HomeMy WebLinkAbout0152.092I
! • , ..
-
~'
• 0 ,.
"1': _. :. ,-
February 13. 1992
HONORABLE (ITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
J~1~t R!commendation from the Architectural Review Board and
Planning CQlTITIlssion for a Oesign Imcrolo'em~nt Excep.tion Process
Me~rs of the Council:
REPORT IN BRIEf
The purpose of this report is to transmit to tn~ City Council i joint Planning
Commission and Arcnitectural Review Board recommendation which resulted from the
annual meeting between the two bodies and to recommend that the Council direct
stlff to prepare an appropriate ord1n.aflce to implement the recolTtnend'a.t1ons. Bath.
the Board and Commission unanimous1y recommend approval of a process that WOUld
allow some f'ex~bihty from the ::>itt! development regulations for purp{Jses of
improved archi tecture and design in tcrrrnercial, manufacturing and mul tiple-fami 1y
prQjects. The process was named the Design Improvement Exception, or DiEt and
it is described f~rther in the fo11ow;ng paragraphs.
BACKGROUND
At their annual joint meeting on October 9, 1991 t the Planning Commission and
Architect~ral Review Board discuss!d the merits of allowing design fle~ibility
from the site d~velopment reguTations in instances ~here the architecture of a
project coul d be improve-d and no negative effects waul d be exper;t!nced by
ne1ghb{)ring propert les or the publ i c at 1 arge. It ... as unanimously agreed t.hat
such f1eXlbility was very d~s;rable, since t~ere ha~e been many instances ~yer
the years where the review bodies, applicant and public all agree that the
preject would be improyed aesthetical1y if a small amount of latitude 'Here
available in the zoning ordir'lance. The variance process, current1y used far this
purpose, does not take impro~ed architecture into account and ;5 cumbersome. The
envisioned pr~cess, mode1ed after the Home improvement Exception now available
for single-family home remodelers, ~ou1d allow architectural features to de~iate
in il minor way from all aspects of the site deve10pment re9ulations, e.g.,
setba.cks, daylight plane, height, except Floor Area Ratio. Based on feedback
recei~ed from applicants and reSidents, the Home Improvement Exception process
has been very succ~ssful in facilitating design excellence in single-family
remod~Hng, and has been entirely uncontroversial. The ne'ft process 'lJould apply
to development in the City's commercial, manufacturing and multiple-faml1y lanes.
CMR:l,Z:92
I
-
FoT" specific e)(alnp'e~, staH yisualizas that the DIE could be used to a~1ow
dOl""llE!r protrusion$ for multiple famiiy projects, such is were recently allowed
throu9~ variance in t~e lytton IV project it 330 Emerson. It could be used 011
projects 1; ke the Al za. Corporate Headquarters. to match roaf 1 ine~ between
or1g~nal facilitfes a~d lat£r addjtions. Alza staff have pointed out to the
c01llnunh..y in tours of th2ir research and development facility that it has a
design flaw i~ the roof line attributable to the Ctty's height provisions.
The joir.l recolIITK!l",daticn ,.as that the process would Mt be an additior'la' layer
of r'eview, but should do .... etail wiU the ARB application. It would contiin
notification and pu~lic hearing reqUirements as part of the ARB review pro~pss
and require a finding of no impact on adjac€nt properties or the general publfc.
The ARB WGuld conduct the public hearing is. they normal11 do? ~ut in c~ses where
an exception was requested, the loning Administrator would be present at the
hearing to take public-corrment and the ARB's recol'T'lllendation ::m th.e Design
Jmprovecent Exc~pt~on. Tne decision for the Exception would be the Zoning
Administ,rator's, hsued along .ith the final ARB decision, thus creating no extri
processing time for applicants. Specifics of appeal were not discussed, but
staff recommends that an appeal be directly to the City Council as appeal of ARB
decisions now are.
In summary~ the Design J~provement Exception process is envisioned to facilitate
design exce1lence in projects in a streamlin€d manne~.
RECOf'tI ENDAT! ON
Staff recolII!Iends that the City (cunc; 1 di rect staff to prepare an ordinar.ce fl)r
a ~sign Iaprovement Exception, ~n accordance with the unanimous and joi nt
reconmendation of the Planning COlTl1'1ission and Architectural Re'oliew Board at their
meeting of October 9, 1991.
Respectfully submitted,
JZq.h-1./ ~lj/;." At L. ~
• ,7-' ./ "-I
NANCY MADDOX L VT L E
Zoning AdministratGr
-\ lD~Nr\)v'~ Gu~ FLEMING
Assistant City M~nager
cc: Planning Commission
Architectural Review Board
CMR:IS2:92
p:\~r\die
... ·L ..
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
2/13/92
P,ge 2
---~--..<...-."
,
... ~
i
i
I