides the greatest amount of residential
development allowed by the .50 FAR, with a
mixed use commercial/residential building at the
front of the site. Although some of the site is
vertical mixed use, overall the site is
predominantly horizontal mixed use. This
prototype has been modeled on similar projects in
the area, and is meant to reflect what might be
expected in the existing development climate.
The most significant constraint on this prototype
is the RM-15 two-story height limit. It would be
unusual, if not unheard of, to find a larger-scale
mixed use project such as this with only two
stories. Even the tuck-under rowhouses that
comprise much of this scenario would more likely
have two and a half or three stories. Most
significantly, the two-story height limit creates a
constraint that makes it impossible to reach the
maximum allowed FAR. Because the maximum
site coverage is 35%, but only two stories are
allowed, the maximum FAR that could actually be
realized is 0.70, rather than the 0.90 that the
regulations specify.
In this scenario, the maximum residential FAR of
0.5 together with the site coverage limit creates a
ceiling with part of the development program. It
may be desirable to add even more residential
development to this prototype, but more would
not be allowed under existing regulations.
Additional commercial development would be
allowed, however, but it is uncertain whether
there would be demand for additional commercial
space, considering the relatively large amount of
underutilized retail space that already exists in
many parts of the city.
Significant for larger sites, this scenario also
creates blocks of development that are intended to
reinforce the existing block pattern and scale of
the surrounding neighborhood. Connections to
existing streets are made where possible.
Van MeterWilliams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
6B: NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER Comprehensive Plan Prototype
HIXED USE, RESIDENTIAL EHPHASIS
178.750 sf (4.1 acre) site ° CN mixed use residential/commercial ° surface, tuck-under and
underground parking
Scenario 6B maintains a similar site plan
organization as 6A, but with a greater number and
variety of residential units. The scenario makes
the following changes to the CN/RM-15
standards:
1.Allow three stories on buildings that include
residenti~ uses. Permitting three stories will
allow more viable mixed use buildings and
greater flexibility in design of medium-density
residential units such as townhouses. It would
also allow the FAR to increase closer to the
allowed 0.90 while maintaining a 35% lot
coverage. In some areas (particularly mixed use
buildings with ground floor commercial space),
it might also be desirable to raise the height
limit to 35 feet, to allow a 15 foot height for
the commercial space and have two levels of
residential use above. In any place where height
might be raised, proximity to existing residential
uses needs to be carefully considered.
2.Allow flexibility, between the amount of
commercial vs. residential FAR.. In instances
where there is greater demand and desire for
residential space than commercial space, it may
make sense to allow the residential portion of
the project to exceed 0.50 as long as a
minimum amount of commercial space (to be
determined) were provided.
3.Create b!ock size and connectivity standards..
While not addressed directly in the existing
zoning, prototypes for large sites such as this
should include standards that define maximum
block size, so that large infill developments
reinforce the existing block pattern that is
prevails through most of the city. Connections
to existing streets should be required wherever
possible.
Van MeterWilliams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
7A: NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
MIXED USE, COMMERCIAL EMPHASIS
Existing Regulations Prototype
178.750 sf (4.1 acre) site o CN mixed use residential/commercial o surface, tuck-under and
underground parking
This prototype maximizes the allowed commercial
FAR, both through ground floor retail commercial
and second-floor office in the front buildings.
Buildings at the middle of the site have one level
of residential over ground floor retail. The plan is
mostly vertical mixed use, with the exception of a
row of townhouses which are meant to relate to
existing residential uses that may be adjacent.
Nearly all of the parking is assumed to be
underground, and 35% of the site is devoted to
usable open space.
Significant constraints are the two-story limit
imposed by the CN/RM-15 requirements, and
the amount of usable open space required. The
prototype has a proportionally low percentage of
the development program devoted to residential
use, yet still maintains the 35% usable open space
across the site. This causes nearly all parking to
need to be placed underground, which may not
be viable considering that the buildings are just
two stories, and provides more open space than
what would really make sense given the number
of residential units. The large amount of
commercial space may also not be viable, but this
example shows how much the site could
theoretically have, and the implications of having
vertical mixed use across most of a large site.
Like Scenario 6A, the two-story height limit
creates a constraint that makes it impossible to
reach the maximum allowed FAR. Because the
maximum site coverage is 35%, but only two
stories are allowed, the maximum FAR that could
actually be realized is 0.70, rather than the 0.90
that the regulations specify.
Van Meter Williams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
7B: NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER Comprehensive Plan Prototype
HIXED USE, COMHERCIAL EHPHASiS
178.750 sf (4.1 acre) site ¯CN mixed use residential/commercial o surface, tuck-under and
underground parking
Scenario 7B maintains a similar site plan
organization as 7A, but with a greater number and
variety of residential units. The scenario makes
the following changes to the CN/RM-15
standards:
1.Allow three stories on buildings that include
residential uses. Permitting three stories will
allow more viable mixed use buildings and
greater flexibility in design of medium-density
residential units such as townhouses. It would
also allow the FAR to increase closer to the
allowed 0.90 while maintaining a 35% lot
coverage. In some areas (particularly mixed use
buildings with ground floor commercial space),
it might also be desirable to raise the height
limit to 35 feet, to allow a 15 foot height for
the commercial space and have two levels of
residential use above. In any place where height
might be raised, proximity to existing residential
ii
uses needs to be carefully considered.
2.Allow flexibility between the amount of
commercial vs. residential FAR. In instances
where there is greater demand and desire for
residential space than commercial space, it may
make sense to allow the residential portion of
the project to exceed 0.50 as long as a
minimum amount of commercial space were
provided.
3.Reducing required usable open space to the
proportion of the development devoted to
residential use. For example, as project where
half of the development was residential space
could have a usable open space requirement of
35% / 2 = !7.5%.
3.Create block size and connectivity standards.
While not addressed directly in the existing
zoning, prototypes for large sites such as this
should include standards that define maximum
block size, so that large infill developments
reinforce the existing block pattern that is
prevails through most of the city. Connections
to existing streets should be required wherever
possible.
Van MeterWilliams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
STREET SECTIONS
Building types described by the Comprehensive
Plan fit within the context of Palo Alto’s existing
streets and neighborhoods. While each prototype
is developed to address particular land use,
zoning, and urban design objectives for individual
sites, consideration is also given to how building
forms relate to existing development to each side
of a site. This includes the street, which itself
represents public space. How the buildings and
front setbacks are situated ultimately effects the
form of the street space.
ARTERIAL
SETBACK 125’ R.O.W.
5I
ARTERIAL
SETBACK
CN Mixed Use buildings with 2S-foot arterial setback required by current zoning standards
125’ R.O.W.
Mixed Use buildings with buildings brought up to the sidewalk, with a reduced front setback (as described in the
CN Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan prototype). With the buildings brought up to the sidewalk, the buildings
have a better relationship to the street space of the street (especially important for mixed use buildings with
ground floor retail space), and the space of the street is better defined
Van MeterWilliams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
Different building forms may be appropriate for
different streets, based on variables such as street
width, landscaping, and existing buildings. For
example, t~vo story buildings might nicely frame a
street with a 65-foot right-of-way, but the same
buildings might look too small along a street with
a 125-foot right-of-way. One possibility is
developing prototypes that relate to different street
qualities, so that new buildings have massing and
scale appropriate to the street space.
5’ SETBACK
( 12’ SIDEWALK
MIN.) -~.~
!
65’ R.O.W.
5’ SETBACK
(12’ SIDEWALK
~.~- MIN.)
!
125’ R.O.W.
Different building forms may be appropriate for different streets. Two story buildings may be appropriate for
defining the space of a street with a 65-foot right-of-way, while three-st0ry buildings may be appropriate for
defining the space of a wider 125-foot street.
Van MeterWilliams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
0<
0
Attachment B
0 0
0 o 0 0
0 obq~D
0 ob.l r..p
0 0 0 o
0 0 Oo Oo
0 o
0
O0 0 0 0 0 000 000
000 ~C~Cl