Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-17 City Council (7)City of Palo Alto C ty a ager’s-Report TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COM2VIUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: MARCH 17, 2003 CMR:196:03 1849 WEBSTER STREET [02-IR-55]: APPEAL BY LAWRENCE AND JEANNE AUFMUTH, 627 SEALE AVENUE, DON AND CAROL ~t~LLEN, 618 TENNYSON AVENUE, WALTER AND AMANDA MOK, 639 SEALE AVENUE, PETER DANNER, 604 TEN~qYSON AVENUE, AND MICHAEL BRAUN, 1828 WEBSTER STREET, OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL OF AN EXISTING ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, OWNED BY ELIZABETH AND JAIME WONG, 1849 WEBSTER STREET, UNDER THE SINGLE FAMILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW PROGRAM. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council: 1. Review the record of the Director’s Hearing (Attachment D) on the application for a second story addition and a substantial remodel that will remove more than 50% of an existing one story single family residence, owned by Elizabeth and Jaime Wong, 1849 Webster Street; 2. Uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval and add conditions to require that a boundary survey be performed and an existing hedge be maintained; and 3.Direct staff to return with formal written findings for Council adoption at a future meeting. BACKGROUND At the February 18, 2003 City Council meeting, four Council members requested to review the project at 1849 Webster as approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The matter before the Council is whether the project meets the CMR:!96:03 Page 1 of 12 Single Fan~ly Residential Guidelines for Individual Review. The appellants contend the new residence fails to meet Single Family Individual Review Guidelines numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 because of its mass, height, and location. Basic Zoning Standards in the R-1 District The minimum legal lot size in this district is 6,000 square feet; the minimum dimensions are 60 feet of width and 100 feet of depth. 1849 Webster is a rectangular 20,000-square- foot lot with 100 feet of street frontage and a 200-foot depth. The lot is not only much larger than required, it is much larger than other lots in the vicinity. Gross floor area on the site is regulated both by a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and a cap on maximum house size. The permitted FAR for a site of this size is 6,750 square feet; the house itself may not exceed 6,000 square feet. Accessory buildings, such as a garage, that exceed 120 square feet in area, are included in maximum FAR but are not subject to the 6,000 square foot house size limit. Maximum building site coverage is 35% of the site (7,000 square feet) including small accessory buildings but excluding certain covered patios and overhangs. Development is limited to a maximum of two stories (above ground) and 35 feet; lower height limits apply on the perimeter of the property (daylight plane). The City requires a 20-foot front yard, a 20-foot rear yard, and six-foot side yards. Certain structures may encroach into these yards, including garages in rear yards. The City also requires the preservation of certain "heritage trees." On this property, they include a large oak in the front yard and redwood trees on or near the property line. The proposed house would have a gross floor area of close to 6,000 square feet, with approximately 2,500 square feet on the second floor, including covered second story balconies. The existing detached garage would be demolished and replaced with a detached 417 square-foot two-car garage. The residence would be slightly over 25 feet tall. Individual Review In addition to meeting the quantitative standards of the zone, second story additions and new two story buildings are reviewed under the City’s Single Family Individual Review (IR) Guidelines for compatibility with existing development, with a focus on privacy, scale, massing, and streetscape. These Guidelines were adopted in November 2001 to implement Chapter 18.14 of the Municipal Code. (See Attachments A and B.) The review process begins with early notice of the application to neighbors and an opportunity for public comment before any staff recommendation is made. At this first stage, adjacent neighbors submitted letters raising concerns about massing, privacy of second story windows and balconies, and solar shading. During the initial project review, staff required the rear balcony to be modified with the inclusion of a half wall to increase the privacy for the neighbor at 639 Seale Avenue. Based on detailed plan review, evaluation of an aerial photograph, and site visits, it was staff’s conclusion that the applicant had appropriately addressed concerns raised by the neighbors and that the CMR: 196:03 Page 2 of 12 project met the Individual Review Guidelines. On July 29, 2002, the Chief Planning Official (as designated by the Director of Planning and Community Environment) tentatively approved the IR application. The adjacent neighbors, still concerned about privacy, massing, and solar shading, submitted letters on August 2, 2002 requesting a Director’s Hearing in accordance with IR procedures. The Individual Review process permits, but does not require, mediation. Mediation sessions between the neighbors and the applicant, were held on August 29, 2002 and September 19, 2002. The mediation sessions did not result in agreement. A Director’s Hearing was therefore scheduled for November 7, 2002. The Hearing Officer began the hearing on that date but continued the item to the meeting of December 5, 2002 to consider written material submitted by the adjacent neighbors at the hearing and to accommodate neighbors’ schedules. After reviewing the application and the additional materials, the Hearing Officer closed the hearing. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the application on December 26, 2002. On January, 9, 2003, five of the seven adjacent neighbors submitted an appeal to the Director’s decision. The documents submitted in the proceeding are contained in the administrative record submitted to the Council with this report, including two sets of plans and transcripts of the Director’s hearing sessions that are separately bound. DISCUSSION In preparing this project for the Council’s review, staff has concluded that additional protection for hedges and trees near the boundary of the subject property is desirable; these landscape elements provide screening that lessens the impact of the project on the adjacent properties. Staff therefore recommends that the Council add the following conditions to the approval: 1. An existing hedge, a Syzygium (otherwise known as Australian Brush Cherry) on the North (left side) property line fence between the subject property and 604 Tennyson Avenue (Danner), 618 Tennyson Avenue (Mullen), and 626 Tennyson Avenue (Tom) must be maintained at a minimum height of 12 feet, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. o A boundary, survey shall be required. The design or location of the detached garage shall be modified to conform to an?, changes in the location of the daylight plane as a result of the boundary, survey. The garage may not be moved closer to the trees and improvements at 639 Seale Avenue (Mok home) than indicated on the plans received November 6, 2002. Two sets of plans are included in the administrative record: the initial project plans (received July 16, 2002) and approved project plans (received November 6, 2002). The approved plans include revisions requested by, staff and those made by, the applicant’s CMR:196:03 Page 3 of 12 architect in an attempt to address the neighbor’s comments regarding massing, privacy, and potential tree impacts. The appellants’ concerns are specifically related to Guideline #1 (second-story window placement), Guideline #2 (second-story balconies and decks), Guidelines #’s 3 and 4 (scale and height of second story additions), and Guideline #6 (sunlight orientation of new homes and additions). (The complete Guidelines are included in this report as Attachment A.) They have also asserted that the floor area ratio was calculated inconectly, a matter which is not before the Council but is discussed for information purposes later in this report. Individual Review Guideline #1 Individual Review Guideline #1 states, "place second-story windows to respect privacy between properties." This guideline was not intended to eliminate second floor windows, but rather to miniiNze privacy loss on adjacent sites. The original project plans had two second-story bedroom windows and one bathroom window on the right elevation adjacent to 627 Seale Avenue, the Aufmuth residence. To address the appellants’ concerns, the applicants revised their plans by eliminating two of the windows and replacing these with one clerestory window with a sill height of six feet above finished floor. The third window, located in the master bath, remained in place and was changed to a window with translucent glass. With these changes, a direct line of sight into the adjacent neighbor’s yard is essentially eliminated. In addition, this side of the building is approximately 14 feet from the Aufmuth property, where the legal minimum setback is six feet. The additional distance is a further contributor to privacy. The second story windows facing the left side yard are 55 feet away, from the property line and 125 feet away from the neighboring residence, greatly limiting any direct lines of sight into this yard. These setback distances are sufficient to provide privacy for neighboring houses. The setback of 1849 Webster on its own lot is almost equal to a standard lot width; the actual distance between the two structures is the equivalent of two standard lot widths. Individual Review Guideline #2 Individual Review Guideline #2 states, "locate second story balconies or decks to minimize the loss of privacy for neighboring properties." The guideline was not intended to eliminate these architectural features altogether but rather to be a guide for the homeowner or architect to minimize their impacts and a standard for the City in reviewing projects. The original project plans included two balconies: a small balcony at the front left elevation accessed from the master bath, and a large balcony with a wrought iron railing CMR:196:03 Page 4 of 12 on the rear elevation. The small balcony overlooks the street and is also visible from 604 Tennyson, the Danner property to the left of the project. Because it is 89 feet from the smal! balcony to the residence at 604 Tennyson, staff concluded that the balcony was acceptable as proposed. The rear balcony did require modification because of the proximity of the rear yard at 639 Seale Avenue, the Mok property. The rear balcony is approximately 32 feet from the Mok property. Techniques were discussed at the initial review meeting to reduce the privacy loss caused by the balcony. It was agreed that a stucco planter 36 inches high, similar to a half wall, would replace the proposed iron railing across the length of the balcony. This half wall would reduce the privacy impacts on the rear neighbor to an acceptable level. The planter would also afford the opportunity for the applicant to plant landscaping to further increase privacy. Individual Review Guideline #3 and #4 Individual Review Guideline #3 states, "be sensitive to the predominant neighborhood scale when planning a new two-story house or addition." Individual Review Guideline #4 states, "be sensitive to the existing neighborhood height pattern and particularly the height of adjacent houses when planning a second story addition." The project is set on a 20,000 square-foot lot; the adjacent parcels range from 7,500 to 15,000 square feet. The neighborhood contains a mix of one- and two-story homes. The project’s front setback of approximately 70 feet (where only 20 feet is required) is larger than usual in the area. It reduces the visual mass and scale of the project as viewed from Webster Street. The presence of a large oak tree in the front yard further softens the visual effect. The side and rear setbacks are also greater than the minimum requirements of the R-1 zone district. The minimum side setback is six feet. The proposed second story addition on the right side is stepped back behind the first story. The minimum distance from the side property line to the wall of the first story is 16.5 feet and is 20 feet to the wall of the second story. The minimum left side yard setback for the second story is approximately 14 feet, which is eight feet greater than the minimum. The minimum required rear setback for the second story is 20 feet. The wall of the second story is located approximately 31 feet away from the rear property line. The existing, single story house 23 feet away from the rear property, line; two-thirds of the structure is in the rear half of the lot. Moving the new house forward would move it farther from its rear neighbors, but it was rejected as an alternative because of the physical and visual impact on the large oak tree. Furthermore, given the applicant’s desire for a house of this size, the house could potentially conflict with the Guidelines pertaining to massing if it were moved forward on the site. Moving the house forward would also reduce the park-like setting and open space provided by the existing front landscaping that is a real neighborhood resource. It is also a desire of the applicants to CMR:196:03 Page 5 of 12 retain a portion of the existing first floor fa,cade; this was considered but was not a determinative factor in staff’s analysis. The neighbors’ parcels, with the exception of the two fronting on Webster Street, have rear setbacks adjacent to the subject site. The building separation, given the side and rear yard setbacks proposed for the second floor, would be substantial. The combined setbacks for the subject site and adjacent sites result in a house that does not appear disproportionately large in the neighborhood. The proposed setbacks would be appropriate for the neighborhood and would provide variety in the streetscape. While the new project will transform the appearance of 1849 Webster, which is presently an unusually open and wooded site, it will not be out of keeping with the other homes in the neighborhood. A goal of the IR Guidelines is to avoid excessive visual mass for a new or remodeled residence. The overall massing of new homes and second story additions should be compatible with the adjacent houses and the predominant neighborhood scale. The Guidelines define "massing" as: The sense of bulk, size, and shape of a structure, usually perceived by reference to the surrounding space, nearby structures, and natural features such as trees. As stated earlier, the subject property is 20,000 square feet and is larger than adjacent lots. It contains large trees, as do neighboring properties. In this context, staff has concluded that the applicant was successful in meeting Guideline #3 because the generous yard setbacks and distances between the subject structure and neighboring structures is great enough to make this structure, which is larger than many surrounding ones, in scale. This would not be the case if the lot were narrower or shallower. The Guidelines do not require that the City reduce proposed massing if the building already meets City standards. While the neighbors may desire smaller or less intrusive structures, they cannot be required by the City unless the proposed building violates the Guidelines. Individual Review Guideline #6 Individual Review Guideline #6 states, "respect the solar orientation of the adjacent neighbors’ houses and yards." This guideline was not intended to prevent any shadow from being cast over an adjacent neighbor’s yard; even single story buildings built at permitted setbacks cast shadows on adjacent properties at some times of the year and in some directions. It does require consideration of the effect of new second story construction on neighbors and adjustments for unreasonable expansion of shading. The proposed building does increase the shading of adjacent properties at 618 Tennyson CMR:196:03 Page 6 of 12 Avenue (Mullen), 626 Tennyson Avenue (Tom), 616 Tennyson Avenue (Howard), 639 Seale Avenue (Mok), and 627 Seale Avenue (Aufmuth). The following facts were the basis of the director’s finding that the project is consistent with Guideline #6. The City’s consulting architect, Origins Design Network, completed a solar study for the project, analyzing the shadow impacts on adjacent properties. This study indicates that during the summer months when the sun is at its highest elevation, the building would not cast any shadows on adjoining properties between 9:00 A.M. - 3:00 P.M. After 3:00 P.M. shadows would be cast 14 feet on the rear yard of 627 Seale Avenue. Increased shadow will occur in the winter months of NoYember, December and January from 9:00 A.M - 4:00 P.M on the adjacent site. At this time of year, when the sun is lower in the sky, the adjacent property owners will experience longer shadows in the early morning and again in the late afternoon. The shadow of the proposed addition at this time of year wilt fall on the rear yards of 618 (the Mullen Property) and 626 Tennyson Avenue in the early morning and on the rear yard of 639 Seale Avenue in the late afternoon. The adjacent properties will not experience any solar shading for many months of the year and, when they are shaded, it is only for the early morning and late afternoon. The Mullens at 618 Tennyson Avenue submitted an additional solar study. This study includes the shading impacts between the hours of 5:00 A.M. - 7:00 P.M. during the summer and 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. for the winter. The results of this solar study are similar to the solar study prepared by Origins Design Network. Both studies indicate that the adjacent properties will have minimal solar shading for many months of the year and, when they are shaded, it is only during the early morning and late afternoon. Both studies are included in the record of proceedings. At a proposed height of 25 feet, 2 inches, the building is 4 feet, 10 inches lower than the permitted maximum height. The two-story areas are below the City’s daylight plane in all cases. The applicant has proposed a second story addition with a maximum height of 25 feet, 2 inches to minimize the shadow that would be experienced by the adjacent property owners. The height limitation for this property is 30 feet and the proposed height of the new residence is less then the maximum allowable. The proposed height of the building and generous setbacks will reduce the shadow that would otherwise be cast on the adjacent properties if the residence were built to the parameters allowed by the zoning regulations. CMR: 196:03 Page 7 of 12 The solar study prepared by Origins Design Network depicts the shadows cast by the project on December 22 (winter solstice and the shortest day of the year) and June 21 (summer solstice and the longest day of the year). Using these two days as the basis for a solar study illustrates the point when the shadows cast by the project will be at their longest and at their shortest though out the entire year. On June 21, shadowing from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. will occur predominantly on the project site and will shade the rear yard of 627 Seale Avenue after 3:00 P.M. On December 22 at 9:00 A.M., shadowing will occur to the rear of 618 Tennyson Avenue, will retreat onto the project site and will shade the rear yard of 639 Seale Avenue after 3:00 P.M. Shadows cast by the project on any other day of the year will fall somewhere between these two extremes. While staff believes that the solar studies provided sufficient information to make a decision on this point, as part of the continuing review of the IR process, it will bring the subject of solar studies before the Architectural Review Board for its recommendation. Staff will update the City Council on solar studies during the City Council’s next update of the IR process. Procedural Due Process Issues. The appellants have raised several concerns about the City’s review process, a number of which were discussed in CMR:151:03. The City Attorney has advised the Council previously that the IR process has provided a fair hearing to all parties as required by law. Among the appellants’ objections was the Planning Division’s practice of tailoring its standard submittal to the application and site circumstances to avoid unnecessary expense for the applicant. In this case, for example, the submittal requirement to submit an "outline of all adjacent buildings and structures" was determined unnecessary because of the unusually large distances between the proposed building and neighboring properties. The purpose of the requirement is to enable staff to evaluate any negative impacts on adjacent neighbors. The materials submitted by the applicant show the location of adjacent structures within 30 feet of the property line. As part of the review process, staff reviews aerial photographs and conducts site visits to evaluate a project’s potential impact on adjacent structure(s). Staff used the aerial photograph and the material submitted by the applicant to determine that the distances between the project and adjacent structures were greater than 30 feet and large enough to minimize potential privacy and massing impacts. Another issue of consideration was the adequacy of notice in this case. The IR ordinance requires a notice of the Directors’ Hearing to be posted at the site in the form required by the Director and to remain posted up to and including the hearing date. The original posting indicating that an IR application had been submitted for review is still posted on the site. Staff failed to replace the original notice with an updated notice for the Directors’ Hearing. However, all property owners within 300 feet of the project, including the appellants, received a mailed notice. Staff has rnodified review procedures CiX,ER: 196:03 Page 8 of 12 to ensure that future requests for a Directors’ Hearing on any IR application will be posted on the subject site. The City acknowledges the importance of following its procedures as closely as possible and is grateful for the appellants addressing these issues. However, the City and the law acknowledge that errors do occur, and they do not automatically invalidate City decisions. Quasi-judicial land use decisions such as this are deliberately much less formal than court proceedings. Testimony is not sworn, there is no cross-examination; a broader range of evidence is considered; most parties speak for themselves rather than through lawyers; and the decision makers are neither judges, or, in most cases, lawyers. It has generally been the view that increasing the formality and technicality of land use decisions would not lead to better, fairer outcomes. Government Code Section 65010(b), which has been liberally construed by the courts, codifies this view: (b) No action, inaction, or recommendation by any public agency or its legislative body or any of its administrative agencies or officials on any matter subject to this title shall be held invalid or set aside by any court on the ground of the improper admission or rejection of evidence or by reason of any error, irregularity, informality, neglect, or omission (hereafter, error) as to any matter pertaining to petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals, or any matters of procedure subject to this title, unless the court finds that the error was prejudicial and that the party complaining or appealing suffered substantial injury from that error and that a different result would have been probable if the error had not occurred. There shall be no presumption that error is prejudicial or that injury was done if the error is shown. Other Issues: a. Floor Area Ratio Calculation Buildings subject to Individual Review are still subject to the basic R-1 zoning standards. The most complex of these standards is the calculation of gross floor area limits, FAR. After more detailed review, and in response to issues raised by the appellants, staff has concluded that the house plans as approved are under the 6,000 square foot limit when exterior, but covered, balconies, porches, terraces and stairways are properly assessed. Staff has applied the policy requiring the inclusion of ground floor features that are more than 50% enclosed. The gross floor area calculations are not before the Council; if the neighbors or applicants object to the Director’s determination on this score, their remedy is civil litigation. CMR:196:03 Page 9 of 12 b. Project Description The project includes demolition of more than half of the existing structure but does retain elements of the original house, including the front fa,cade. The appellants believe the project would more accurately be described as construction of a new house. The project was described by the applicant, and advertised as a second story addition. The same review standards are applied whether the project is an addition or new home. The purpose of the guidelines is to minimize the impacts of second stories. Since all neighbors received notice of the applicants’ plans, they were not prejudiced by the description of the project as a second story addition. A memorandum from the Assistant Building Official on the subject of home remodels is included as Attachment C. c. Impact of New Garage on Trees Both 1849 Webster and a number of adjacent sites have mature trees, a number of which qualify as protected trees under the City’s tree preservation ordinance. The record includes two arborist reports submitted by the applicant and prepared by S.P McClenahan Co., dated April 30, 2002 and November 6, 2002. These reports evaluate the project’s impacts and recommend protection measures for Coast Redwoods located in the rear of the subject property and on neighboring properties. The City Planning Arborist, David Dockter, met the applicants’ arborist on the site to review the trees, independently evaluated the reports and agreed that the protection measures described in the reports are adequate to protect the trees. The Director’s decision includes conditions of approval recommend by the City Arborist to address tree impacts prior to the issuance of a building permit. The adjacent neighbors, the Moks, dispute the Planning Arborist’s conclusions. The Individual Review process does not regulate tree preservation. d. Property Line Verification Not infrequently, proposals for new construction generate disputes about the location of lot boundaries. Therefore, the Building Division routinely requires setback verification and a boundary survey before issuance of a building permit. In this case, there is apparently a disagreement among neighbors about the relationship of an. existing fence to property lines. The Director’s approval includes a condition requiting that a full boundary survey be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Boundary disputes are not matters that can be resolved by the City or through this review process, however, staff recormnends that the Council require preservation of the hedge along the North boundary of the subject property as a condition of approval, since this hedge provides screening. CMR:196:03 Page 10 of 12 ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the Council disagrees with the Director’s determination that the project complies with the Guidelines, Council could direct the applicant to take further steps to comply with whichever Guidelines it believes to be unsatisfied. For example, a.Shading of adjacent properties could be further reduced by, relocation of second story areas. b. Apparent mass of the new second story, additions from neighboring properties could be reduced by’ requiring additional landscaping (trees) to partially, screen the proposed second story’ as viewed from neighboring properties. RESOURCE IMPACT As noted by, staff at the December 16, 2002 City, Council study session, the IR application fee does not coyer the cost of staff time to review an IR project. At least 100 hours of staff time was expended to prepare for and present the project to the Council. The cost of reproducing plans sets for the appeal was $1,260. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recorm-nendation does not represent changes to any existing City, policies. The Director’s decision to approve the application is consistent with staff’s implementation of the IR Guidelines. The proposal is to replace a small house on an exceptionally large lot with a larger house still in scale with the neighborhood. It is a substantial change in the deYelopment on the lot, but it results in development that is more, not less, similar in scale when the size of the lot is taken into consideration. The proposed project is consistent with stated goals and policies. EN¥IRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303(a). ATTACItMENTS Attachment A:Single Family Individual Review Guidelines Attachment B:Ordinance No. 4717 adding PAMC Chapter 18.14 (Individual Review) Attachment C:Memorandum from the City of Palo Alto Assistant Building Official dated February 28, 2003. Attachment D:Administrative Record, with 3 documents attached separately: Index 8, Plan set for 1849 Webster dated June 13, 2002, revised July 17 2002 (Counci! Members only) Index 13, Shadow Studies by, Alan Huntziger (Council Members only) Pa~_e 11 of 12 CMR:196:03 ~ Index 16, Plan set for 1849 Webster dated June 13, revision November 5, 2002, approved for zoning December 26, 2002 (Council Members Only). 2002, latest compliance PREPARED BY: Christopher A. Riordan, AICP, Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REX IE : ~," STEVE EMSL ¢ Director of Planning and Community, Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMIL’~tARtTd SON Assistant City Manager Jaime and Elizabeth Wong, 1849 Webster Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Lawrence and Jeanne Aufmuth, 627 Seale Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Don and Carol Mullen, 618 Tennyson Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Walter and Amanda Mok, 639 Seale Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Peter Danner, 604 Tennyson Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Michael Braun, 1828 Webster Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 CMR:196:03 Page 12 of 12 Attachment A Z Z ~0 -.2’ _,,2 r-~ Z Attachment B ORDiNh~NCE NO. 4717 ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18 OF’THE .MD%~ICIP~ CODE TO ADD A NEW CHIPTER 18.14 (II\~IVIDUAL REVIEW PROCESS FOR CERTAIN TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN THE R-! SINGLE F.<MILY DISTRICT) The City Council of the City of Pa!o Alto does ordain as follows: SECTION i. The Council finds and declares that: A. Because the City is largely built-out, most residentia! construction takes place within established neighborhoods.Encouraging new construction that respects privacy, streetscape, and the character of established neighborhoods fosters harmonious community relationships and enhances the desirability of the City’s residential neighborhoods.Appropriate massing of new construction and additions is an important technique for achieving these goa!s. B. The City formed an advisory group to study the ongoing problem of residentia! construction that significantly alters privacy relationships and streetscape. The advisory group began meeting in January 2000. After thorough consideration of the problem and possible solutions, the advisory group recommended that the City adopt a discretionary individua! review process for new two-story home construction and for the addition or expansion of second stories in single family (R-I) zone districts. C. After consideration of the recommendations of the advisory group and public comments at study sessions on March 21, 2001 and May 23, 2001 and a duly noticed hearings on June 6, 2001 and July !i, 2001, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended to the City Council that Title 18 of the Pa!o Alto Municipal Code be amended to adopt a discretionary and individual review process for certain new residential construction projects. SECTION 2. A new chapter 18.14 is hereby added to Title 18 of the Pa!o Alto Municipa! Code to read as follows: O] 1001 syn 0090862 Chapter 18.14 R-I Single Family Individual Review. Section 18.14.010 Section 18.14.020 Section 18.14.030 Section 18.14.040 Section 18 14 050 Section 18 Section 18 Section 18 Section 18 Section 18 Section 18 14 060 14 070 14 080 14 090 14 i00 14 i!0 Applicability of chapter. Goals and purposes. Definitions. Preliminary meeting with planning division. Application for individual review. Notice. Comment period. Staff review. Optional director’s hearing. Appeal to council. Guidelines. 18.14.010 Applicability of chapter. The provisions of this chapter apply to the construction of a new singly developed two-story structure; the construction of a new second story; or the expansion of an existing second story by more than 150 square feet in the R-I single family residential district. All second-story additions on a site after November 19, 2001 shall be included in calculating whether an addition is over 150 square feet. 18.14.020 Goals and purposes The goals and purposes of this chapter are to: (a) Preserve the unique character of Pa!o Alto neighborhoods; (b)Promote new construction that is compatible with exi~t~n ’~ ~~ __g resieencia! neighborhoods; (c) Encourage respect for the surrounding context in which residential construction and =!n=rauion takes place; (d) Foster consideration of neiglnbors’ concerns with respect to privacy, scale and massing, and streetscape; and (e) Enable the emergence of new neighborhood design patterns that reflect awareness of each _r ~_m_operuy’s effect upon neighboring mroperties. 01 lOOl syn 0090862 18.14.030 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the fol!owing terms shall be used as herein defined: (a) "Adjacent properties" means those properties sharing a common boundary with the subject property, the property or properties located directly across the street, and the next properties located diagonally across the street from the subject property. (b) "Director" means the Director of Community Environment or his or her designate. Planning and (c) "individual Review Guidelines" means the standards issued by the Director ~o implement the provisions of ~__=s chapter. (d) "Storyboard" means a visua! depict ion of ~h- proposed project in its setting among the adjacent properties. 18.14.040 Preliminary meeting with planning staff. Project applicants are strongly encouraged,before i ¯’~ _~w a _-applying for ~nd~v~ual r=-’=of project, to meet w~th planning staff to discuss designing a project that promotes the goals of this chapter and the individua! review guidelines, and to discuss the proposed mTans with their neighbors. 18.14.050 .Application for individual review. Applications for individual review shall be made to the Director in the form prescribed by the Director, including an individual review checklist, and shall be accompanied by project plans. 18.14.060 Notice. (a) Notice of the proposed project shal! be mailed to the owners and occupants of al! adjacent properties by the city within three business days of the date the application is deemed complete. Notice shal! also be posted, in the form and manner prescribed by the director, at the site of the proposed project within the same period and for the duration of the comment period. O! 100t sy~ 0090862 (b) Notice shall include but is not limited tothe fol!owing: the name of the applicant; the address ofthe proposed project; and a description of the project;and information on when and how comments will be accepted bythe city. 18.14.070 Comment period. The comment period shal! be ten calendar days beginning on the third bus~ness__ day after an apmTication_ _ is deemed complete, if notice is mailed or posted on a later date, the ’ ~.comme__~scomment per!o~ shall = ~ ....b~g_n on the 7a~=~ date Written ~ .e~e!~@ by the city during this period shall be considered as part of the staff review. 18.14.080 Staff review. Upon receipt of a comp_e~e application, (a) The planning division shall review subm_uued plans for compliance with R-1 zone u~c__cc regulations. (b) The planning division and a consulting architect(s) shall review the application and comments received during the comment period and evaluate the project u._~er the individua! review guidelines and R-i single family residentia! di-~-~ regulations. A written proposed director’s decision to approve the application, approve it with conditions, or deny it shal! be prepared. (c) The proposed director’s decision shall be mailed to the project applicant, the owners and occupants of all adjacent properties, and any person who has made a written request for notice of the decision. The decision shall be accompanied by notice of the time period within which any appeal must be filed and the procedure for filing an appeal. (d) The proposed decision shall become final ten calendar days after it is mailed unless a written request for hearing is filed with the Director by the applicant or by the owner or occupier of an adjacent property within that time. (e) The ~_me limits set forth in section 18.14.080 may be extended upon the written request of the applicant. Ot 1001 syn 0090862 18.14.090 Optional hearing with Director. (a) if a timely reJ.uest_ for a hearing on a proj=~u is received by the city, it shall be scheduled for the first available director’s heavens (b) Notice of the hearing shall be mailed to the project applicant, the owners and occupants o9 all adjacent properties, and any person who has made a written request for such notice. Notice of the hearing shal! also be posted at the site in the form required by the director and shal! remain posted up to and including the hearing date. (c) At the time and place set for hearing the director shal! hear evidence for and against the application or its modification. The hearing shall be open to the public. (d) The director shall issue a written decision approving, approving with conditions, or denying the. project application within ten days of the hearing. The Director’s decision shall be based upon the R-! district regulations and the individualr~v_~w=--~=" guidelines, taking into consideration the =ppl!cau_on, the comments received during the public comment period and the director’s hearing, and such other evidence as _ _~cu conformsthe director determines to be ~e]evant. if the proj= ~ to the R-! district regulations and meets the standards set forth in the individua! review guidelines, it shall be approved. (e) Notice of the Director’s decision shall be mailed to the project applicant, the owners and occupants of all adjacent properties, and any person requesting notice of the decision. (f) The Director’s decision shal! be fina! ten calendar days after it is mailed unless, prior to the expiration of said ten-day period, the project applicant or an owner or occupant of any of the adjacent properties requests review by the City Counci! as provided in section 18.14.100. 18.14o100 Appeal to council. (a) The project applicant or an owner or occupant of any of the adjacent properties ~ay request that the City Council review the director’s decision. The request shal! be made in writing in the form prescribed by the director and filed with the city clerk within ten calendar days from the date the director’s decision is mailed. 01 lOOl syn 0090862 (b) The City_ Council shall ae~erm=ne~ ~ ~ whether to hear an appea! of the director’s decision within thirty calendar days or fol!owing the filing of the ~ -~,_eque=~ or at the first regular counci! meeting fo!lowing the filing of the request, provided, however, the City Council shal! hear the requested appea! only ~f four or more of its members vote in ~avor of conducting a hearing. (c) if the City Council declines the request to review the aec_sion, the Director s decision shall be final. Iz the City Council consents to hear an appea!, a hearing shal! be schedu=ea as soon as practicable. (d) Notice of time, place and subject of the City Counci! hearing shal! be mailed to the project applicant, the owners and occupants of al! adjacent properties and any person who has previously requested notice in writing at least twelve days prior to the hearing. r~v_~w shall based on the(e) The City Council = i=be evidentiary _ecora before the director. (f) The City Council shall affirm or reverse the Director’s decision by a majority vote of those participating. (g) Notice of the City Council’s decision shall be mailed to the project applicant, the owners and occupants of al! adjacent properties, and any person requesting notice of the decision. (h) The City Council’s decision shall be final. 18.14.110 Guidelines. The Director of Planning and Community Environment sha!l issue guidelines to direct staff and project applicants in implementing the goals and purposes and other provisions of this chapter. Guidelines establishing substantive review standards for second story deve!opment shal! be presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission for their comment prior to adoption by the Director. SECTION 3. Environmental Impact. The City Council finds t.hat the enactment and adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmenta! Quality Act pursuant to Section 15305 of the Guidelines. O11001 syn 0090862 SECTION 4. Effective Date and Sunset Clause. This ordinance shal! be effective on November 19, 2001 and continue in ful! force and effect through November !8, 2006. Thereafter, it shall be of no further force and effect unless on or before November 18, 2006, a City Council ordinance extending its term or making the ordinance permanent takes effect. No further hearing before the planning and transportation commission is required for such action. Nothing in this section shal! limit the power of the City Council, after further hearings by the Planning and Transportation Commission if required by law, from adopting any other zoning regulation, including one concerning the subject matter of this ordinance. INTRODUCED: August 6, 2001 PASSmD: S_p~emb~- 19, 2001 AYES:B=~,CH~m ~AKINS, _KLEVb~ERG, LYTLE, MOSSL~, OJAKIAN NOES: ABSTENTIONS: 9~SENT: BLTRCH, FAZZiNO, WE{EELER ATTEST :APPROVED : City Clerk <:Y ~Hayo~ APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior]Asst. City Attorney / ,~ of P? arming and Community Environment O] 100! syn 0090862 7 Attachment C MEMORANDUM DATE:February. 28, _003 TO: FROM: Chris Riordan, Planner Mike Baird, Assistant Building Official SI2~JECT: Addition!Remodel vs. New House At the time of building permit application the Building Division makes the determination as to how-it will consider a residential project that involves an extensive amount of demolition of the existing structure. Where more than 50 percent of the overall structure is being demolished and rebuilt, we require that the entire completed structure be designed according to current codes, so that from a code standpoint it is a new- house. Building’s term for this type of project is a "rebuild" and may or may not include an addition. Projects where more than 50 percent of the existing structure is being retained are simply called remodels and/or additions. The Building Dixdsion makes it’s determination based on the scope of the overall construction and the building codes that will consequently apply. It is understood that the Planning Division independently classifies these projects based on criteria related to application of zoning codes.