HomeMy WebLinkAbout0516.092•
•
•
10
November 12, 1992
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Pale Alto, Californ~iil
Design Enhancement Exceptio~EEI Process
Members of the Council:
Report in Sri ef
The proposed text amendments to the Pi1J Alto Municipal Code {PAMC) would
establish a de.:iign enhar,cement s)(ception (DEE) process through which the Director
of Planning and {ol'llTlunity Environment, with the benefit of the Architectural
Review Boardrs recorrmendation, may approve minor exceptions to specific site
de~elopment re9ul~tions which enhance the appearance and desig~ cf commerCial,
multiple-familj or any other deve1cpment subj~ct to archit€ctLiral review under
Chapter 16 .4B. The attached rev, sed draft ordinance conta ins the tt!x:t ame!'1dments
recommended to establish the DEE process.
Planning Commission Action
On October 14, 19;2, the Planning Commission voted 5-0-0-2 (Beecham and Glazier
absent) to recQlTlTlend appro",ral af the proposed DEE p:lrocess WI' th a change t.o the
appeal prOCedUI"'E and other minor staff amendments, 1n order to be consistent
wHh the appeals process for major and minor Architectural Review Board design
applications. the Commission recommends a thange to the DEE pror.ess that would
forward appeals direct1y to the City Council ~ithout revlew by the Commission.
Staff agrees with this change, since in most cases it will be difficult to
separate the elements of the DEE: application from the overall desigr. of the
project. A cons; stent appeal process wi 11 all ow the Cauncil to determine the
merits of the exception as ,t relates to the larger project. In any ease, this
change would avert thr cr~ation of di~ergent processes for a~ appeal of a DEE
declslor. and an appeal of the design re .... iew decisiorl on the samt'! project.
Addltionally, the re~ision would streamline the appeal process for applicants,
appellants and interested m~mbej~s of the public.
At the P)anning: tOITl1li~sion hearing, staff i!.lsu Made mlnor changes to the proposed
ordinance for the purpose of clarifying certain aspects of the OE£ process.
Staff amended the ordinance to clarify that the DEE process aiso appl1es to all
development projects subject tc architectural re~ie~ under Chapter 16.48 PAMC.
lhis was done to ensure that institutional and other Similar uses could take
ad~antage of the exception process. Previo~sly. only cQmmercial and multiple~
famify u~es were specifjcally referenc.ed in: the ,e:roposed ordimtn,e. Suer. wording
m.ay have inadvertently excluded uses that are traditior.ally not considered either
commerciil or muTtiple-famj1y.
CMR:S15:92
·------' ..... '.17"· __ ... ..,· "'_.-_ ... -~
I
Additionally, staff has revised the wording of the proposed ordinance to cl~rify
that a DEE may be used to pr~vide flexibility in the required proportio:'1 beheen
pr1vate and corrmon open space in muHiple·famlly development. The DEE process
may not be used to allow an o'llerall reduct~on in the amovnt of required open
space.
Architectural Re'lliew Board Review
Or: October 15, 1~92, the Architectural Review Board reviewed thlC! proposed
ordinance and y,Ji;ed 3~O·C·2 (Lyz .... a and Maser absent) to recorrmer.d Cipprova1
subject to the changes made by the Planning ~ommiss!on and staff.
ADD 1 i ca t i on F!~
The Planning Commission and staff recommend a S700.00 fee for a DEE application
and a SlOO.OO appeal fee, cons; stent with th2 fee for al 1 other appeals of
dectsions origjnating in the Planning Di'llision. The DEE application fee would
be assessed in additton to the required major or minor design re..-iew application
fee a~d all other applicable fees including environmental impact assessment,
record management. and microfilm fees.
The OrE fee wou1d provide fiJll cost re,o:o":/ery for staff time devoted to
pr.eapplication Itl{!etings with applicants, receiving applications, plan checks and
field visits, preparation of advertisements af1d informatiof1ar memoranda, and
ittendance at pubTic hearings. Based on experience .. itn simi1ar exception
app11c.ations~ appro)(imately 12 hours of st.aff time wOl.!~d be consumed in
processi~g a DEE application. On an hotirly basis, (;ty costs for processing a
DEE application would inc1ude the project p~anner's salary plus an additional
141 per.::ent of that sahry for overhead and employee benefits. Additional costs
tbit would be incurred ~nc1ude the cost of materials, publ1c advertisements and
~ostage for public nedring cards.
Reco1l'mE!ndat i on
The Planning CommiSSion, Architectura1 Revie~ Board a~d staff recommend that the
c.ity Council adopt the NEgative Declaration and ttle revi<;,ed ordinar.ce amending
the Paro Arto Muricipal Code and the Municipal Fee Schedule.
~espectf~lly submitted,
'7~ )fl ~ cltlt
NANCY MAboox lYTLE J'??C
Chief Planning Official
CMR:516:9Z
~;e/~
K[NNETH R. SCHR[IS[R
Director of Planning and
CCrnMu~ity Environmef1t
ll/l2/91
Page Z
..
-'---~--~_ .. aa
·"
Attachments:
Revised Draft Ord}nance
Pl arming Cornniss;on Staff RepDt't dated Octot;er 9. 1992
cc: Phnning COlMlission
ARB
Chamber of Co~rce (Susan F~ank)
CKR:5J6:9Z
p:\~,cmr
11/11/92
Page 3
•
'I
1
I
ORDINANCE NO~
ORDINANCE OF THE COo'NCIL OF 'niE CIlY OF PALO ALTO
ADDING CHAPTER lS.91 AND AMENDING CHAPTER 16.49
(ARCHITECT'JRAL REVIEW] OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL
CODE M'D AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL FEE SCHEDULE
RELATING TO A DESIGN EtiHANCEMENT EXCEPTION PROCESS
WHEREAS j the Planning Commi.ssion, after duly noticed public
hearing held August 26, 1992 1 and upon further consideration at its
meeting of October 141 19~21 and the Architectural Review Board,
upon considera!:.ion at its meeting of October 15, 1992. nave
recommended that Title 16 \Zoning} and Cr~pter 16.48 ~Architectural
Review) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as h~reina!ter
set forth; and
WHEREAS.
rec~endations,
publ ic interes t
welfare.
the City Council, afte~ due consideration of
finds that the proposed amendments are ip
and will promote t!:.e public health, safety
the
the
and
NOW, THBRBFORB. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does
ORDAIN as follows:
SBCJ'ION 1 Chapter 18.91 is hereby added t.o Title 18
(Zoning~ of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. to read as follows:
Chapter 18.91
:Design. BDhanCeJDtmt Exception ProcesS!
Section 18.511.010 Ib:ceptions to 81te development .. pa.rki.ng
and loading requiremen t s to e:nhanc e the des i.gc. of devel.opaetJ. t
.ubjeet to architectural review. In accordance with, and subject
to~ the proCedures set forth in Section 16.48.13~ of this code, the
ArchitE:ctural Review Board may reccmm-er.d, and the Director of
Planning and Community Environment may approve, minor exceptions to
the site development, parking and loading requi~~ment8 otherwis~
applicable under this Title, wher. such exceptions ~ill enhance the
appearance and design of cOrmlercial and multiple-family development
and other development subject to architectural review under Chapter
Ie: .48. Items for which exceptions may be granted incl".,J.de. but are
not limited to, dc-rmers~ eave lines; roof design, bay windows,
cornices~ parapets I columns, arcades~ fountains, art,
ornamentation. atriums~ balconies, trellises~ moldings,
balustrades, stairs. entry features; and other mir.or architectural
elements and d~sign features.
~8.'1.~020 Sc.ope of exception process. No exceptions
shall be granted under this section which .... ould increase floor
area, decrease the n~er of required parking spaces, decrease the
amount of required on· site landscaping, or decrease the required
open space. Gener-ally, exceptions shall be limited to minor
c'ha..'"1ges to the setback, daylight plane. height. lot cove:r;age
limitations, parking lot design and lcndscaping configuration, and
1
;
additional flexibility in the reguir~d rroportion between private
and common open space.
SE.,crIQN 2. Section 16.48 .135 i~ hereby added to Chapter
16.49 (Architectural Revie'W) of ':'itle 16 (Building Regulations) of
the Palo A1 to Municipal Code, to read as f0110"",'s:
Section 16.46.135 Exceptions to site developmentl parking
&J:i.d loading requirements to enhance the deeign of development
subjeet to a;\"el:Litectural review. {a) In accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 18.91 of this code. and subject to the
provisions of this section and the purpose and intent of this
chapter ~ the Architectural Review Board may recommend that t~e
Director of Planning alld Corra:nunity Bnvirornr.enc approve minor
exceptions to the lSi te development, parking and loading
requirements set forch in Title le~ when such exceptions will
-enhance the appearance a.'"ld design of commerci"ll and multiple·farnily
development and other develnpment subj~ct to archi~ectural review
under this cha.pter. Ite.:.'1'lB for whicn exceptions may be granted
include j but are not limited to, dormers, eave lines, roof design,
bay winde·ws, cornices, parapet.s, columns, arcades, fOUI'.t.ains, art,
ornamentation~ atriums, balconies, trellises, moldings,
balustrades, stairs, entry features; and other minor architectural
elements and deSign features.
(b) No exceptions shall be granted under this section
which would increase floor area, decrease the number of required
parking spaces, decrease the amount of required on·site
landscaping, or decrease the required open space. Generally,
exceptions shall be limited to minor changes to the setback,
daylight plane, height, lot coverage limitations, parking lot
design and landscaping configuration, and additional flexibility in
the proportion between private and common open space.
(e) Application. Application for exceptions shall be
made in the same manner and in conjunction with an application for
design review, pursuant to Sectio~ 16.4e.060.
(d) Public hearing and not ice. A public hearing shall
be held prior to any action on an application for exception. Such
hearing shall be the same hearing at which the application for
eeaign review is held. Notice of the ~earing for both applications
shall be given in the same manner as the notice for a hearing on a
major project l as set fortn_ in Sections 16.48.D65 [b), (cl and (d).
(e) Role of Zoning Administrator. l'he Zoning
Administrator shall make a recotmlend3.tion to the Architectural
Review Board regarding each application for exception prior to the
Board's review of the application. The Zoning Administrator or
designee shall alsc attend the public hearing on each application
fo~ exceptiofi, and shall advise the Board regarding zoning issues.
if) Recommendation of the Architectural Review Board.
After considering the application and all testimony, both oral and
written, offered at the public hea~-ing, and the recommendation of
2
•
ijl
f ,
'i h " I j
I
I
"
•
the Zoning Administrato~, the Architectural Review Board shall make
its recommendations regarding each application for exception to t~e
Director of Planning and Cormn.:.nity Enviror..ment along with its
recommendations on the application far design review J in a~cordance
w':th se·=tion 16.4.9.070. provided, that the findings far approving
an exception shall be as set forth in subsect ion (g) of this
s<?ction.
(g) Findings. The Archi tect:ural Revie.... Board may
recammead that the Director of Planning and Cornmunity Environment
grant exceptions to the otherwise applicable sit~ development~
parking and loading require..menta of Title 18 upon making the
following findings:
(il There are exceptional or extraordin-:-TY
circumstances or condttions applicable to the property or 8~te
improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in
the same zone district;
(ii) The granting of th~ application will
enhance the appearance of. the site or structure. or improve the
neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or
proposed architectural style. in a macrL~er which would not otherwise
be accomplished through strict application of the minimum
requirements of Title 18 and the standardS for review set forth in
this chapter; and
{iii) The exception is related to
architec~vral feature cr site improvemEnt that will
detrimental or injurious to property or improv~~ents
vicinity and will not be detrimp.Dtal to the public health l
general welfare or convenience.
a minor
not be
in the
safety,
(h) Conditions. In recommending approval of such
exceptions, the Architectural Review Board may recommend imposing
such reasonable conditions or restrictions as ar~ appropriate or
necessary to protect the p~lic health, safety. general welfare or
convenien:::e , and to sec'J.re the purposes of Title 18 and of this
chapter.
(i) Action cf the Director of Planning and Community
Environment. The Director of Planning and Cormnunity Envirorunent
shall act on the application for exception in conjunction with~ and
in the manner provided by Section 16.48..080.
(jl Appeals. Any person ~ggrieved by the action of the
Director may appeal s~ch action to the City Council by filing an
appeal with the City Clerk, not later than eight working days after
the effective date of the Director's action.
An appeal shall be in writing, stating the grounds
therefor I and shall be accompanied by an appeal fee as pr'escribed
by the municipal fee schedule~ Filing ,of an appeal 'With the City
Clerk shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action
appealed, as well as all proceedings in fUrtherance of the action
3
9'l1111.lK~11
llid "n
" " ,
•
,
j
'r.
on the application for design review, until the determination of
the appeal as provided in this section. The City Clerk shall placo;.
the appeal upon the agenda of the City Cound 1 for a regular
meeting not later than the thirty-first working day after receipt
of the appeal. If the appellant is other than the applicant for
the project, the City Clerk shall notify the applica!1t of the
appe:al.
Upon conclusion of the hearing on appeal, the City Council
may by motion reve~se or affirm, in whole or in part, or may modify
the action of the Director of Pla~_in9 and Community Enviro~~Dt.
The decisivn of the Council shall be final and shall be effective
immediately.
(k) Ti.me limits. The time limits for any exception
granted pursuant to this section shall be the same as the time
limits for the accompanying design review approval, as set fcrth in
Sect.ion 16.48.130. The grant of an exception pursuant to this
section does not constitute a variance, and shall be effective only
to the extent that the approved plans a'r-=. not changed in a ma..nne:r
that affects the granted exception.
SECTION 3 The MUnicipal Pe~ Schedule adopted pursuant to
Ordinance No. 4096 is hereby amended to add the following fea:
Application for Design Bnhancement Excepticn $700.00
SBCTION 4. The Council finds that this project will haYe
no significant envirO~Jmental effect.
SECTION
commencement of
adoption.
INTRODUCED,
PASSED:
AYES,
NOES'
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS,
ATTEST,
City Clerk
92]112 -= cmosll
5.
the
This ordinance shall be
thirty-first day after
APPROVED,
Mayor
4
effective
the date
on
of
the
its
'.
4S
,
! • ,
I ~
1
j APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior ~8t. City Attorney
5
Ci t.y Manager
Director of Finance
Director of Planning and
Community Bnvironment
Chief Transportation Official
I
I
I
I
•
Cktober 9. 1992
PLANNING COMMISSION
Palo Alto, Caiifornia
p C 8C'~ :O~SO
P"lO ~~T':;, c. ~~30~
GeSlgn Enhancement Exception (DEE) Process
Members of the Commission:
Report in Brief
The proposed te,t amendments to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) would
estab11sh a design enhancement e~ceptlon ,DEE) process through wnich the
Director of Planning and (.cnmunity ~nvinmment, witl'1 the benefit of the
Architectura' ReYi~ Board's recomme,dation, may approve minor exceptions to
specific site development regulations which enhGnce the appearance and design
of commercial or mu1tfple-family development. The attached draft ordinance
contains tne text amendments rec~nded to establish the OEf process.
Bad:ground
At a joint ~etfng on Octob~r 9, )991, the Planning Commission and
Archltectural Review Board (ARB) discussed the merits of allowing design
flexibil1ty from particular site development regulations in instances where
tne architecture or s1t! plan of a project could be enhsnc~d and no negative
impacts resulted. It was unanimously agreed that such flexibility, which is
now al10wed if! the R·I J RE, R-~ and RMD zones tJ~rougn the home improvement
exception (HIE) process, is aesired for commercial, industria~ and multiple
famil~ dEvelopment as weil. A joint recommendatlon to establish tne exceptio~
proce~s was forwarded to City CounCll on February IS, 1992. The Council
adopted the recommendation and directed staff to return with an ordinance
establishing the DEE proc.ss.
A subcOlIIIlittee, composed of hlO Phnnir1g Commissioners, two ARB members and
staff, was fo~ed to discuss the structure of the DEE process. The
subcoma;ittee met threE: times to determinE-the particuhr site de\le1opment
regulations eligible to be varied, the required findings of appro\la1 and the
prOCESS for review and approval+ He conclusions of the DEE subcommHte€ are
summarized below.
f: \PC~ \~E:E.. ORO
•
•
~pf [4cept1ons
The subcorrr.dttee determined that only minor architect!4r.l feature~ that
enhance. the (iesign cr ex:isting or prcposed buildings or oth~r sit<!.
1mprQve~nts ire eiigibl~ for the exception process. rt was determ;~ed that
t~e grint,n9 of a~ exception should nat alter the funr.lion of a particu1ar
sfte. Examples of the types of features that could be granted exceptions
1nc1ude) but ar~ not 1imited to, dormers, eave l~nes. roof design, bay
windows. cornices 1 parapets, columns, arcades, fountains, art, ~rnament1tion.
atriums, b;s.lc.on1es, tre1Hses, cr:oldin9s, ba!lJ.strades, s.tairs, entry features,
a~d other m~nor architectural elements or design features.
(xceptions could be granted to all site development regul.tions with the
extlus~on of floor aYea limitations, the number ~f parking s?aces, the amount
of required on·site landscaping? or the amount of required open space.
Generally, exceptions ~ould be limited to minOT variations of the setback,
daylight plane, height, let cOl/erage limitations, parking lot Llesig-n 1."1<1
1.ndsca~e tonfi9~ration, and a6diticna1 f1exib~lity in tt~ percentage mix
between private and common open spac! requirements.
Findjngs of Appro'.,]
It was determined that the findings of appro~al should ref1ect the fallowing
requirements~ I) that an exception enhances the ~ppearance Dr design of a
building or site beyond the mlnimum requirements and standards of the Zoning
and/or Arc~itectural Review Board Ordinances; 2j that it preserves the
EXisting or proposed architecture of improvements; and 3J tnat it does not
create negative impacts. It was also determined that DEE applications shall
provide evidence to support the finding that there are exceptional or
extraordinary cir(umstances related to the site or improveme~ts that obstruct
the enhanc~~nt of design and necessitate tne requested exception.
The DEE process is intended to prOvide added flexibility from site deve1oprn€nt
regulations which im~ede impro'y·ed .:::'esigr. \lIHhout ttle burden of proving
hirdship or less of propErty rights. Currently: the only way in wnicn
cOl7il'lercl.al or mu1tiple-family projects are re1ie· ... ed from site development
regulations is throu9h the variance precess. However, variances are limited
to ·situations where the applicat10n of lcn1ng to a particular piece of
property practically destroys or greatly decreases its value for any permitted
use to ~hic~ it tan reasonably be put and where the application of the
~rdfnance bears so little relations~ip to the purposes of zoning that the
regulation is confiscatory (.lr al"bitra.rf" (Rath.k.o~f's The Vi"" of Zoning a.nd
P7 af!rd ng) •
The recommended DEE findings are simililr to the-findings for the HIE in thilt
exceptions CQu1d be gra~ted fo'\" minor irnpra~eme~ts th.at effett the appearance
10-9-92
POise 2
(1
>' ~
'I 1
j
"1
I
I
!
•
of a development, without cr~atin~ negative impacts on surrQ~nding properties
or the public at large. T~e biggest (cntribution of the HIE process is the
abll ity to approve projects thrOugh th-a ardlitectural compatibil ity finding
that would otherwise be denied thr~ugh the variance process for-laclt. of
physico! hard,hlp or loss of substantfal prep,rty right. The HIE '" been
very successful in achieving t(le goal of allowing minor exceptions that
improve t~e architectural character of a~ existing single-family or two-family
home, or ~ssist the project in blending ~lth its surrounding neighborhood
context. Tne Suo-c.onrt1ittee bel1e ... es that the sarlle flexibiiity for both new and
existing commercial and mu1tiple-famil, projects will help to faCilitate
1mpro':ed design.
The reco~nded findings of approval are as fo1lows:
(1) There are exceptional or extraordin~ry circumstances or conditions
applicable to the propfrty Qr site imDro ... ements ;nvolv~d that do not
apply generally to property in the same zone district;
(11) T~e granting of the appliCation will enhance the appearance of the
Site or structurf, or improve the neignborhood cha~acter of the project
and preserve an existing or ,proposed architectural style, in a manne!'"
which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict applicijtion of
the minimum requirements of Title 18 and the standards for review set
forth in this chapter; and
(iii} The Exception is related to a miner architectural feature or site
improvement th&t wfll not be detrimental ~r injuriou$ to property or
improvements ~n the vicinity and will not bf detrimental to the public
health •. safety, general welfare or convenience.
Upon application for a DEE, an app1icant will be required to submit supporting
evidence for all three findings. This evidence .... ill be contemplated wher.
renderin~ any recomtT.endations or decisions on a g1ven project.
Review and Approval Process
The C~mmittee designed the eKc2ption process to work in conjunction with
traditIonal ARB applications. An e~ception appljcation would be made at the
same time ,es the design review application and agendiz~d for the same public
hearing. Nctic:e of the hearing for b(lt.~ :"!.pplications shall be gi ..... en in the
same mann~r as the notice for a hearing on a major project, in~Tuding maIled
notice to property owners a~d occuoants within 300 feet of the subject
property. All advertisements ar.d agendas would reflect the exception being
sought.
P.\!'CSIl\DE"E".ORCI
',,-.
. ':~ .---...,
nett; r" It: rtrir
10-9-92
Page 3
,-
It was cietermined that thE' Zoning fldministratcr or des.ignee will join the ARB
at the public hearjng ~n all exception requests. The Zoning Administrator or
designee will make i f'eccl!IITlol!ndation to the ARB tc approve, conditionally.
approve or deny the except'ion. After cOl1sidering that rec(,~i1YlI!!ndation. ttle ARB
shall forward their recommendation on the design review ~nd e~=eption
applications to the Director of Planning anc Community Env~ronment. The
decision of the Director shall be final unless there 13 an appeal filed, in
which case the Item will be f~rwarded to the Planning Commission for
recommendation and City Co~nc1' for final acticn.
Staff recommends a S700.00 application fee for DEE app1ications in addition to
t!'le ilppl1cable ARB fee for d.esign review projects. This fee would pro\-'ide
full cost recovery for staff time which is devcled to pre-application meetings
with applfcants, recei~ing applications, plan check~ and field ~isits,
prepa!"'at1or. of advertisements and informat~onal memoranda, aiJd attendance at
public hearings. The Municipal ref ScheduTf has established S100.00 as the
fee for appealing deCisions originating in the Planning Divis.ion. Staff
recommends no change for the DEE appeal fee.
Planned Unit De'.elopment
The subconrnittee also discussed a planned unit de ..... elopment {PUD) pr(lcess in
which multiple-famil)' developments arE al1o· ... ed greater fluibility in site
development regulations. densities, and other regulations to achi2ve impro .... ·ed
deSign, function, affordabil+ty ind diversity of housing types. The PUD
prflteSS would be sfmHar to the plar.n'ed community tone change} but instead of
providi~ , public benefit, projects would be required to demonstrate
improved functiDn or design. within the ~ontext of the specjfi~ prcje~t, o~er
a project conforming to the applicable regulations. GUlcelines, such as
townhouse gUidelines, wCluld be establisi'led to determine whit types and amounts
of spec1fic: elements wuuld be-considered i:npr-o'temel1ts for the purpose of
allowing the requested flexibil ity. The subcommittee rec'OilBTlends further
discussion on the PUD process and ite; inclusion into the mIJlt i ple-familj1
rf!guTations in order to adieve flexibility of design and greater diversity of
housing types_
Recommendation
Staff recolTl7le-nds that U1e Pl anning CO:11::;i $S fan recommend
that the Council adopt the Negative Declaratjon and the
amending the Palo Alto Municipal Cod~ and the Municipal
P. \PCSR \fl(E. 0010
to the City (aunc1J
attached ordInance
Fee Scnedule. and
10-9-92
Page 4
•
direct staff to work. wi th a PUD subcommittee to prepare an ordinance for i!: PUD
process. Two Commission members will ~eed to be sc~eduled for the PUD
sulx ... l ttee.
Respectfully submitted,
JOS::PH M. COLONNA
Planner
Attachllents!
Droft Ordinance
£nvfron8ental Impact Assessment
CC! AAB
P: \F'CSR 'OfE .OR[l
;0·9·92
Page 5
•
ORIlINAKCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF TRE COUNCIL O~ CITY OF PALO ALTO
ADDING CHAPTER 18.91 AND AMSNDrNG CHAPTER 16.48
(ARCH!TECTtJRA!, REVIEW) OF TRE FALO ALTO MUNICIPAL
COCE AND AMENDING THE WiNICIPAL FEB SCHEDULE
RELATING TO A DESIGN Elffil\NCEMENr EXCEPTION PROCESS
WH£RE..~. the Planning ComrnissicD, after duly noticed
public hearing held August 26, 199.2, aod upon furtner consideration
ai;:. its meeting Of October 14, 1992, and the Architect.ural Review
Board, upon consideration at its meeting of October 15, 19S2, have
recoumended that Title 18 (Zoning) and Chapter 16.49 (Architectural
Rel.riew) of tbe Palo Alto MuniCipal Code be amended as hereinafter
set forth; and
WHEREAS, the City council. after due consideration of the
recommendations, finds tt'..at the proposed amendments are in the
public interest and will promote the public health, safety and
welfare.
NOW, 'I'REREFORB. The CO'L;..ncil of the City of Palo Alto does
ORDAIN as follows:
SEC'TI,QN 1. Chapter 1& .91 is hereby add€d to Titl~ 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, to read as fo11ows:
Chapter 1.8.91
DeSign EAhancement Exc.pt~QU Process
Section ~8~'1.010 Exeeption. to site developmen~,
parldng and lcadiug requirement. to enhance the design of
commercial and~tiple-family 4evelqpment. In accordance with.
and subject to, the procedures set forth in Section 16.48.135 of
this code~ the Architectural Review Beard may recommead~ and the
Director of Planning and Community Environment mal' approve~ minor
exceptions to the :a:ite de-..reloprne:Jt, parking and loading
requiI'ements otherwise applicable under this Title, when such
exceptions will enhance the appearance and design of commercial and
multiple-family development. Items for which exceptioDs may be
granted include, but are not limited to, dormers, eave lines. roof
design, bay windows, cornices, parapets, columns, arcades,
fountains, art. ornamentation, atriums, balconies. trellises,
moldings, balllstrades~ stairs, entry features, and other minor
~r~hitectural elements and design features.
28.91.020 Scope of exceptio~ procesB~ No exceptions
shall be granted under this section which would increase floor
area~ decrease the number of required parking spaces, decrease the
amount of req~ired on-site landscaping, or decrease the required
open Bpace. Generally, exceptions shall be liI:'.ited to minor
changes to the Betback~ daylight plane, h-eight, lot coverage
limitations, parking lot design and landRcaping configuration~ and
1
:---.......... ·iIIlil9.""n .... _IO .......... ' .. ' ........... ~,-) -...0<-."', .........
&dditional flexibility between private and common open space
requirements.
SEC710N 2. Section 16.49.135 is hereby adjed to Chapter
16.48 (Architectural Review) of Title 16 (Building RegulatioDs) of
the Palo ~to MUnicipal Code, to read as follows:
Section l,6."8~.l3S bc.eptions to site d.evelopment,
parkiDg and loadins requirements to enhance the design of
comaercial an.c1 mult1ple-fam.lly development. <a) In accordance
with the provisions of Chapter 1B.91 of this code. and subject to
the prov-isions of this section and the purpose and ir!tent of this
chapter, the Architectural Review Board may recommend that the
Director of Planning and Commur.ity Environment approve minor
exceptions to the site development, parking and loading
requir~ents set forth in Title 18, when such exceptions will
enhance the appearance and design of commercial and multiple-family
development. Items for which exceptions may be granted include,
but are !lot limited tO I dormers, eave liners, roof design, bay
windows, cornices, parapets, columns, a~cades, fountains, art,
ornamentation, atriums, balconies, trellises, moldings,
balust:rades, etairs, entry features, and othe= minor architectural
elements and design features.
(b) No exceptions shall be granted under this &ection
which would increase floor area, decrease the number of required
parking spaces, decrease the arno..mt r.lt required on-site
land.:;.capi.c.g. or decrease the requi:!'ed open space. Generally,
exceptiO!lS shall be limited to minor changes to the setback,
daylight plan!!. height. lot ~overage limitations, parking lot
d~sign and landscaping configuration, and additional flexibility
between pri vat.e and common open space requirements.
Ccj Application. Application for exceptions shall be
made in the same manner and in conjunction with an application for
design review, pursuant to Section 16.48.06Q.
~dJ Public hearing and no~ice. A public hearing shall
be held prier to any action on an application for exception. Such
hearing shall be the same hearing at which the application for
design: reviev is held. Notice of the hearing for both applications
shall be given i~ the same manner as the notice for a hearing aD. a
major project, as set forth in Section! 16.4B.065 (bj ~ (c) and (d).
(e) Role of Zoning Administrator. The Zoning
Administrator shall !!ld.ir:.e a recOOl!1endation to the Architectural
Review Board regarding each application for exception prior to the
Board's review of the application. The Zoning Adrr.inistrator or
designee shall also attend the public hearing on each application
for exception, and shall advise the Board regarding zoning issues.
(f) Recommendation of the Architectural Review Board.
After considering the application and all test~ony, hath oral and
'Written, offered at the pl.t.blic hearing, and the recammendatioI"', of
t.he Zoning AdlTIinistrator. the Architectural Review Board shall make
2
921007 L-c 003ln011
,
~\
".
-"}-:" __ :,:->v.--,
.-. , .>:,:.~~\~;>;-~. '
'.:":' ',\ ~
,'".-
•
i~s recommendations regarding each applicat ion fer exception to the
Cirector of Planning and COt1'!nU.nity Environment along with its
recomrnencations on the application for design review 1 in accordance
'With Sect-;on 16.48.070, provided; t'118.t the findings for approving
au. exception shall be as set forth in subsection (gi of this
section.
(9) Findings. The Architectural Re-.rielto' Board I!"ay
recommend that the Director of Planning and Con~nity Bnviro~ent
grant exceptions to t.he otherwise applicable site development,
parking a..""ld loading requirements of Title 18 upon :J\aking the
following fiDdings:
(i) There are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or COnditions applicable to the property or site
improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in
the same zone district;
(ii) The granting of the application will enhance
the appearance of the site or structure I or improve the
neighborhood character of tbe project and preserve an Existing or
prClpC.'sed architectural style, in a manner which 'Would not otherwise
be accomplished through strict application o~ the minimum
requirements of Title 18 and the standards for ~eview set forth in
this chapter; and
(iii) The exception is related to
architectural feature or site improvement that will
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health l
genera~ welfare or convenience.
a minor
Dot be
in the
safety~
fh) Conditions. In re.:ommending approval of such
exceptions, the Architectural Review Board may recommend imposing
such reaso~le conditions or restrictions as are appropriate or
necessary to p:::otect the pul:;llic health, safety, ge:1eral welfare or
convenience: and to secure the purposes of Title 18 a:1Q of this
chapter~
(i) Actio!: of the Directo:: of Planning and CO%l1m"..mity
Environment. The Director of Planning and Commun5ty Envircnme~t
shall act on the application for exception in conjunctio~ withr and
in th~ manner provided by Section 16.4a~080.
(j) Appeal to the Plauning Commdssion~ Not later than
eight working days after the effective date of the decision of the
Director of Planning and CO~Jnity Environment with respect to an
application for exception, any person aggrieved by the action of
the Director may appeal such action to the Planning C~~ission~
An appeal shall he ir.. "":riting. stating the grounds
therefor, and shall be filed with the City Clerk, accomp~nied by an
appeal fee as prescribed by the rr,unicipal fee schedule. Filing of
an appeal with the City Clerk shall stay all proceedings in
furthera~ce of the action appealed r as well as all proceedings in
3
:---_ ......... i ... '_ ...... T""' .... ----·'~-'-·------·-·--·
"
furtherance of the action on the c;pplication for design review,
until the determination of the appeal as provided in this Becti~n.
Upon the filing of an appeal r the City Clerk shall immediately
notify the Director of Planning a.nd Coamrunity El1vironment, the
Chair.man of the Architectural Review Board and the Chairman of the
Planning Commission of the appeal, and shall fo~~ard a~l materials
submitted with t.he app€'al to the e.ecretary of the Planniog
Commission.
The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on
the appeal not later than three months after receipt of the appeal.
If the appellant is other than the appli~ant for the exception, the
secretary of the Planning Commission shall notify the applicant of
the appeal. Upon conclusion of the hearing on appeal, the Planning
Commission ehall make fiDdi~ge and recommend to the City Council
~t the action of the Director of Planning and Community
Environment be affirmed, changed or modified, or in lieu thereof,
make such other or additional recommendations as it deems proper~
The findings of the Commission shall be subject to the provisions
of subsection (g) of this Be~tion~
(1<) Action by the City Council. Upon receipt of the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council shall
consider the appeal within thirty days of receipt of the
recommendation by the City Clerk. The council may, at its option,
conduct a public hearing on the rr\C.tter.
The council may by motion reverse or affirm, in whole or
in PL.-t. or may modify tbe recOtMtendatioD of the Pla.Illling
Commission. The decision of the council shall be final and shall
be effective immediately.
(1) Time limits. The time limits for any exception
granted pursuant to this section shall be the same as the time
limits for the accompanying desigD review approval, as Bet forth in
Section 16.48.130. The grant of an exception pursuant tc this
section does Dot constitute a variance, anp shall be effective only
to the extent that the approved pl~ns are not changed in a manner
that affects the granted exception.
SECTION 3 The Municip&l Pee Schedule adopted pursuant
to Ordinance No. 4096 is hereby amended to add the following fee:
Application for Design Enhancement Exception $700.00
SECTION 4. The Couucil finds that this project will have
no Significant environmental effect.
SECTION 5.
cormnence.ment of the
adop~ion.
This ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of it~
4
""'-.,
•
\
,
•
:rNTRODUCEP:
PASSED:
AY1!S:
NOES:
lIBSENT:
lIBSTBNTJ:ONS:
ATTBST:
Ciey Clerk
IU'P&OVllD AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
5
','
.,. ;::.-"'".
IU'PROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Fi~ce
Di~ector of Planning and
community ~vironm£nt
Chief Tr&CSpo~ation Official
•
•
Env1ronmenta' DoclJll'!ents ~ City of P~1() Alto
fHVIRONMENTAl ASSESSMEHT
Project Oescript~o~/jitle: Text sm@ndm~nt to e}tablish ) dp.si9~ e~hancem~nt
exception process in the Palq A1to Mun1ci~lT Code. Chapter 16.4B.
ArcMt-ectural Rgllje.'rI. Tht exceptio!'\ CfO:eess ,"oli1d ll10w the Qh"ector of
p1anning and Community [n~ironment, with t~e b~nefit of the Architectural
Beyjt~ Board's recommendatigo. to aogrove mioor exceotions to SQ~cific site
development requ1atiDns to el1hance the appearance a.nd desig;'\ of cOlMileTchl or
mu'tiple.fa~ily devel()OMtnt.
lo<at ion/Address: "C'l-" t .... yw~id""t<--_______________ _
Spcns~ring Agency/Applicant: City of Palo Alto, Planning Divis10n
Addre .. ."d Telep~one of ~pplicant: 250 Hamilton.Avenue. Palo Alto. CA 94301
(415' 329-2441
Application for~ palo Alto MUnicipal Cede text am~ndment
{e.g., zoning cha~ge. subdiviSion of property. architectural revie~. use
p • ...,1tl
Zoning at Project lociticn: N/" Fee Receipt No.: N/A
NQIICE OF DETERM1NATION
Based upon review of the ~H"C)ject fnes, the undersigrted member <If the' Planning
Oepartment has concluded:
IXf Kegitive Declaratjpn: The project has no s1gn1ficant environmEntal
impact. No Environmental Impact Report is required, The reasons fo~ a
Hegat'Yt Oec1aTition 1~e: 1n the attached proiect description and
analys15~ A record of project action is available for review at the
Pi)O ~lto Planning pepartmeflt. lOU.ted en the Stn flGor~ __ City Hall,
250 Hamiltqn Avenue. Palo Alto. CA 94303.
[I Ttle project may have a signiflcat1t envirom:enti.l impact. An
EnVironmental Impact Report will be prepared.
Plann:ng DepartmEnt OffiCial: ~rt ~ _____ _
Planning Director: ~ s.-w..... Date; "/;;'19>--
T~e project has been appro~ed.
The project has been denied.
Date:
Date:
file No.: 92-EIA·25
EIANDO 92-EIA·25
I
---mm.rll .••• ~.1IIl:iI'1""1_ .... _-~-----1-
•
· ,.
f~ject 0e5cr1ption
The Design Enh~nc~ment Exception (DEEJ pr~cess ~u1d allow the Director of
Planning a~ Community Envlronment, with the benefit of the Archite~tural
Review Board;, recommendatioil t to approve minor exceptions to specific site
develoPlent reg~lations. An ex~eption wou1d enly be granted if ~t enhances
the appearance and design of commercial or multiple-family development. Eac~
exception would be evaluated individually fClr environmental impacts, with'fn
the scope of I partfculiT devtlopment prop~sal. T~e action establishing the
DEE process in itself will not have iI significant impact on the environment.
Through the DEE proceis, exceptfons co~Td be gra~ted to all site deve10pment
regulations with the exclusion of floor area limitatio~s, number of parking
spaces. lrod the ~unt of required land!caping and usable open space.
Generally. exceptions would be limited to minor variations of the setbacks,
d~ylight planes, height limitations, lot coverage limitations, parking lot
design. and landscape configuration. T~e DEE process would not result in an
increase of square footage, parking demand, traffic or alterat10n of land use
patterns,
The DEE process ;s desi-.ned to work in conjur.t.tion '.it~ the traditional
Architectural Review Board (ARB) application procedure. An exception would be
~ade at the same time a~d agendized for t~e same public hearing as the design
r,view .pplic.ti~n. Notification of the hearing would be sent to all utility
cvstomers and owners Jf property within JOn feet of t~e proposed develnpment.
All advertisements and agendas would reflect the exception being sought.
The DEE would be similar to the Variance process, which is currently the only
Deans in whic~ to e~ceed site development regulations for commercial and
multiple-family development. Howe~!r, the ~anditory find1ngs for approvaT of
I DEE application would net be based on property right or hardsnip, which is
the required finding for a Variance, but based on architectural design and
compatibility.
[n ord~r to app'rove a. OEE appl ication , it must be proven tnat an 1Jnusual or
extraordinary circumstance exists, and, as I result, the proposed exception
presents a better design alternat 1ve <)r ennances the project 1n some manner
tnat could not otherwise be acnie~ed though comp1iance with the site
develop!!)!:!nt regulations. Additionally, the Director is required to find that
the project, is proposed or cond~tioned, will not be detrimental or injurious
tD property or i"~rovements in tne ¥1cinity and wi" not be detrimental to the
public health safety, general welfare or convenience.
[lANDO 9Z-EIA·25
2
,
--.. -" .
..