Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0313.091t , June 13. 1991 HOHORAl!LE CITY COUNCIL Pal. Alto. Californl. R~J Zoning District Regulations Status Report Members of the Council: This is in infor.ationa' staff report. No City CGuncil action is required or rec ... nded. On May 8, 1991, tne Planning CQmmission reviewed an info~ational staff report on tne status of tne current R-I Zoning District Regulations. Included in tne report is I review of the effect that tne current regulations have had on the number of single-family penait5 issued, t~e character of recent single-family development and the effectiveness of the Ho~ rmprovement and Remodel Excep­ tion Process. The Planning Commission had no comments on the informational report J ind forwarded it fOT City (ouncil information. A second report will be forwarded for City Council review in October of 1991, providing the 21- aonth status report required when the single-family regulations ~re amended 1. 1989. 1::xdtf~k~ KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and COlTlTlunit)' [nvironment V"ttactuaents: 4/19/91 report to the Planning Commission, IR_] Zoning District Regulations -Status· cc: Planning Co.mission Arch1tectuTIl Review Board C'J(Jt : 313 : 91 April 19, 1991 PlAIIHlHG CIHIISSION Pilo Alto, Cllifornii p 0 lOX l{lno R=1-lQNiHG DISTRICT REGULATIQMS . STATUS Meobers of the CGaI;ssion: REPORT IN BRIEf This Is an Infonnatlonal report Dn the status Df the g·1 Zoning District Regul.tlons, as amended by Ordinance 3905, and the effect that implementation of those regulations over the last 16 IIOnths has had orj single-falin, development in the City of Pale Alto. No aetton is requir!d. BACKGROOND Ordinance 3905, the comprehensive reviSions to t~e single-family regulatfons adopted Hoyeober 6, 1989, has been In effect approximatel, 16 months. The purpose of this report Is to discuss the impact that those regulations have had on the following: 1) the number of slngl.·f~ily permits ISSUed; 2) the size and character of recent single· family deyelo~nt; and 3) the status of tile HoM IlIproy ... nt and &OIIO<Iel Exception Process. ANALYSIS Ptrmjt Ac:tfvitr The number of single-family permits issued for new constructiDn. additions and .inor alt~ration$ and repairs has nat s1gnlficantly changed slnee the adoption of the new R·l ZDne District Regulations (refer to Tabl. I, attached). While tne number of penalts t~at were issued f~ 1989 and 1990 have remained relativel, constant, much of the attfvity in ]990 was related to appli~at;ons received prior to the October cut-off fer the old interim regulJtions~ In fact, 63 percent of the new residence permlts and 31 percent of the additions issued in 1990 were applied for under the iDterim regulations. Applications that submitted permit applications on ar before October l3, 1989 (the list day to submit under interim reg~latfons) were given until October 24. 1990 to secure approva1 of their pe~it Dr it would expire~ In August 1990. 95 pen.its subAitted under fnterim re9ulations existed. Of those applications, 49 were acted on ( .. st issued in October of 1990) and 46 A:\Rlstat.jc HL • Iii" 4/19/91 Page I - " , o o exp1red. Thfs explains the 1ncrsase in t~e amount of permits issued in October of 1990. Based on 1~fonaat1Qn gathered th~s far, it is too soon to conclude whether or not t~e new regu;.tlons have discouraged tile small property oWller from 1,Itlating home Improvement and re .. deling projects. Another complete annual cycle will I~rove the data ba.e for dra~ing .ny conclusions. Other factors, sue~ as the real estate larket and general econ~, would need to be factored Into the .n.lysl •• S1lt and Character pf New Sjoq't-Fam1Ty OevelOPment As Df December 1990. 207 slngle·famlly building permits fDr .dditions of floor area sublitted under current regulitfons t were approved by the Building and Pl.nnlng DI.islons. A breakdown of the requested floor area In those permits .s • percentage of tDtal .110~able floor ar •• Is provided In Tabl. 2, .ttached. As can be seen, 41 percent of the approved applications have ••• I.lzed Floor Ar •• Ratio (FAR). seeking floDr area of 90 to 100 percent of allowable floor areas. However, it Is important to nDte that the •• jority of permits have not sought maximum development, and therefore ~aye not been constrain.d from completing their requested building addition by t~e new FAR li.ftatfons~ Another indication that the fAR restrictions are not overly Inhibiting Is that fAR variances .. te up only 14 percent of .11 v.rlance applications (refer to Table 4, attac~ed). Of the 207 permits t~at requested approval of added floor are., 46 porcent (96 penl1ts) included additions to or construction of • second-story (refer to Table 3. attlc~ed)~ The average sfze of a second-story. either .fter a mioQr addition or new ccnstruction, was 914 squire feet, .ith the median size ... surlng 854 square feet. ~ Improyement and Remodel Exception Process The Home I~rovement and Remodel ExceptiO" (HIE) process continues to provide the flexibility for .inor remodels that was intended. The process benefits the slngle·famlly home ~er by a110.ing .Inor exemptions to the site development regulations for the purpose of architectural compat~bility. As a compliMentary process to the Variance. the H1E process affords ~ore flexibility in justifying exemptions for minor. noncontroversial improvements to existfng residences. The HIt process is based on the idea that it Is ·comman sense-to approve ~fnor exceptions tnat fmprove the arc~1tect~~il character Dr the function of an existing hOle, or assist the project in blending with its s~rrounding neighborhood context. This is sUPPDrted by the findings of approva1 which rely on exceptional circu~stances, architectural styTe, nelghbornood ~armony and no detrfMental 1apacts on ~eighboring properties or the community in g.neral. The biggest contribution of the HIE process is the ability to approve project. through the architectural compatibility findin9 that ~ould otherwise be denied through the Variance process for lack of p:,yslc.l hardship or loss of substanti.l property right. A:\Rlstat.jc NL 4/19/91 Page 2 • .' , . o The creition Dr the HI£ process has increased the number of requests received by the PI.nnl", Di.i.,on fro. 48 R-I Yariance applications in 1989 to • tot.1 of 65 Ip~lieltlon. (35 v.rlonce •• nd 30 exceptions) i. 1990. Over the past 16 8O"t~S, t~re his been I 27 percent red~ctfon in the amount of Variance requests received by the Planning Di.ision with • significant number of the people uslog the HIE process being Ipplfcants that would have boen potential rlrl.nc. clndldates. Th. gro.t •• jorit, of the single-family building permit applftlttons CQnt1n~ to be issued without n!cessity for either I Variance or an HIE. However, when deviation from t~e zoning re9~lat;on$ is needed, the applicant fs advised by staff as to the process most suited for each specific reqLlest. Since tho inception of the HIE process, the Planning Division has received 43 appllc.tlons for .inor exceptIons (refer to Table 4, attached). As Table 4 indicates, the types of exception reQuests cover most aspects of the R-l Site Development Regulatfons. The most c~nTy requested exceptions are for minor additions to slnglo-f .. ily homes th.t encroach into the required setbacks or Intrude Into the doy119ht planes. When a project is requesting an exception to the fAR 1i.,t.tlons, only those projects rEsulting in an addition of incldentll square footago (IDO square feet or less in excess of the FAR limit), are accepted IS I possible HIE application. To date, the process has been noncontroversial, wit~ ~nl1 I of the 43 applfcations rece1vir.g opposition from a ne1g~borfng property owner and a 100 percent approval rate (or the ilPP'ications. It lS worth nating that. recent customer s~rveYt conducted for the Planning Division by the fin. Hughe~~ Heiss and Associates. interviewed the applicants for thts process as well IS those for all other Planning Division permits. Tbis category of applicant was re.arkable ia t~eir conSistent dissatisfaction with the City process. WhIle these p.rtlcular applicants are provided with the bighest level of person.' attention than Iny other applicant and have the highest rate of success, their satlsfactfon rating was very low compared to other applicants. The explanltion provided by those surveyed for t~e low rating was, in summary, that the ~unt of time and effort required for such a Simple, noncontroversial approval is unwarranted. The recommendation given to remedy the dissatisfaction is to ~ye the legal public hearing requirement from the process~ thereby reducing tne proce$s. In response to this soliCited feedb~ckt staff will explore I stre~lir.ed process whereby only adjacent property owners Ir. notified and d.clslons are publish.d in the Palo Alto WeekI, .ftor the fact for Ippeal purposes, eli.in.ting the need for the public hearing for these .inor projects. Tbls r.c .... od.tion will be conceptually presented next Move.ber, 1. t~e .Indatory R-I report, required by the City Council when tnoy a~opted Ordinance 3905. Respectfully submitted. 17/Llttij/!,vl:i')' /::. t I.~ ,_ HANCY ~x LYTLE . 20nfng Ad~in'stritDr A: \Rlstot .jc Nl ..... ----_."r ............ _ .. 1=w .. ~"'-.--- 4/19/91 Page 3 • Att.c~t.: Tabl. I - Tablo II - flbl. III - Tabl. IY - o Single-Fa-lly Building Per.its Issued by Month Pereont of Tot.l Allowable Floor Area Ratio for Per.lt. Issued Under Current Regulltlons Approved Building Pennlts For Second Story Additions Sublltted Under Hew R-l Regullt!ons Vlr!ance and HIE Requests Sublitted Under Current It-I Reguhtions cc: ArcIII techr.l Rev! ow Board A: \Rlstat. jc Nl 4/19/91 Page 4 ----------~-----:. • TABLE 1 .I,INGLE-Fbl11LT BUILPINC PERMITS I!Q!!l:lI I!l!!! HOMEl M!l:!."'~Qt!~ 1989 1990 1989 1990 1989 1990 old new old new JAft. • • 0 32 14 • n •. 7 2 0 ,. 11 15 MAR. S 7 , 37 • 15 ]l.PR. 2 • 1 l5 • ,. MAr C • 3 II '2 2S JUNE , 2 3 3. • 16 JULy 1 0 , 30 • ,. AUG. , , • 30 • 27 SEP. • 3 3 .. 3 ,. OCT. 1 • 2 2. 23 19 IIOV. 2 0 3 19 0 • DEC. 5 Q 4 23 0 'rOT"" .s n ,. 363 91 203 .ouree: Palo Alto Building Divi.i~a r' '- ISSUEQ BY KONTH BEf6~~la~~B!IlO~~ 1989 1990 •• • • 41 54 .9 7J JS 56 60 37 54 •• 54 62 56 63 51 56 '0 74 53 63 4. 63 S9J 72. :!:QIll 1989 1900 '3 •• 77 B' 51 '0' " '3 OS ., 100 •• B5 ., B. 10E .9 " .S 127 14 14 72 .. l~OOl 1,091 4!l9/91 P0ge 5 • PlBGP't Qr TOTAL itT I,QHMLI lLOOP. UfA RAT 10 '01\ 'QMIT$ ISSUIP wmljR Q1BRINI UGVLATIot!S PERCEll'!' or TOTAL ltI1lNU LI lA!t JMtR!!B or PERMITS PIjRCJrrr or "MIT,!; 100-90\ 8S U 89-80\ ,. 11 79-70' •• 23 69-60' H 8 59-under 21 11 TOTAL 207 100 JiIOTI: Only tho .. application. r"eq\.l •• ting additional floor .ra., .~j.ct to the current PAR r~l.tion. ware included in this table. The number of. permits .hown ic the tLbi. reflect ttole i •• ued &. of December 12, 1990. 4/19/91 Page 6 ·'-- "r , ---;1:-_ ~~~:,-~;:~-.-'" • o TABLa 3 APPRQY'D BUIr,pIJ!G. PQKItS roB SIOOND-,$1:QEX ADDITrCNS Il1JMITt&Q 'muIR NU 8-1 8EtjqLAIIONS s""'*l>--S1'ORl' JrfUKBER or P!PJCI'J'S SOO'AU POOTAGE ov.r 1,000 .t 32 800 -999 If .. 600 -799 of 19 400 -599 of 16 "",.,. 399 of --i TOTAL to Average Si%e ot S~nd-Stary • 914 .qyare feet Kedie.n Sice af Second-story -854 .quAre rHit P!~ or PERMITS 33 2' 20 17 --i 100 4119/91 Page 7 89-V-40 89-V-41 89-V-42 S9-V-43 89-V-U 89-V-,S 89-V-46 B9-v-4' U-V-4S 90-V-1 9D-V-2 90-V-3 90-"1-4 9O-V-S 90-\'-6 to-V-1 to-V-' Slo-V-!i 90-V-10 9G-V-ll 90-V-12 t.a-V-ll 90-V-14 90-V-1S go-V-16 90-V-l'" 90-V-18 90-V-U 90-V-lO 9C-V-21 90-V-2'2 90-V-23 90-V-24 9o-V-25 90-v-26 90-V-21 9Q-V-28 90-V"'29 90-V-JO 9G-v ... 31 90 ... v-3-2 90-V-J3 90-V-l4 90-V-JS ,/ • YbBIlJICIj ANQ ax, UQtTlS'l'S S\lBMlnEp Wilt epJUWrt 1\-1 UCIDJ.;IIONS fOXING ACKIJI!ISTAAl'OR' S l>ECISlON APPEAL (IF urn • .cond-atory on .ub~t&ndard lot 4ayllgbt plana int~.ion aida .etba~k e~ero.chment r8&r and aide .etback encroachment Ii foot fenc. 112 the fro!'.t yard. 6 tQOt fence in th. front yard .ida .. tbaek encroachment , foot. fence 6 lQOt fence in the frent yard 8 foot fence in front ya-::d 6 foot fence in front yard replace , foot fence in front yard frent .eth_ell., cov.rag8 &nd ru .id. .eth_ck .ncrO&e~nt uncovered parkinq in •• tbaek front •• tbaek .~ero&cn..nt 8 foot fence in front yard 8 f~ fence in front yard rear aetback .~eroacbment rear •• tbaek encroachment front •• tbeck .ncroac~nt dey light plana intrueion varioul •• tback encroachment_ 10 foot fence e~c.-d height IDDit 7 toot fence cay light pl~. intru.ion frout .etback encroachment .pec~.l .. tbacK .ncrc&c~Dt rear •• tback .ncro.c~nt epecL&l setback .nc~Qachment eJCcee:d FJUt l.1.alit .. tion •• cevd coverag_ l~t&tiQd eJC.e.ed rAJ.. U.mit.at.lon d.yliqht plane intrueion and FAR .JC.cead TAR limitation exc~d height and daYl~ght plan. cover_g. and .. tb&ck .ncroacbmant •• ceed coverage lLmitatioD .xceed co~ra;e t~it&tion excae4 fAR limitation aid.. eetbacll enc.roacbtwnt - ekcead FAR l~it&tion withdra",,"n approved approved appro".d approved approved approv.c:l approved &~(il'l part) a~(wbola) approved &pprovttd! approved approved approvltd approved "?proved "ppca",ed approved approved. app.roved approv.d .ppro,,~ approv.d .. pprovlild vithdrawn vithd.n.wn approved approved approved approved Approved apprcwtd approved pendinq witMlrawn rele~red to COuneil­ refe&red to COuncil­ approved: approved &pprQved pending approvlld approved approveCi 4/19/91 P.sJ.ge 8 denied denied. denied pending , , U-V-l U-V-2 91-V-3 9l ... V-4 91-V-S 9l-V-fi SIIl-V-' 89-BIZ-l 19-81E-2 a9-II'IE-3 to-BlIt-l 90-B11-2 'O-BIZ-3 90-HIB-4 SIIo-HII-5 SO-BIB-' 9o-SU-7 9C-HIJ:-B 90-BtI-' 90-811-10 90-BII-l1 90-811:-12 90-HI'!-13 9o-lrtl-14 90-BII-IS 90-8:11-16 90-B11:-17 90-HIE-18 90-S11-19 9O-BII-2"0 90-BII-.21 9D-BIE-.2.2 90-S1&-23 9D-BI.I-24 90-&:11:-25 9D-HI!-:26 90-B1£-.27 90-811-28 90-HIE-29 90-811:-30 9l-HIZ-l '1-81.1-2 91-81£-3 91-XU-4 9l-IJIE-S • • \ .t4!1n JJd..iJZ&lf! r ' . • • o o TABLE • C'ontLnue4 UOtt!:STED ACTIOR ZONING AOMIMIST'RATOR'S APp~(Ir ANY) exc..cl TAR IJ.mit.atLon .ida •• tback en.crQaehdMlnt aldol aet,.back aneroachlllent aide .atback encroachment .id. anha.:lI: encroachment re&r letbaek .ncro.chme~t exceed FAR liml~aticn .ide .atback .ncrO&chme~t exceed coverage limitation daylight plana intruaioQ exceed FAR l~it.tion epeel .. l .. tbaek encroachm4nt aide •• tback encroachment reduce required 9ar&9* arN aide .~b.ek .ncro.e~nt exceed J"AR 1 imi tat ion aKc.ed cc"er&9_ limitation eubatandard garage conv.rlion exceed PAR I attic renovat1-on rear aetback encroachment convert carport into .. 9ar.~ .ida eathack eneroacn..nt exceed height limitation aid. aetb.c~ eneroachaent .ide and rear •• tbaek .ncro.e~nt e.ceed COverei. liaitatioD rear eetback encroacn..nt .ide letback encroachment exceed height 11.altation exceed coverage limitation exceed covecage l~itatioD rear eetback encro&e~t .ide eetback encroachm.nt aces.ecry d.aylight plane intrusion rear aetback encroachabant daylight plane intrualon exceed FAR limlt~tion apeci.l aetback encroachment daylight plane intrualon aide setback encroachment &n~ FAR aide •• tback encroacha.nt front .nd a ide e.thaek, and rAIl daylight plane intrueion and 7AJl frOnt eetback encroachment 8 foot fsnce in front yar~. DZCUIOli pending pending approv.d approved approved pending pencH1iq approved appZ'OV'a-d approv.d approved approved approved approved approved app~oved approved approved approved approved approved approved opprovO<1 approved apprQvtl'd! approve<! approved approved approved appro"ed approved approved approved approved apprc..-d approved approved apprOVad pand1n.; approved approved ~nding 4/19/91 Page ~ I r i --J::-'.