Loading...
5 - Newlands, Pop-tops and Scrape-offsTO:CENTRAL RECORDS FROM: /~'/~'~~~~.~l~L~~~~~nc~ .e~~s~z~c~ (Name/ Boa Or Comm' on) PLEASE add these items to Meeting Packet of: NBc/~i~^,~2~X~' ~S, ~Oo/ (Date of Meeting) ew an s Pop-tops and Scra e-offs p From concerned residents Laura Conley Laurie Skrederstu Joanie Origer Leonard May Deborah Yin Margie Shore Diane Dvorin and anonymous Newlands Po~~-tops and Scrape-offs • Concern about scale and character of Newlands residential construction • Development Committee of Newlands Neighbors, educate and inform, no organization represents neighborhood • Neighborhood Survey (like, change, keep, scale/character) • 1000 distributed, 12°/a response • Dislike of some residential construction • 71:17:12 frustrated/neutral/no interference • Neighbors frustrated when house/lot out of proportion or simply big, like remodel/pop tops, dislike total or near scrapes, spontaneous tools comments mixed, spec • I speak tonight for several residents concerned with construction trend and change in character of neighborhood (living in a fishbowl, green space, fresh air and sun light) • Cost to build ($150/sqft) vs. selling price ($300+ sq/ft) • Average sq ft of homes sold up 31 % since 1997, largest homes much bigger • Photos documenting before mid-90's, scaled remodel on typical lot, scaled remodels on larger lots, large scale but harmonizing features, homes not to scale Photo Description FAR Original FAR 1,2 Newlands in mid 90's ,1 _,2 3 Smaller remodel on typical lot ,24 4 Lazger project on larger lot ,29 $ Larger project on larger lot ,2E ( Larger project on larger lot ,31 '7 High FAR, harmonizing features (2"a floor set back, roofline, orch) ,3'7 g High FAR, harmonizing features (roofline, walls, porches, detached ara e, windows, ) .46 g High FAR, not to scale (imposes on house in fore round) .43 10, 11 High FAR, not to scale .44 .14 12 High FAR, not to scale .46 13 High FAR, not to scale .51 14 High FAR, not to scale ,55 15 High FAR, not to scale .56 .13 • Please place pop-tops and scrapes on the 2002 work program • Other communities, such as Palo Alto, CA have flexible and effective strategies that can provide models • Our group of concerned residents intends to continue to inform the planning board about changes rapidly occurring in Newlands NEWLANDS NEIGHBORS: WHAT DO YOU THINK? The Newlands Neighbors Community Development Committee has been formed to foster discussion on the changing appeazance of the neighborhood. Please take a few minutes to respond to tlris neighborhood questionnaire and share your thoughts. Thank you! 1. What do you valne about the Newlands Neighborhood? (Alpine to Iris and Broadway to 3`a) 2. Do you feel that the neighborhood has changed since you have lived here, and if so, how7 3. What characteristics of the neighborhood would you like to keep7 4. Looking toward the future, describe any concerns you may have about the scale of the buildings and/or the character of the neighborhood. Please fold this sheet in half, seal it, and mail to Newlands Neighbors Development Committee, 2770 7`~ Street, Boalder, CO 80304, or place it in the drop box at the same addrass. Preliminary results from these questions will be announced at the November 12'~' neighborhood meeting. DUE ON OR BEFORE: October 29, 2001. Optional: Name: Address: Telephone: Email: (Please use this space for additional comments, or attach a second sheet to t}us questionnaire.) Newlands Neighbors Development Committee 2770 7~' Street Boulder, CO 80304 ^ Newlands Neighbors Development Committee 2770 7~' Street Boulder, CO 80304 180 I50 ACCESS T QUALITY SCHOOLS ACCESS BUS 120 NEAR SENSE OF SAFETY 90 SENSE OF FAMILY 8 COMMUNI YSMALL HOMES, ACCESS T LARGER SHOPS YARDS 60 AND ~OTS OF REMODELE~ FAMILIES HOMES QUIET AND PEACEFUL ACCESS T MIX OF PARK AND AGES SANITAS VARIETYOf LOW HOMES TRAFFIC 30 MATURE TREES PEOPLE, BIKE FRIENDLY FRIENDLY NEIGHBOR SOCIAL EVENTS ALLEYS ECO-PASS LOCATION HOMES AND PEDS/BIKES NO OR YARDS VS CARS COVENANTS NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER NEIGHBORS ACTIVITIES SUMMARY OF LIKES OF NEWLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD 11-12-01 REMODELS POPTOPS SPEC HOMES CONSTRUC NOISE AND TRAFPIC 90 SCRAPES OR ONE WALL LEFT 60 VERY LARGE HOMES 30 iRAFFIC, SPEEDING CARS RENTALS HOMES PHYSICAL UNPLEASANT UNLEASH MAINTENANCE NEIGHBORS DOGS TRAFFIC COST OF INTERFERENCE HOUSING BY ORGANIZATIONS SUMMARY OF DISLIKES OF NEWLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD i ~-i2-o~ Views on Home Construction % go ~o 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Frustrated with Scale of Construction Projects Happy with Projects ~ Opposed to Interference VERY LARGE HOMES HOME SCRAPE OFFS POP TOPS, REMODELS (AND THOSE ON SMALL LOTS) LIKES DISLIKES DON'T CARE LIKES DISLIKES DON'T CARE SPEC HOMES io LIKES DISLIKES DON'T CARE io LIKES DISLIKES DON'T CARE TOOLS io SUPPORT OPPOSED SCALE OF BUILDINGS AND/OR CHARACTER OF THE NEWLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD i i-i2-o~ Newlands Homes Sold 5~0~ 4500 4000 3500 Total 3000 Sq Ft 2500 (incl bsmt) 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1997 (30) 1998 (44) 1999 (39) ~ ~ number of homes 2000 (35) ^ standard deviation ~ 2001 (31) ~ largest home z F s - Z ~ •I . I~I~w 1 o~r•as ~ w•~d q~L~'~ 3 ~A1~ .Z~ S~nno,l~~¢x~ r~rr.od~.i on ~ p~'ca1 Icr1- ~ ~~C~i ,2~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~.J F'~q~a, ~3 ~ 8 ~ ;~ ,~ ,. ~ ~p~~ , ~}co ~~cs, ro~Fu'r~ ~ ?.r~d ~l~oor Sa~Noac~. l~.~un t~ows , l~Its, da~l-o~che-d ~,ur*-'3~ ~ ~P~ p, ,3~- 1 v.; ~~ ,i `~ ~ ~, ~ ~. I~ ~~~ ,~~ ~2 13 ~;,; ~~~ ~ s ~~~ • ~`F+ ~~ •~~ '~ 15 ~.Pr (~ , sCo ~ ~ ~ ~`n V' v From Ranch House to Cottage In Palo Alto, a remodeled house strives for the architectural sweet spot between frugal and unaffordable BYLANCEJOHNSON ur design/build firm does most of its work in [he part of northern California known as the mid- peninsula. This area is south of San Francis- co, where the high-tech explosion has heaped much prospezity and, along with it, a building boom of awesome proportions. Unfortunately, the boom is the architectural equivalent of woodland clearcutting. Older homes have been razed, their lots stripped to bare earth, and bloated new houses have risen in their place. Not surprisingly, local residents no longer view kindly the prospect of new construction in their neighborhoods. Instead, it has come to foreshadow a threat to their quality of li£e. The outery of neighborhood associations, in a backlash against what has come to be known as mansionizing, has been deafening. As a result, planning departments have been charged with the task of enforcing a kind of architectural conscience. Building officials now regulate lot-coverage ra[ios, structural massing, even architectural style. Within this tense environment, designers and builders must heed multiple masters. We must respect the ambidons of the dients, the building department, the planners and now the neighborhood associations. Our role is part designer, part builder and part spin doc- tor. Against this backdrop, our remodeling story begins. Let's do it once, do it well, do it never again With nvo small children and another in the wings, Jay and Laura Furlong found them- selves in a rapidly shrinking house. It was on a corner lot, two blocks from thc local high school, in a neighborhood ofyoung families (photo below). Balls, hoops, strollers, bikes and scooters abound. The location suited them. Most of the houses occupy smallish lots sited close to the street. The home styles 78 FINEHOME6UILDWG P6otolekthlapage:isncelohneon The not-so-ran ranch 6urg~r. This '4Qs ranch house was in the right neighborhood, but nat quite large enough for a growing family. Photo Yaken at A on floor plan. ,.%"''~`... ~ ~ , ~~~_ ~ -+~ + \\ . . . .`:"~. ~\ ~ THE LfGHT-PLANE ENVELOPE City planners in Palo Alto, Califomia, use a concept ca~Ied the light-plane envelope to determine the maximum size of a proposed house. The house must fit within an imaginary enclosure that springs from the side-yard property lines and the front and rear setback lines. This CAD image, drewn by the author, was used to explain the project to town officials. ~ Imaginary lines rise verticalty for 10 ft. ~~ ~ from the side-yard property lines, ' then angle upward at 45° to a height of ~ 30 ft. Architectural features may project outside the envelope if they ~ ~- - don't exceed a certain size. ~ ~.,,.c^s~ Property n, o`~~''., .. Gable end penetretes envelope. ~ 80 FINB}{OM&BUA.PING are diverse and are one or [wo stories tall. The Furlong house, like its neighUors, was buik in the '40s, with a low-pitch roof and a California ranch profile. The Furlongs needcd to expand their two- bedroom home by at least one additional bedroom-two would be even better. But in doing so, they diddt want to engulf the backyazd. Furthermore, Jay and Laura wan[- ed the project to give the house some charac- ter without overwhelming or detraccing from their neighborhood. The house was already against the setback lines, so new construction wnuld need to be centered toward the core of the lot. Because saving the backyard was a high priority and because zoning law ruled that tha house al- ready covered about as much of the lot as al- lowed, wc had our work cut out for us. Pushed by the wish lisc and constcained by zoning limits, I spun o£f a series of plans. To keep the budget down, we looked at various single-story solu[ions and the spaces they might contain. We axamined expanded ranches, cathedral ceilings, Dutch hips and hybrid gables. Each one-story scheme yield- ed an attractive great room for the center of the house, but no additional bedrooms. There was nowhere to go but up, so the Furlongs raised both the Financial cciling for the project as wrll as the ridgeline to enable a second story. And as they did, a shap= emerged that Laura, Jay and their girl instantly recognized as their new hom- (photo p. 79). Throughout this crucial embtyonic stage in the project, the Furlongs beat a familir- drum: We want to do this right the first tim= and be done with it. Pushing the'light-plane envelope' The city of Palu Alto eacerts control over thc size of houses with a concept called a"]ight- plane envelope." In a nutshell, the enveloj~r draws an imaginary bubble over the lot 30 f high defining the boundaries of the hous= The goai is to preserve everybody's share c?' sunli~ht and views, and the system has son give and take. If a portion of the house prc trudes beyond the bubble in one place, it h~R to pull back in another place. At the outset, we had a couple of hurdles to overcome. We were sure to violate the stree= side setbacks with even a modest extensie of the mascer hedroom. That would requirc - special appeal to the planning boazd. Stru turally, the new second story would need to be supported by a building not currendy d.-- si~ned to handle the forces and loads inht - ent in a two-srory structure. Orewing Ihlx puge; I.enw I ohn>-:.. Up~l~in 6~drooms 6o~se window s~~ts. Bringing the skylights closer to the eaves po- . sitioned them where they can serve as roofs for window seats carved into the unused at- tic space. Photo taken at B on floor plan. GREAT tDEA: fREE SPACE Here in tfie densety populated eay Area, the towns have tough zoning Iaws. lf you've maxxed out the lot coverage, chances are good that you won't be abie to gain any more tloor space hy humping out a wall. But in And aesthctically, the new roofline some- how would need to complement the lines of the homc's existing street-sidc hip roofs, which we couldn't alter, while fitting within the mandatcd ]ight-plane envelope. Using my CAD program, VectorWorks' Architect module (Nemetschek; SSS-646- 4223), I massaged the form of'the structure just to kiss the ]imits of the city's light-plane envelope (drawing facing page). The criteria guiding the design were as follows: • The area of the proposed second floor having 5-ft. or greater headroom (the crite- ria for usable living spacc) could equal but not exceed 520 sq. ft. • Thc gable-end penct~ation of the light planc equaled 15 ft. or less (to meet the def- inition of an acceptablc architectural feature). • Bccause of the gablc-end penetration, the ridge height would bc limited to 24 ft. Afrer many hours of 3-D modeling, an op- timum form for the structure grudgingly emerged on my computer monitor. We had liftof£. Our street-side setback issues for the masterbedroom extension were settled with a type of mini-variance process known local- ly as a home-improvement exception. This variance involves a public hearing, but the process is fast-tracked, which around here means 2'/, months. Knowing this exercise is many of these same jurisdictions, bays . thai do not add ftoor area and that extend 2 ft: or Iess beyond the exteri- or watl plane are exempted from square-footage calcutations: 7hus, sit- ting bays offer expansion possibilities for zoning-tight projects. For example, the Furtong daughters fiave a ground-floor ptay area off the family/dining room (photo right}. The ptay area's sitting bay, with its wash of natural light, amounts to a major ex- pansion in both feel and f~nctiorr. The bay is 2 ft. deep by 5 ft. wide. lt is supported byangled brackets off the watt, which we wrapped in an enve- ~ope of stucco-coated ogee-shaped architectural faam (photo lekj: -L.l. equal parts architecture and public relations, I prepared several renderings for Laura to presen[ to her neighbors to ease any man- sionizing fears and to generate a bit of posi- tive neighborhood spin. Meanwhile, I met with the planning folks, making certain that the spirit of our propos- al was aligned with their goals. A happy by- product of these early meetings was their of- fer to look favorably on a front porch, even though it would overextend our basic lot- coverage ratio. In this manner, Palo Alto's planners suggested what I count as one of the best features of this home: its £ront porch. Our application was approved with no•dissenting opinion. The reconfigured house keeps the down- stairs spaces in their original locations, but they've grown to meet the needs of a larger family (floor plans, p. 82). An expanded kitchen overlooks the dining and sitting area in the great room (photo p. 83). Upstairs, nvo new bedrooms and a bath provide the needed spacesthatlaunched the projectin the £irst place (photo facing page). Upstairs bedrooms perch on enormous beams Concurrent with this planning effort, the engineer and I were studying ways of sup- porting the new second story without turn- ing the downstairs into a maze of posts and bearing walls. We settled on a pair of 35-fr. 5'/e-in. by 25'/:-in. glulam beams that weigh close to 1'/x tons cach. The beams arc buried in the family/dining-room ceiling, under the north/south walls of the addition. No foot- ing or bearing wall in the existing house could carry the load of these beams, so we beefed up thc original foundation in strate- gic places and poured new footings in others to form a solid structural base. This work alone swallowcd 16 cu. yd. of concrete under the old structure. In addition to the foundation work, we needed to strengthen the frame of the old house. We stripped it down to its underwear and resheathed all the exterior walls with plywood. Our beams were brought to the site and ~ingerlywinched into place. Finally, the new roof was raised above the old wall pla[es, and walls were set between the new raftcrs and the beams. 7he curse of the design/buitd approach To me, being able to refine a project in mid- stream is one of the real advantages to work- ing with a company responsible for both de- sign and construction. But against the SP2ING/SUMMLR 2001 81 Windew uata ~xpand a Iiltlt roem. AI- coves such as this one with throw wshions ~~ and lowered ceilings are~sanctuary to the ~ reader, dreamer and sunbathing cat in aU of us. Photo taken at,D on floor plan. Som~limu you ean build in eh~ web~~k. This 2-fe. deep bay window was approved by the building department beeause it . doesn't count as floor space. Photo taken at C on floor plan. . ~~ EXPANDING A RANCH HOUSE FOR A GROWING FAMILY With only two bedrooms and a smail lot, this house needed to grow vertically to gain two necessary bedrooms. While they were at it, the owners decided to enfarge the kitchen to include a built- in seating alcove and to squeeze a playroom into the space formerly occupied by the bath. 8~droomt: 4 Bsthrooms: 3 Sis~: 2395 sq, ft. Cost: 5192 per sq. ft. Complal~ds 2000 Loestion: Palo Alto, California Dasign~r: Lance lohnson Buildar: Alden House ~ ~ Photos taken at North ~ettered positions. Master - .'~~~... ~- -. - : ~ bedroom Covered patio ~ ., ... . ..........--n-.`_...........~...... ----- FamilY Dining i`~ room room '0 0 ~ O Bedroom ~ ~~~ W ,D ~~ fntry i i ._......... ....._ _.__ ~~ ~ ~ 0 2 4 8 k. Original floor plan often-tantalizing beneFits promised by mid- stream changes, I try to weigh the msts care- fully: the hit to my client's budget, the im- pact on my current and downstream construction schedules and, not incidentally, the impact on the crew's morale. That said, I must admit that several oppor- tunities for improvements to this project emergad as we went along. For example, we decided to detail the two-story gable end (photo p. 79) with a combination porch roof and bay window. This improvement gave much-needed relie£ro what would have been an unbroken expanse of stucco. When it came time to choose a roof, the Furlongs opted £or one that would last a lifetime: a mix of Spanish and Chinese slate. Doing so meant upgr~ding the flashing material from galvanized steel to coppec. Tnside, the heating system was changed £rom forced-air heat to radiant floors, with a Master Blue tint bedraom indicates area of second-story Firtt floor addition. O O Famfly Dining ~~ room room Playroom .fDUP ~'~ u - 0 ~ ^ ~ C~ /~ Kitchen RE Bedroom ~i-~~~~~~~ ^ ~ ~ Entry I Remodelad floer plan R A new water heater providing both the domes- tic water and the space heat. The floors were changad from oak to cherxy. In each case, these changes were made before any of the plumbing was installed or any of the flooring was nailed down. I doubt that the project would have been as successf"ul if these changes had no[ been explored and imple- mcn[ed. And I'm also sure I'll regret having said that. The math, and the aftermath The house started out at 1300 sq, ft., and we increased it to 2395 sq. fr. The house is still modest in size, but large enough to accom- modate this young family until their daugh- ters are through their high-school years. In somc cases, we laid claim ro small amounts of space that had an outsize ef£ect on the surrounding rooms. The skylighc bays upstairs are one example (photo p. SO). And the sitting alcove in the downstairs playroom shows how even a small bump-our can affect the perceived floor space ("Great Tdea;' pho- tos, p. 81). A monrh or so after the project was com- pleted, the Furlongs were hosts of a lavish block party to celebrate their new home and to recognize the considerable patience and support that their neighborhood had shown. Amid a catered lunch and an inflated fun house, the neighbors tzickled into and out of the Furlongs' new home. Lurking on the edge of the group, I could hear the accolades and praise that a new home often elicics. But there was another frequent comment from xhc Furlongs' neighbors that I value even more: "Thanks." ^ Lance Johnson is a principal with Alden House, a design/build firm based in San Mateo, CaliforNa. Photos by Chzrles Miller, except where noted. 82 FWF. FIOMEBl1ILDING Floorvplendrewirigs:ROnGrbanl .. _ Secondfloor ~ } A' ~ L'~ :4 2 ~ ~ . apYi~ ,.t.,>"? ~° ~,r . . . ~ ~ ~ .''l. ' r,.' .",•. . . _' ., s City of Palo ALto - Single Family Review - Guidelines DRAFT SINGLE FAMILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES CITY OF PALO ALTO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION PAGE A. Intent of the Guidelines B. Expectations C. Definitions and Policy Statements D. Applicability E. Overview of the Single Family Individual Review Guidelines F. Individual Review Proces G. Individual Review Decision and Appeal Process II. GOOD NEIGHBOR CONSIDERATIONS A. Privacy 1. Windows 2. Balconies and Decks B. Mass and Scale 1. Mass and Scale 2. Sunlight Orientation 3. Roofs 4. Special Considerations for Second Story Additions a. Mass and Scale b. Window Composition c. Roofs III. NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERNS A. Streetscape Page 1 of ~ http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/sfr/guidelines.html 11 / 15;" Home - Departments 1 Planning_&.Community.,.~nvironm.en[ Y Planning h Single„Famlly.Review City of Palo ALto - Single Famiiy Review - Guidelines Page 2 of 1 1. Setbacks 2. Entryways and Porches 3. Garages APPENDIX 1. Giossary I.INTRODUCTION A. INTENT OF THE GUIDELINES The goal of the Single Family Individual Review Guidelines is to ensure that new and remodeled two-story homes respect their neighbors both functionaily and aesthetically. The Guidelines and associated changes to the R-1 Single Family zone districts were developed after extensive discussion by the "FUture of Single Family Neighborhoods Advisory Group". Three fundamental issues were identified by the Advisory Group and form the core of the guidelines: privacy, massing and scale, and streetscape. A definition and policy statement for these core issues follows this introduction to the Single Family Individual Review Guidelines (see Section C). The Guidelines are intended to help maintain the unique quality of Palo Alto neighborhoods by providing guidance for the sensitive treatment of privacy, massing and streetscape issues. The second-story threshold (see Applicability Section D) is not meant to discourege two-story homes. It is, rather, an acknowledgement that two story houses have the greatest potential to significantly affect the privacy of adjacent homeowners and the perceived sense of neighborhood scale. The Guidelines are not intended to prescribe a specific architectural style or design program. Within Palo Alto neighborhoods, there are many diverse styles and each residentiallot presents a unique situation. The 9uidelines acknowledge that change occurs, and that individual homeowners should have the flexibility to build, expand or remodel to meet their own needs and objectives. However, such change should respect the adjacent homeowners and surrounding neighborhood context. B. EXPECTATIONS A new two-story house is expected to meet the community guidelines, or articulate why the standard does not apply in a particular situation and provide an alternative solution that addresses the intent of the guidelines. New second story additions or additions greater than 150 square feet to existing second stories will be reviewed in the context of the magnitude of the proposed changes. As an example, the guidelines relating to privacy considerations would typically be the primary focus of review for an addition to an existing second story. Overall the guidelines do not prescribe a specific architectural style or design program. Guidelines for new second story additions do, however, encourage sensitivity to the existing style of the house, existing window patterns and roof forms. http://www. city.palo-alto.ca.us/sfr/guidelines.html 11 / 15/0 City of Palo ALto - Single Family Review - Guidelines C. DEFINTIONS AND POLICY STATEMENTS PRIVACY: Definition: A reasonable expectation that personal activities conducted within one's home will not be subject to casual or involuntary observation by others. Policy Statements: 1. Provide a reasonable level of privacy on each single-family lot by reducing the opportunities for individuals to be casually observed by others when engaging in activities within or immediately around one's home (see text of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element - Goal L-3 in the Land Use). 2. Acknowledge that complete or absolute privacy is not a realistic expectation. 3. New construction should recognize the pre-existing privacy situation. MASSING: Definition: The sense of bulk, size, and shape of a structure, usually perceived by reference to the surrounding space and nearby structures and natural features such as trees. Policy Statements: 1. Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale (Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element - Policy L-5). 2. Provide a coherent sense of scale that addresses the relationship of various parts of the environment to each other, to people, and the limits of perception (see text of Land Use and Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan - Policy L-5). STREETSCAPE: befinition: The overall impression made by the design, arrangement, and relationship to other structures, landscaping and open space on a block or in a neighborhood. Policy Statements: 1. Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures (Land Use and Community Design Element - Policy L-SZ). 2. Provide pedestrian-oriented features on residences that enliven the street (adaptation of Program L-11 of the Land Use and Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan). D. APPLICABILZTY The thresholds for Individual Review are the following: New two-story house. New second story addition on an existing one story house. Expansion of an existing second story that exceeds 150 square feet. E. OVERVIEW OF THE SINGLE FAMSLY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES Page 3 of http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/sfr/guidelines.html 1 I / 15/0 City of Palo ALto - Single Family Review - Guidelines Page 4 of E All new house construction must conform to the requirements of the R-1 Zoning Ordinance Regulations (Chapter i8.i2 of the PAMC). The R-1 Zoning Guidebook provides an illustreted summary of the regulations. The Single Family Individual Review Guidelines presented below are intended to go beyond the basic requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and, in greater detail, address issues specifically related to the relationship to adjacent properties and neighborhood patterns. Who should use the guidelines? • Homeowners • Builders, architects and other design professionals • Neighborhood residents • City staff Use of the !llustrations in the Individual Review Design Guidelines • The illustrations provided in the guidelines are schematic and intended to graphically show the intent of the Guidelines. . The illustrations are not intended to dictate a particular architectural style or design progrem. (Please note that illustrations used fo~ the final document will include examples of contemporary homes.) F. INDIVIDUAL REVIEW PROCESS What Are the Steps? 1. Preliminary meeting with Planning staff: Prior to application you should discuss your project with the City's planning staff, They will answer questions about zoning regulations and the review process and explain submittal requirements. Also, staff strongly recommends discussing your plans in advance with your neighbors. 2. Application for Individual Review Process . Application will include checklist and "storyboard" with pictures of the three adjacent properties on the right, left and across the street. • Notice to "invite comments" mailed to adjacent property owners and site "posted" within 3 days. • Plans available at Development Center for review. • Comment period is 10 days. 3. Staff Review • Staff will have conducted R-1 "plan check", staff and architect(s) will have reviewed neighbors' comments. • Assessment based on "Individual Review Guidelines". • Typically, this consuitation would occur within 12 days of application. • Tentative Director's Decision (approval, approval with conditions, or denial) sent to applicant, adjacent neighbors and those requesting notification. • If no optionai request for Director's Hearing (see below), the recommendation is final on the llth day aRer it is mailed. 4. Optional Director's Hearing . Notice of Director's Hearing mailed and site "posted". . Hearing can be requested by applicant, adjacent neighbor. http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/sfrlguidelines.html 11 /15/0 City of Palo ALto - Single Family Review - Guidelines • The hearing is focused on zoning issues, the "Individual Review Guidelines" and associated checklist. . Final Director's decision, following hearing, sent to applicant, adjacent neighbors and those requesting notification. 5. "Call-Up" Appeal • An appeal must be filed within 10 days of mailing of Director's decision. • An appea! will only be heard if four members of the City Council "call-up" (i.e., agree to conduct a hearing). 6. How long will it take? Without optional hearing, decision within approximately 32 - 37 days. With optional hearing, decision within approximately 47 - 52 days (end of appeal period). With an appeal, the timeline will depend on the time for the "call-up" procedure and City Council agenda availability. II. GOOD NEIGHBOR CONSIDERATIONS A. PRIVACY The guidelines expect sensitivity to privacy issues for both the proposed house and adjacent neighbors. The placement of second story windows and balconies are particularly important aspects of privacy considerations. 1. WINDOWS Guideline #1: Second story window placement that respects privacy between properties is expected. Privacy from second floor windows may be maximized by employin9 one or more of the following techniques: a. Offset or stagger windows facing neighbor's windows. b. Use clerestory windows or locate the windows high enough to lessen the impact. c. Use obscure glass. d. Use landscaping to provide a buffer between properties. 2. BALCONIES AND DECKS Guideline #2: If there are second story balconies or decks, they are expected to be designed and located to mitigate the loss of privacy for neighboring properties. Providing privacy from balconies and decks may be maximized by employing one or more of the following techniques: a. Screen second story balconies and decks from neighboring property by incorporating architectural elements such as enclosing walls. b. Locate second sCory balconies and decks so there are no direct sight lines from the deck to the neighbor's main windows or patio areas. c. Incorporate screening devices such as trellises or awnings to increase privacy. Page 5 of f http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/sfr/guidelines.html 11/15/O] City of Palo ALto - Single Family Review - Guidelines Pa$e 6 of 8 8. MASS AND SCALE The overall massing of new houses and second story additions should be compatible with the adjacent houses and the predominant neighborhood scale. On streets where single story houses or small two story houses are the predominant block pattern, a new two-story house or second story addition may require some special attention to reduce the massing and perceived sense of bulk. 1. MASS AND SCALE: Guideline #3: A new house or new second story addition that is sensitive to the predominate neighborhood sca/e is expected. Reducing massing bulk may be achieved by employing one or more of the following techniques: a. Reduce the apparent size of a two-story building by incorporating dormer windows and lowering the height of the second-story roof. b. Divide the building mass by the use of smaller building elemertts. c. Set the second story back from the front of the house. d. Place second story mass toward the center of the property. Guideline #4: A new house or second story addition that is sensitive to the prevailing neighbo~hood height pattern and particula~ly the height of adjacent houses is encoureged. Blending the height of a new house or second story addition with neighboring houses may be achieved by employing one of the following techniques: a. Incorporating a height that is consistent with the neighborhood patterns. b. Reduce plate heights of second story walls by "clipping" ceilings to allow typical ceiling height without increasing plate height. Guideline #5: Front facades that provide visual interest, a sense of human sca/e and visual focal points that complement the overall design and enhance the residential scale are encouraged. Enhancing residential scale and proportion may be achieved by employing the following technique: a. Incorporate streetscape elements, such as entry forms and bay windows, chimneys, garden walis, and similar architectural elements to create visual interest. 2. SUNLIGHT ORIENTATION: Guideline #6: A new house or second story addition that respects the solar orientation of the adjacent neighbors' houses and yards is encouraged. Sensitivity to solar orientation may be achieved by employing the following technique: a. Locate taller sections of building where they minimize sunlight obstructions to adjacent houses. 3. ROOFS: Roof forms can contribute significantly to the sense of a building's mass and perceived bulk. The primary roof form should relate to the massing of the house. Secondary roof forms should be http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/sfr/guidelines.html 1 I /15/O1 City of Palo ALto - Single Family Review - Guidelines included to identify important components of the house. Guideline #7: A new house that incorporates a ~oof form(s) that effectively manages the house's scale and proportions is expected. The roof design can effectively manage the house's scale and proportion by employing one or more of the following techniques: a. Incorporate a consistent roof slope throughout. b. Articulate the roof into primary and secondary roof forms. c. Roof slopes and materials should be consistent with the building style. 4. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR SECOND STORY ADDITIONS Second story additions should consider how the addition relates mass and scale, windows and roof forms to the existing house. The addition should blend with the existing parts of the house and not appear as if it were "tacked on." a. Mass and Scale Guideline Y~B: A second story addition that balances the overall form, mass and composition of the existing building is expected. b. Window Composition Guideline ~9: A second story addition with carefully composed window location, pattern, proportion and shape is expected. c. Roofs Guideline #30; Roof form(s) that match or complement the existing are encouraged. III. NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERNS The intent of this section is promote a neighborhood pattern based on the community desire to preserve a sense of massing, scale and spatial openness within neighborhoods. The neighborhood patterns are defined by existing setbacks, heights, entryways and porches, garages, roofs and field of view. A.Streetscape 1. SETBACKS: Guideline #11: A new two-story house or second story addition that respects the setback pattern of the neigh6oring houses is expected. Blending the setbacks of a new house may be achieved by employing the following technique: a. Incorporate side setbacks for new construction and second story additions that are consistent with the neighborhood patterns. Guideline #12: A new house or second story addition that is in scale with its site is expected. (Text yet to be included) 2. ENTRYWAYS AMD PORCHES: Page 7 of f http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/sfr/guidelines.html I 1/ 15/O 1 City of Palo ALto - Single Family Review - Guidelines Pa~e 8 of 8 In general, entryways and front porches are desirable elements . In a neighborhood with front porches, it is prefereble to build a house with a front porch. In a neighborhood, such as an Eichler tract, where there are no front porches, a front porch can be disruptive to the neighborhood pattern. Guideline # 13: A new house that integrates the entry design into the overall building design and is well related to the surrounding properties in terms of scale and proportion is encou~aged. Integrating the entry design into the overall building design may be achieved by employing the following technique: a.Incorporating pedestrian scaled entryway features. 3. GARAGES: Garage patterns are an important component in defining the character of a house and the street. Palo Alto has many examples of garage locations which include front attached garages, attached and detached rear garages. When garages are added or relocated as part of an addition, the final location and configuration is an important consideration. In general, the garage additions and relocations should respect the neighborhood pattern. Guideline #14: Garages and driveways that are located to mitigate their visual impact on the street and to be subordinate to the house, landscape and pedestrian entrance are encouraged. Integrating the garage into the surrounding context may be achieved by employing one or more of the following techniques: a. New garages should follow the setback and location of neighboring houses. b. Incorporate garage doors that are compatible with the architectural style of the house and/or contribute to the house's aesthetic character. c. If a new or expanded attached three-car garage is proposed, it is a good idea to either turn the garage sideways to the street, configure it as two tandem spaces and one single space, or split and offset as two distinct garages, a two car garage and a one car garage. GLOSSARY The terms to be included and correlation to existing ordinance definitions is still underreview Examples: Storyboard, Adjacent (as used for the purpose of public notice), "Call-up" appeal, etc. Copyright o0 2001, City of Palo Alto. Please read our Acceptable„Use Policy. This page was last revlewed: October 30, 2001 http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/sfr/guidelines.html 11/15/O1 Cit~ of Palo ALto - Single Family Review - Overview Page 1 of : R-1 Horpe , New k-1 Re ~~ OVERVIEW Che list ordinancechanaes OF THE CHANGES TO THE R-1 SWGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE DISTRICT AND Guidelines ADOPTION OF A DISCRETIONARY SINGLE ~~~"+~1~~~6~i~1 FAMILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW PROCESS ~~ ~ I i <,~w , ,~;~. ~ _ ..~,.sm ,i~ ~ ,' ~ • ~ • ' ~' G~u~9~~ .' ''~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ i I ' Search: ~._,,,,,,,~.r' III~ Advanced Browse By Topic ~':~ iii~ Home - Departments ~ Plamm~g,&,Community_Enwronment - Planning w Single Famlly Review On August 6, 2001, the Palo Alto City Council approved an Individual Review Process for single family homes and a number of amendments to the definitions and regulations of Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance). Discretionary review based on adopted Individual Review Guidelines will be required for all new two-story homes, new second story additions, and additions to an existing second story greater than 150 square feet. The effective date for the program is November 19, 2001. On September 19, new Individual Review Process fees of $1,000 for a new two-story home and second story addition or $350 for expansion of an existing second story were established by the City Council. As well, the Council approved a number of revisions to the R-1 Single Family Zone District definitions and regulations, These changes are applicable to both one and two-story single family homes. One of the most significant of these revisions is the ability to exceed existing lot coverage requirements to allow full Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for a single story home. Other ch~nges to the R-1 Zone District include amendments to the definltion of FAR, daylight plane, parking surtaces, height and grade definitions including the calculation of maximum height in a Special Flood Hazard Area, contextual front setback, and new regulations related to contextual garage placement, restrictions on projections into the side yard, outdoor lighting, and a permeable surface standard for the front yard setback area. Material on this Website includes a summary of the ordinance changes, copies of the ordinances amending the R-1 Single Family Zone District definitions and regulations and establishing the Individual Review Process. A copy of the draft Guidelines is also appended. The draft Guidelines include several helpful sections including program intent and an outline of the process. While no significant changes to the Guidelines are anticipated, formatting, editing, and appropriate illustrations prior to publication of the final Guidelines are currently being prepared and will be scheduled for Planning and Trensportation Commission review in October. Updated material will be added to thls we6site, as available, so you may want to check back regularly. It is particularly important during this transition phase for anyone planning a new two-story single family home, second story addition or expansion of an existing second story to contact Planning staff at the Development Center at (650-617-3118) to discuss how your project may be affected. Specific questions regarding the proposed process, implementation timelines, and the Guidelines should be directed to Christopher Riordan, Planner at 650-329-2149, Russ Reich, Associate Planner at 650-617-3137 or Joan Taylor, Planning Manager at 650-329-2170. htCp://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/sfr/ 11 /I S/( City of Palo ALto - Single Family Review - Checklist DRAFT SINGLE FAMILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW CHECKLIST This checklist is meant to help homeowners, builders, architects, design professionals and nei9hborhood residents to apply the Single Family Individual Review Guidelines to the particular project and neighborhood. Individual Review is required only for new two-story houses, new second stories and expansion of existing second stories that exceeds 150 square feet. For the applicant, working through the checklist items will help you to explore important design considerations as you prepare your project for submittal for Individual Review. It is very important that you also review the Palo Alto Zoning Guidebook for the R-1 Property Owner and Builder, also available at the Development Center. PRO]ECT INFORMATION ApplicanYs name: . _.. _..i Project address: __ Scope of Project: f- New House r 2nd Story Addition r 2nd Story Addition over 150 SF Is your house on a corner lot? r Yes r No Is your house in the flood plain? r Yes r No Which way is North? ~ Left r Right I- Front r Rear r Left-rear r Right-rear r Left- front ~ Right-front Project Neighborhood r Barron Park r fair Meadow r Midtown I~ Seale Addition ~ Boyce Addition r Garland r Miranda Green r So. Green Gables I! Charleston Terrace 1- Green Acres I I~ Monroe Park C~ Southgate r College Terrace r Green Acres II r! North Green Gables ~University Park I- i Community Center ~- Green Meadow rl Oak Creek ~: Ventura r Crescent Park r! Greer Park r Old South Palo Alto ~' Walnut Grove ~' DeAnza r' Hoover Park ~ Ortega -~ r West Bayshore r powntown North r Industrial Park r Palo Alto Hills I- West Charleston ~~ ~ ~~ Page 1 of 4 http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/sfr/checklist.html 11 /15/0 ] Home - Departments > Planning &.,,Community._Environment> Planning - Single Family keyiew City of Palo ALto - Single Family Review - Checklist I I~ EI Carmello II I- Leland Manor II r Palo Verde II r Other I I- Evergreen Park r Los Arboles I- Professorvllle PRIVACY: SECOND-STORY WINDOW PLACEMENT 1. How will second-story windows be placed to respect privacy between propertiesT , r Offsetting or staggering the windows facing neighbor's windows r The use of clerestory windows or locating the windows high enough to lessen the impact I- The use oftranslucent glass r Othertechnique (please explain) 2. How will second-story balconies or decks be located to minimize the loss of privace for neighboring properties7 ~ Incorporation enclosing walls or similar achitectural features in the deck design 1- Pulling deck location away from side property lines r Locate the balcony to eliminate direct site lines to neighbor's windows or atios I- Screening devices such as trellises or awnings r Othertechnique (please explain) 3. How will the privacy loss effects of balcaonies be mitigated? r pormer windows r Lowering the height of the second-story roof ly Dividing up the mass by the use of smaller building elements 1- Setback the second-story from the front of the house r Other technique (please explain) A. Mass and Scale 4. If a two-story house next to a one-story house is proposed, how is this transition managed? r One story wing on adjacent side r Second floor contained in roof (livable attic with dormers) li Expanded side yard setback with landscaping I~ Other(please explain) Page 2 of ~ http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/sfr/checklist.html 11 /15/0 City of Palo ALto - Single Family Review - Checklist ~ ~ 5. How is the massing of your proposed home related to the streetscape? r Primary volume is the same scale as neighborhood ~ Second floor is contained within the roof volume r Primary volume is divided/articulated with secondary volumes r Large volumes are screened by smaller volumes, walls, fences, etc. r Large volumes are set further back from the street r Other(please explain) 6. How will you mitigate the massing of your second story? I! Articulation r Increased setback r Change of materials 1- Landscaping r Other(please explain) C. Solar Orientation 7. Will the proposed residence or additian significantly reduse adjacent neighbors' access to sunlight for adjacent rooms, yards, patios or gardens7 8. How will any negative impact be mitigated? ~ Locating the structure on the lot to minimize impact 1- Locating taller portions of the structure to minimize impact f~ Minimizing intrusions into the daylight plane (~ Other (please explain) D. Neighborhood Patterns 9. What is the prevailing neighborhood height pattern7 Single- sto ry Two-story House on right (~' C~ Nouse on left ~'~ ~ House on rear ~ r-~ ~ House across the street ~'~ ~ ~~~ Page 3 of ~ http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/sfr/checklisC.html 11 /15/0 . City of Palo ALto - Single Family Review - Checklist I Prevailing on blockface (>50%) I I r I ~ r'~ Prevai~ing on opposite block face (>50%) ~~~ ~ Proposed new house or addition r ~ 10. Is there a prevailing neighborhood front p orch pattern? ~ Front porch No porch House on the right ~ ~ ~ ~ House on the left I+ ~ House to the rear ~ ~ House across the street r ~ Prevailing on block face (>50%) ~~ ~ Prevailing on opposite block face (>50%) ~ r" ~ Proposed new house or addition r` ~ li. Is there a prevailing neighborhood garage pattern? Front garege Rear garage Side garage House on the right ~ r ~-.J House an the left ~ r ~ House to the rear ~ ~ ~ House across the street ~ ~~ ~ Prevailing on block face (> 50%) ~ ~- ~ Prevail'rng on opposite block face (>50%) Proposed new house or addition ~ ~ r r ~ ~ 12. Additions should harmonize with the existing strucdture by matching the existing materials, roaf slope, and window typa. Existing Proposed Roof material Roof Pitch Roof Style (gable, hip, flat) Window material (wood, metal) Copyright O 2001, Qty of Palo Alto. Please read our A~gtable Use P41~ This page was last reviewed: October 30, 2001 Page 4 of http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/sfr/checklist.html 11 /15/0 Pop-tops and Scrape-offs in Newlands Laura Conley, Laurie Skrederstu, Joanie Origer, Leonard May, Deborah Yin, Margie Shore, Diane Dvorin, and anonymous • Concern about scale and character of Newlands residential construction • Development Committee of Newlands Neighbors, educate and inform, no organization represents neighborhood • Neighborhood Survey (like, change, keep, scale/character) • 1000 distributed, 12% response • Dislike of some residential construction • 71:17:12 frustrated/neutral/no interference • frustrated when house/lot out of proportion or simply big, like remodel/pop tops, dislike total or near scrapes, spontaneous tools comments mixed, spec • speak tonight for several residents concerned with construction trend and change in character of neighborhood (living in a fishbowl, green space, fresh air and sun light) • cost to build ($150/sqft) vs. selling price ($300+ sq/ft) • average sq ft of homes sold up 31 % since 1997, largest homes much bigger • photos documenting before mid-90's, scaled remodel on typical lot, scaled remodels on larger lots, large scale but other features, homes on steroids (FAR range for each) Photo Description FAR Original FAR 1~2 Newlands in mid 90's ,1 -,2 3 Smaller remodel on small lot ,24 4 Larger project on larger lot ,29 5 Larger project on larger lot ,2( ( Larger project on larger lot 31 '] High FAR, harmonizing features (2"a floor set back, roofline, orch) ,3'7 g High FAR, harmonizing features (roofline, walls, porches, detached ara e, windows, ) .46 9 High FAR, not to scale (imposes on house in fore round) ,43 10, 11 High FAR, not to scale .44 .14 12 High FAR, not to scale .46 13 High FAR, not to scale .51 14 High FAR, not to scale .55 15 High FAR, not to scale .56 .13 • please place pop-tops and scrapes on the 2002 work program • other communities, such as Palo Alto, CA have flexible and effective strategies that can serve as role models • Our group of concerned residents intends to continue to inform the planning board about changes rapidly occurring in Newlands Recently there has been concern expressed by residents of Newlands that the character of our neighborhood has been quickly changing due to the rapid pace and large size of residential new construction and remodels. After concern was expressed by several residents during a Newlands Neighbors General meeting, the Development Committee reformed to foster dialogue about recent changes within Newlands. The first challenge was to design and distribute a questionnaire to the neighborhood. The attached questionnaire was distributed to about 1000 Newlands households during mid- October. The survey asked neighbors to talk about what issues are important to them, and many topics were mentioned, Analyzing the responses demonstrated that the topics could be grouped into characteristics of Newlands that are liked and characteristics that are not liked. Two charts show summaries of the likes and dislikes mentioned on the responses. Neighbors mentioned many wonderful things about living in Newlands. Neighbors like the LOCATION: close to the parks and open space, shopping, downtown, great public transit with the SKIP and the 201, etc. Neighbors like the neighborhood CHARACTER: many mature trees, it is quiet and peaceful, and neighbors feel a strong sense of family, community, and safety. Neighbors like the HOMES and yards: the variety of home styles, the well-maintained and remodeled homes, and the smaller homes with larger yards, etc. NEIGHBORS like each other: we are friendly, a mix of ages, and include many families. Neighbors also like the balance of access provided for pedestrians, bikes and cars; our neighborhood activities such as EcoPass and social events; and that there are no covenants. Neighbors' dislikes appeared a bit more dramatic. Over 115 comments were made by neighbors frustrated with aspects of recent HOME construction. Dislike was expressed regarding very large homes, scrape-offs or projects where only 1 wall is left, the noise and mess of construction, spec homes, and pop tops and remodels. Neighbors also dislike TRAFFIC and speeding cars; lack of CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE of rental properties, alleys, sidewalks and dog poop; the HIGH COST OF HOUSES and property taxes. Because so many responses addressed recent home construction, that topic was analyzed in more detail. 71% of the responses expressed frustration with the scale of construction projects, 17.4% of the responses expressed no opinion or happiness with home construction, and 11.6% expressed opposition to any kind of interference with a homeowner's freedom to build. Separating these responses into topics showed that comments expressing DISLIKE OF VERY LARGE HOMES, particularly when they appear on small lots, appeared 9 times for every 1 comment of liking or not caring about such , houses. A difference appeared, however, when looking separately at complete or near scrape-offs versus pop-tops and remodels: responses tended to DISLIKE THE SCRAPE- OFFS, at 5:1; and LIKE THE REMODELS at 2:1. Mixed feelings were expressed about the use of TOOLS to encourage some kinds of projects over others, 3:2; but there was a clear dislike expressed regarding SPECULATIVE HOMES, 3:1. Tonight I am speaking for several Newlands residents who are particularly concerned about the trend of recent home construction in Newlands, and the effect it is having on the character of the neighborhood. Demolitions, all-but-one-wall demolitions, and remodels are initiated frequently throughout the neighborhood. We are all constantly confronted with secondary effects (noise, mess, traffic), and many of us are now confronted with the primary effect, known as "living in a fishbowl." Our green space, fresh air, and morning and afternoon sunlight are rapidly disappearing. This affects not only immediate neighbors, but also everyone looking out their windows or walking down the street. We have compiled data demonstrating these trends. A chart shows the average square footage of Newlands homes sold between 1997 and 2001. Since 1997, the average has increased 31%. The largest home sold has also increased dramatically. Photographs show 1) the predominant character before the mid-nineties FAR .1 -.2 (single story bungalows, cottages, and brick ranches with lots of green space), 2) a recently remodeled home that is to scale with its small lot {FAR .24), 3) several recently remodeled or new larger homes that are to scale with their larger lots (FAR .29, .31, .26), 4) two recent projects that seem too big for their lots (FAR 37, .46), but fit better into the neighborhood (smaller in front, lots of windows, varied roof line and side, detached garage exiting next to, preferably on alley, porches), and 5) several projects that are out of scale and character (FAR .56, .43, .46, .44, .51, .55). They are imposing on their direct neighbars who are enclosed and deprived of privacy, nearby neighbors who regularly must view them, and everyone who travels along the street. These homes are often speculative ventures - the cost of construction is about half the price per sq ft when sold. They are examples of the increase in FAR in the neighborhood (FAR .13 -> .56, .14 -> .44) demonstrated in the BEFORE photos. We intend to be proactive and preserve the character of our neighborhood. Some residents have lost hope, but we believe there is still time. Even though the economy is slowing, because there is such a discrepancy between build/buy costs, this problem will continue, by both owners and speculators. We intend to continue to gather data and provide you with evidence of the changes in Newlands, with the goal of inclucling this issue on the Planning Board Work Plan. Other communities, such as Palo Alto, CA, have implemented flexible and effective strategies that could serve as models.