HomeMy WebLinkAboutCMR- 478-02TO:
City of PaSo Alto
City Manager's Report
1
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DECEMBER 16, 2002 CMR:478:02
SINGLE FAMILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW PROGRAM: ONE-YEAR
STATUS REPORT
This staff report provides the Council with background information for the Study
Session.
BACKGROUND
On August 6, 2001, the City Council adopted the Single Family Individual Review
program (Program). The Program is a process of discretionary review for single family
development triggered by new two-story homes, new second story additions, or an
addition to an existing second story which would be greater than 150 square feet. The
review is based on a set of 10 Individual Review Guidelines that address issues such as
privacy of second story windows and decks, mass and scale of new development, and
streetscape issues such as porches and garage location. The standards and process were
the result of 18 months of meetings with the "Future of Single Family Neighborhood
Advisory Group."
As part of the original approval for the program, the City Council directed staff to
conduct an annual assessment of the Ordinance, Individual Review Guidelines and
Review Program and to identify necessary changes.
The Program was implemented on November 19, 2001. Since the date of
implementation, 104 Single Family Individual Review applications have been submitted.
DISCUSSION
The Single Family Individual Review process provides the adjacent neighbors the
opportunity to comment on an application that has been submitted. Within three days of
an application submittal, the applicant posts a sign in the front yard with a copy of the
CMR:478:02 Page ! of 7
front building elevation pasted on it and Ptanning Department staff mails notices to
adjacent neighbors notifying them that an application has been submitted and
encouraging them to review the plans. It has been staff's experience that the majority of
applications have resulted in at least one neighbor calling the project planner to ask
questions or taking the opportunity to visit the Development Center to review the plans.
When staff has received written comments from a neighbor concerning the impact of a
proposed new house or second story addition, in all but two cases these issues been
worked out prior to the completion of staff's review.
Privacy from second-story balconies and windows has been the source of most concern to
neighbors. Staff has worked with applicants to either eliminate or screen the views from
second story balconies. Staff has also requested second story windows be made of
obscure glass or modified to be clerestory windows.
If staff does approve a project, the same neighbors originally notified are informed of the
decision and are given ten days to request a Director's Hearing. Only two applications to
date have resulted in a Director's Hearing request. A proposed new two-story home at
945 Hutchinson was approved by the Director at a hearing and was appealed to the City
Council. Four members of the Council must a~ee (call-up) to hear the appeal before it
can be placed on a future Council Agenda for a public hearing. The Council voted not to
call-up 945 Hutchinson and upheld the Director's original approval.
When a request for a-Director's Hearing is received after staff has granted a tentative
approval, optional mediation is offered. Optional mediation is part of the Progam
approved by the Council. The purpose of this mediation is for the applicant and affected
neighbors to work out a solution and eliminate the need for a Director's hea~ng. Two
mediation sessions are offered with a professional mediator and if an a~eement is
reached, the project does not go to a Director' s Hearing. Of the two projects that have had
requests for a Director's Hearing, only the applicants and adjacent neighbors of a second
story addition at 1849 Webster Street requested mediation. Of concern to adjacent
neighbors in this case are privacy and massing impacts of the proposed second story. This
project went though two mediation sessions without reaching a solution. The project has
been to one Director's Hearing and was continued to a meeting on December 5, 2002.
The project is now in the 10-working-day waiting period before the decision is issued.
A change in administrative procedures has been made in response to an incident in which
neighbors reviewed plans early in the process and then were not informed when further
changes were made. The neighbors were therefore unable to request a Director's
Hearing. Staff is now requesting that any person reviewing plans submitted for Single
Family Design Review provide their names and addresses to the Developmen Center
counter staff, so that they can be advised when revisions are made to the plans.
CMR:478:02 Page 2 of 7
Changes to the Single-Family (R-1) Zone District Regulations
The City Council adopted changes to the Single Family (R-l) Zone District Regulations
when adopting the Single Family Individua! Review process in August 2001. These new
regulations are mandatory for all new single-family construction (both one- and two-
story). Staff and the general public have experienced difficulty in implementing some of
the new ordinance changes due to some ambiguous phrasing in the code language. This
report illustrates text in the ordinance that has been difficult to implement. Staff will
come back to City Council in early 2003 with recommended changes to the ordinance.
The following are three of the new R-1 regulations that have been the hardest to
implement.
Contextual Setback
Subsection 18.12.050(d) of the Municipal Code was amended to read as follows:
"Front Yard. The minimum front yard ("setback") shall be 6.1 meters
(twenty feet), unless the average setback on the block exceeds twenty feet,
then the setback shall be not less than the average distance between the
front property line and the first main building wall of houses on the same
side of the block; however, in no case c!oser than 20 feet. For blocks longer
than 600 feet, the average front setback shall be based on the ten homes
located on the same side of the street and nearest to the subject property."
Contextual front setback is based on the average front setback on the same side of the
block or on the nearest ten homes if the block is longer then 600 feet. This average can be
geater when one of the homes has a front setback much geater then the rest of the
houses used to calculate the contextual setback. This situation is most likely to happen
when there is a deep lot with an unusually large front setback. This results in the
proposed new home having an increased front setback that is not in context with the
majority of the homes used to calculate the average.
Staff met with the co-chairs of the Future of Single Family Neighborhoods Advisory
Group to discuss contextual front setback. The purpose of the meeting was to discover
the Advisory Groups' intent and reasoning behind the ordinance. The co-chairs informed
staff that their original intent had been to exclude lots with large existing front yard
setbacks from the calculation of the average. The co-chairs advised staff that when
calculating contextual front yard setbacks, lots that have an unusually large front setback
should not be included in the average. Staff is planning to come back to the Council in
March 2003 with changes to low density residential, including the R-1 zone district.
These changes will include a recommended procedure for selecting those particular !ors
that should not be included in the calculation of contextual front setback.
CMR:478:02 Page 3 of 7
Contextual Garage Placement
Section 18. i2.050(m) of the Municipal Code was amended to read as follows:
"If either 50% or more of existing garages on the subject property's side of
the block or 50% or more of existing garages on both sides of the block are
located within the rear portion of the lots, then attached garages shall be
located in the rear half of the house footprint and a detached garage must be
located in the rear half of the lot. For blocks longer than 600 feet, the
foregoing calculations shall be based on the ten homes located nearest to
and on the same side of the block as the subject property, and on the
combination of those ten homes and the homes facing them. Access shall
be provided from a rear alley if the existing development pattern provides
for alley access."
Difficulty in implementing contextual garage placement has arisen when evaluating
garages on corner lots. It is common for a house on a corner lot to front on one street and
the detached garage to front on another. Since the garage is located in the rear half of the
lot but fronts on another street, on which street does the garage count as part of the
context? Also, since the garage door of the detached garage is close to the street, is this
counted as a forward facing garage for determining the context of the street it faces?
Initially, in determining the prevailing contextual garage determination for a particular
street, and in an attempt to increase the public's understanding of the ordinance, staff
only included those lots with lot frontage on the street in question, regardless of the
location of the garage. Staff discussed this interpretation during the meeting with the co-
chairs of the Future of Single Family Neighborhoods Advisory Group. It was the opinion
of the co-chairs that when a detached garage faces a street from a side property line, it
becomes part of the existing garage context, and should be counted as a forward-facing
garage for the purpose of determining the contextual garage placement for that street.
When staff returns to the Council with revisions to the R-1 ordinance, it will include a
recommended procedure for selecting those lots to be included in the calculation of
contextual garage placement.
Height of Front Entrance Structures
Subsection 18.04.030(65)(C)(vi) of the Municipal Code was amended to read as
follows:
"The floor area for all exterior entrance structures or towers sha!l be
counted toward the maximum allowable floor area ratio. Any portion of an
CMR:478:02 Page 4 of 7
exterior entrance or tower geater than 12 feet in height shall be counted
twice and added to the maximum allowable floor area."
This ordinance has virtually eliminated entrance towers in excess of twelve feet being
proposed on new homes in the R-1 zone district. However, there has been a small
number of applications submitted that have included entrance structures in excess of
twelve feet in height. In these circumstances, staff has had difficulty measuring and
determining what portion of the entrance structure over twelve feet in height is to be
included in the total floor area. Staff has also received comments from the public that the
Code language is difficult to understand.
To help clarify the intent of the Code to the public and increase the ease of
implementation, staff has been including the square footage of the footprint of any
entrance feature or tower over twelve feet in height in the calculation of total floor area.
This is being done in lieu of measuring just that portion of an entrance feature over
twelve feet in height. Staff discussed this measurement procedure during the meeting
with the co-chairs of the Future of Single Family Neighborhoods Advisory Group. It was
the co-chairs' opinion that their original intent was to discourage entry features over
twelve feet in height and this reduction could be achieved by counting the square footage
of the footprint twice. The co-chairs ageed with staff's technique for measuring the
square footage of entrance features or towers exceeding twelve feet in height.
When staff returns to the Council with recommended revisions to the R-1 ordinance, it
will include a recommended procedure for measuring the square footage of entrance
features or tower over twelve feet in height.
Application Costs
The application fees are $350 for an addition to an existing second story and $1,000 for a
new second story addition or new two-story home. It has been staff's experience while
processing the Single Family Individual Review applications over the past year that the
current fees are not commensurate with the amount of time that staff actually spends on
each application. Some projects have met the guidelines during the first review and
received no neighbor comments. These projects can take about six hours of staff time to
review and process. However, if an application does not conform to the Guidelines, staff
can spend many hours meeting with the applicant to assist the project to conform to the
Guidelines. When a project has neighbor controversy, staff can also spend additional time
talking on the phone to neighbors and applicants or attending meetings at the
Development Center and project sites. Projects that go through mediation or get heard by
the Director can further require additional staff time. The mediators under contract for
mediation services related to the Single Family Individual Review pro~'am billed the
City $4.012.50 for their involvement in two mediation sessions. The following table is a
breakdown of staff time spent on a Single Family Individual Review project that does not
include neighbor controversy.
CMR:478:02 Page 5 of 7
New two
story or
second story
addition
Application Fee $1000.00
Preliminary Meeting with Applicant (1 hour x $77.17)-77.17
Application Review and File Preparation (3 hours x $77.17)-154.34
Site Visit (1 hour x $77.17)-77.17
Guideline Review Meeting with Applicant (1 hour x $77.17)-77.17
Public Notice Mailing, Office Specialist (.5 hour x $62.24)-33.12
Consultant Architect Review and Meeting Attendance (3 -225.00
hours x $75.00)
Planning Arborist Review (.5 hours x $77.85) Reviewed only -38.92 -38.92
when there are tree impacts
Manager of Current Planning Review (.5 hour $89.72)-44.86 -44.86
Written correspondence with Applicant (1 hour x $77.17)-77.17 -77.17
Total Remai~ng $195.00 -$454.92
* Staff Billing Rate = Hourly Salary + Benefits (35%) + Indirect Costs (Planning Dept.
Billing Rates, Effective 7/1/01)
Addition to
an existing
second story
geater then
150 ~q. ft.
$350.00
-77.17
-154.34
-77.17
-77.17
-33.12
-225.00
Public Surveys
To assist in evaluating the Single Family Individual Progam, staff created a survey that
was mailed to a random sample of 35 of the 100 applicants that submitted Single Family
Individual Review since the inception of the progam. This survey included five
questions on issues such as the Single Family Individual Review pro~am processing
time and the clarity of the Individual Review Guidelines. The survey also contained a
separate sheet for written comments. The date for the return of these surveys was
December 2, 2002. Prior to the completion of this report, the Planning Department
received four completed surveys from the 50 mailed out. The responses are genera!ly
supportive of the prouam. Negative comments focused on neighbor participation in the
process. Copies of the completed surveys are attached as Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Single Family Individual Review public surveys
PREPARED BY:
Christopher A. Riordan, Planner
CMR:478:02 Page 6 of 7
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
gms
Director ol g and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
C/~{R:478:02 Page 7 of 7
November 19 2002
city0f.Pa]0A]to
Deparfmenf of Planning and
Communi~j Environmen~
Attachment A
Plaaning Div~ision
Dear Single Family Individual Review ApplicantJProperty Owner
Please take a moment to note your responses to the following questions. Your answers to
these questions will assist the Department of Planning and Community Environment to
evaluate the Single Family Individual Review Program and improve the process for future
applicants. The City Council will be reviewing the Single Family Individual Review pro~am
during their December 16, 2002 meeting so please return this survey by December 2, 2002.
You have been selected at random from over 95 Single Family Individual Review
applications. Because this is a random sample, your responses are very important to us.
The project processing time
met your expectations.
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Disagr.~e A~ree ~
1 2 /~3)4
2. The Single Family Individual 1 2 3
Review process was easy to
understand.
3. The implementation of the 1 (2,,/3
Single Family Individual process
resulted in a better project.
4. The Single Family Individual 1 2 3
Review process was sufficiently
explained by planning staff.
4
5,The advice provided by the city's
consulting architect was helpful.
2 4
Thank you for your time and assistance. Your help will allow us to improve the Single
Family Individual Review Progam. If there are any questions regarding this survey
please contact Chris Riordan at (650) 329-2149.
Please make every effort to return this survey by December 2nd to:
City of Palo-Alto
Planning Dept.
PO Box 10250
Palo-Alto CA 94303
Comments are welcomed on attached sheet.250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2!54 fax
Comments
November 19 2002
NOV ~ 7 2002 Department of Planning and'Communi~ Environment
~mun~ En~ron~nt
Planning Division
Dear Single Family Individual Review Applicant!Property Owner
Please take a moment to note your responses to the following questions. Your answers to
these questions wilt assist the Department of Planning and Community Environment to
evaluate the Single Family Individual Review Program and improve the process for future
applicants. The City Council will be reviewing the Single Family Individual Review program
during their December 16, 2002 meeting so please return this survey by December 2, 2002.
You have been selected at random from over 95 Single Family Individual Review
applications. Because this is a random sample, your responses are very important to us.
1. The project processing time
met your expectations.
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Disagree ~A.~ree
1 2 ~)4
2. The Single Family Individual 1 2 3 ~,,,_.,,Review process was easy to
understand.
3. The implementation of the 1 (2J 3
Single Family Individual process
resulted in a better project.
4. The Single Family Individual 1 2 3
Review process was sufficiently
explained by planning staff.
5.The advice provided by the city's 1 2
consulting architect was helpful.
4
Thank you for your time and assistance. Your help will allow us to improve the Single
Family Individual Review Progam. If there are any questions regarding this survey
please contact Chris Riordan at (650) 329-2149.
Please make ever}, effort to return this survey by December 2nd to:
City of Palo-Alto
Planning Dept.
PO Box 10250
Palo-Alto CA 94303
Comments are welcomed on attached sheet.250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Pa!o Alto, CA 94303 .
650.329.244.1
650.329.2154 fax
November 19 2002
Ci of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Communi~/E~zviromneat
Dear Sin gle Family Individual Review Applicant/Property Owner
Plus'wring Division
Please take a moment to note your responses to the following questions. Your answers to
these questions will assist the Department of Planning and Community Environment to
evaluate the Single Family Individual Review Program and improve the process for future
applicants. The City Council will be reviewing the Single Family Individual Review prodam
du~ng their December 16, 2002 meeting so please return this survey by December 2, 2002.
You have been selected at random from over 95 Single Family Individual Review
applications. Because this is a random sample, your responses are very important tO us.
1. The project processing time
met your expectations.
2.The Single Family Individual
Review process was easy to
understand.
The implementation of the
Single Family Individual process
resulted in a better project.
The Single Family Individual
Review process was sufficiently
explained by planning staff.
5.The advice provided by the city's
consulting architect was helpful..
Strongly Strongly
DiSagree Disagree ~~
1 2 4
2
4
q'~..,,,~.- ,,c.;~ +>,~- ,,,-.~,- t;~,- o,.~ .oo;o.~,,.,-,- Your help will allow us to improve themng~,~ ~;
Family Individual Review Program. If there are any questions regarding this survey
please contact Chris Riordan at (650) 329-2149.
Pleas° e make every, effort to return this survey by December 2~d to:
City of Palo-Alto
Planning Dept.
PO Box 10250
Palo-Alto CA 94303
Comments are welcomed on attached sheet.250 Hamilton Avenue
RO. Box t 0.YZ.~0
Palo A!~o, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154 fax
Comments
November 19 2002
Department of Planning and
NOV ~, 7 PO[l~ Communi~Environm~t
Planning Di~dsion
Dear Single Family Individual Review Applicant~roperty Owner
Please take a moment to note your responses to the following questions. Your answers to
these questions will assist the Department of Planning and Community Environment to
evaluate the Single Family Individual Review Program and improve the process for future
applicants. The City Council will be reviewing the Single Family Individual Review program
during their December 16, 2002 meeting so please return this survey by December 2, 2002.
You have been selected at random from over 95 Single Family Individual Review
applications. Because this is a random sample, your responses are very important to us.
1. The project processing time
met your expectations.
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Disagree ~A.~ree
1 2 3 (~')
The Single Family Individual
Review process was easy to
understand.
The implementation of the
Single Family Individual process
resulted in a better project.
4
4. The Single Family Individual 1 2 3
Review process was sufficiently
explained by planning staff,
5.The advice provided by the city's
consulting architect was helpful.
2
Thank .you for your time and assistance. Your help will allow us to improve the Single
Family Individual Review Pro~am. If there are any questions regarding this survey
please contact Chris Riordan at (650) 329-2149.
Please make every effort to return this survey by December 2nd tO:
City of Palo-Alto
Planning Dept.
PO Box 10250
Palo-Alto CA 94303
Comments are welcomed on attached sheet.250 Hamilton Avenue
gO. Box 10250
Pa!o Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154 fax
Comments