Loading...
Item 19 Staff Report Consider Introducing an Ordinance Amending the Town Code to Revise the Definition of "Lot Area" and Adoption of Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. Applicant: Town of Los Gatos. File #A-03-3.MEETING DATE: 10/20/03 ITEM NO. j C� COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: October 16, 2003 TO: MAYOR AND TOWNtUNCIL FROM: TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDER INTRODUCING N • ii INANCE AMENDING THE TOWN CODE TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "LOT AREA" AND ADOPTION OF HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & GUIDELINES. APPLICANT: TOWN OF LOS GATOS. FILE #A-03-3. RECOMMENDATION: A. Town Code (Zoning Ordinance) Amendment: 1. Open and hold the public hearing and receive public testimony; 2. Close the public hearing; 3. Make the required finding that the Town Code Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Hillside Specific Plan; 4. Move to waive the reading of the ordinance; 5. Direct the Clerk to read the title of the ordinance; 6. Introduce the Ordinance (Attachment 1) to effectuate Zoning Code Amendment A-03-3; B. Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines: The Council should provide direction to staff on specific changes in the form of consensus motions and continue the item to a date certain (Staff recommends December 1, 2003). BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission considered the draft Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines (HDS&G) on April 23, 2003. The Commission referred the draft document to the Architectural Standards/Hillside Committee (ASC) for further refinement and continued the matter to August 27, 2003. Prior to the April 23 meeting staff prepared a matrix of public comments on the HDS&G. The Commission requested that the ASC review and make a recommendation on each item in the PREPARED BY: BUD N. LOR Z DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reviewed by: PcS- Assistant Town Manager AV Attorney Clerk Finance Community Development Revised: 10/16/03 12:08 pm Reformatted: 5/23/02 PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: CONSIDER INTRODUCING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TOWN CODE TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF LOT AREA; AND ADOPTION OF HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & GUIDELINES. October 16, 2003 matrix. The Committee was also directed to review comments submitted by two Planning Commissioners and to address issues raised by the Commission during the discussion that took place at the April 23 meeting. The ASC had four meetings where the matrix items and Commission comments were discussed. In addition, the ASC re -reviewed all of the comment letters. The resulting revised public hearing draft HDS&G was completed in August and was forwarded to the Planning Commission. On August 27, 2003 the Commission decided to forward the draft document to the Town Council with comments from an extended discussion that took place that evening. The two Planning Commission reports with exhibits and corresponding minutes were forwarded to the Town Council for review under separate cover. Exhibit Z to the August 27, 2003 Planning Commission report is the draft HDS&G as edited by the ASC. Language that was deleted is shown with a strikeout and new wording is underlined. DISCUSSION: Town Code Amendment As discussed in the April 23, 2003 report to the Commission (Attachment 5), it is recommended that a Zoning Ordinance Amendment be adopted requiring riparian areas to be deducted from the gross lot area, and the remaining net lot area be used for purposes of applying the slope density formula. The slope density formula is the method used to calculate the maximum density of development (i.e., number of parcels). The riparian area is determined as part of the environmental analysis that is required of any development application. An ordinance amendment has been drafted for consideration by the Commission and Council (see Attachment 1). Once the HDS&G are adopted, staff will discuss the possibility of additional amendments to the slope density formula to provide further refinement of the Town's hillside density regulations. Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines As discussed in the background section of this report there are a four key areas in the draft HDS&G that were changed by the ASC, and then discussed by the Commission. These key items are discussed below along with some additional topics that were added based on Planning Commission input. Staff requests that the Council discuss these items and provide direction in the form of consensus motions. The Commission discussed each item at its August 27, 2003 meeting and made comments as follows: 1. House size regulations (FAR with slope reduction): There are two issues related to house size. One is the recommendation of the ASC that the maximum floor area be inclusive of the house, garage and any accessory buildings. This is discussed further in section 2 below. The second issue is whether 6,000 square feet should be an absolute maximum floor area for PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: CONSIDER INTRODUCING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TOWN CODE TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF LOT AREA; AND ADOPTION OF HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & GUIDELINES. October 16, 2003 all structures. The Commission generally agreed that an applicant should have the ability to propose a house larger than 6,000 square feet on a larger parcel. The Commission did not specifically indicate how large the parcel should be, but the ASC concluded that parcels larger than 21/2 acres maybe an appropriate distinction. Section B on page 31 of the HDS&G lists criteria that must be met by an applicant proposing a home larger than 6,000 square feet. There are two criteria that the Council should discuss: • The development will not be visible from any of the established viewing platforms. Staff believes that mass and scale, appropriate design, proper use of color and materials, screening and minimizing impact to a site and surrounding properties are criteria that are equally important as visibility for evaluating a proposed home. While visibility is a critically important factor in considering a new home, the burden of providing rationale for allowing a home larger than 6,000 square feet should be placed on the applicant rather than establishing an arbitrary limit on the size of the home. The applicant should be allowed to demonstrate how the floor area in excess of 6,000 square feet does not substantially increase the visibility of the home. • The site is 2.5 acres or more in size. This is a somewhat arbitrary lot size and may not be best way to restrict house size. A smaller lot with flatter topography might support a larger house than a larger lot with steeper terrain. Staff recommendation: delete the above two criteria (Section B.1 and B.2 on page 31 of the HDS&G), and add two criteria relating to energy conservation under the same section (see Attachment 3). 2. Exclusions to floor area: The Commission agreed that cellars should be exempt from the FAR. The Cellar Policy would be the guiding document for when below grade floor area is exempt. All other floor area will be counted toward the FAR of the house. The consensus on garages was that some allowance should be made for a garage, but the Commission was unable to reach a consensus on a specific amount of floor area (three Commissioners agreed with the original inclusion of 800 square feet). Consensus was that barns and stables should be exempt. Staff recommends that Section C. that was deleted from page 31 be reinstated in the HDS&G. This strategy for calculating floor area is similar to what the Town currently uses for homes in non -hillside areas. Staff recommendation: Reinstate Section C., page 31 of the HDS&G. PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: CONSIDER INTRODUCING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TOWN CODE TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF LOT AREA; AND ADOPTION OF HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & GUIDELINES. October 16, 2003 3. Requirement of sustainable design features for homes larger than 3,500 sq. ft.: The Commission did not reach a consensus on this issue. Three members recommended excluding mandated sustainability requirements and three preferred to leave the criteria in. Staff has started researching sustainability and energy conservation as a prelude to the Commercial Design Guidelines. Sustainabilty and green building techniques are an extremely complex subject. Staff believes that a systematic and well researched approach is needed, and recommends that the sustainability criteria (Section C, pages 35-36) and Appendix B be deleted. Staff intends to work with the General Plan Committee with periodic check -ins with the Council to develop an approach for developing a Sustainability/Energy Conservation Policy that can be applied to residential and commercial projects on a Town -wide basis. Staff will return to the Council on this topic separately so Council can consider it relative to the Advance Planning Work Plan prioritization. Staff recommendation: Delete standards 1 and 2, page 35 of the HDS&G. 4. Ability to approve a home of 5,000 sq. ft. or less at DRC level: The consensus of the Commission was that houses up to 5,000 square feet could be considered by the Development Review Committee provided that adequate notice is sent to surrounding property owners and they have the opportunity to comment. There was a general concern that too few property owners are notified on hillsides project due to the large size of properties. For comparison purposes staff looked at mailing lists for parcels in the R-1 and R-1D zones. Staff recommends that a minimum of 30 surrounding properties be included for public notice of a DRC action on a home in the hillside area. Notification of property owners within 500 feet would typically include the appropriate number of parcels, however, an expanded radius may be necessary to include at least 30 properties. Language can be added to the HDS&G for noticing requirements if the Council agrees with this approach. The intent of allowing hillside homes to be approved by the DRC was to provide an incentive to developers/property owners to meet the HDS&G, thereby allowing projects that are consistent with the Town's vision of reasonable hillside development to go though a shorter review process. By reducing the allowable structure size to 4,000 square feet, taking away the allowance for a garage and eliminating the possibility of a two-story home being approved through the DRC process, the incentive for applicants to propose homes that are of reasonable size was lost. A 4,000 sq. ft. maximum for DRC approval would allow a 3,400 square foot home and a 600 square foot garage. No homes of that size are proposed on hillside property and neither the Planning Commission or Town Council have required a home to be reduced to that size. The successful evolution of a project has been achieved when a home has been reduced to 5,000 or 6,000 square feet. It is anticipated that most people would not be motivated to develop plans for reasonable sized homes if a 4,000 square PAGE 5 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: CONSIDER INTRODUCING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TOWN CODE TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF LOT AREA; AND ADOPTION OF HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & GUIDELINES. October 16, 2003 foot maximum were used, and consequently, most if not all for new hillside homes would • be required to go through the Planning Commission review process. Staff recommendation: Change 4,000 back to 5,000 in Sections B.2. a & b, and B.3, pages 70-71 of the HDS&G. 5. Standards versus Guidelines: The HDS&G uses the words "shall" and "prohibited" throughout the document to indicate a mandated standard or directive. Words such as "should" and "may" denote a discretionary guideline. "Should" indicates a desire for an applicant to meet the criteria while still allowing flexibility and a determination to be made by the approving body based on individual site characteristics. Section F on page 11 of the HDS&G provides a detailed explanation of standards and guidelines. The Commission requested that staff carefully review the standards contained in the HDS&G and determine if any standards should be changed to a guideline. A standard implies that the desired design feature is always required and that compelling evidence must exist to allow an exception. A standard tends to limit flexibility and creativity on the part of a design professional. Staff has reviewed the draft document and developed a list of items where the word"shall" is recommended to be changed to "should" or other less stringent language or qualifying language added. Attachment 3 is a matrix with recommended changes. Staff also suggests that the Exceptions section in Chapter 10 (page 71) of the HDS&G be changed to read as follows: F. Exceptions. Exceptions from the standards contained in this document may only be granted after carefully considering the constraints of the site that may warrant deviation from a standard. Any deviation from the standards shall include the rationale and appropriate evidence to support the exception. The rationale for this change is to clarify the process for granting an exception. In addition, staff is suggesting that an exception may be granted by the Community Development Director and Development Review Committee, as well as clarifying that an exception can be granted by the Town Council when an application is considered on appeal. This language would allow an applicant to present their reasons for not meeting a standard. The approving body would have the discretion to allow an exception based on the characteristics of the individual site and any constraints such as slope, trees, riparian are, geotechnical hazard, etc., that support deviating from a standard. Staff recommendation: Make recommended changes in Attachment 3, and modify Section F., page 71 of the HDS&G as stated above. PAGE 6 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: CONSIDER INTRODUCING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TOWN CODE TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF LOT AREA; AND ADOPTION OF HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & GUIDELINES. October 16, 2003 6. County Properties: The Hillside Area Map (page 9) does not include parcels that are currently outside the Town limits (shown in gray). The intent is that the HDS&G will apply to any property within the County if the property is annexed into the Town. Annexation is usually required when a subdivision or new home is proposed and the parcel is contiguous to a Town boundary or within 300 feet of a Town maintained public street. A property owner could also request annexation if their parcel is so located, independent of a development application being filed with the Town. Staff recommendation: Add language to the Hillside Area Map, page 9 of the HDS&G as follows: This map shows parcels that are currently within the Town of Los Gatos as being included in the Hillside Area. Hillside properties that are in Santa Clara County and have a prezone designation of HR or RC are required to comply with the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines for any development application made to the Town of Los Gatos or upon annexation into the Town. 7. Visual Aids: Given the complexity of many hillside architecture and site applications, the need for visual aids has increased. The use of photo simulations, models and other three dimensional exhibits aids staff, the Planning Commission and Town Council in understanding the massing of the proposed building and how a proposed design will fit the site. The draft HDS&G do not include any provisions for visual aids and the Commission suggested that this issue be addressed. Staff recommendation: Add language under B. View Analysis, page 14 of the HDS&G as follows: Visual Aids such as photo simulations or three dimensional illustrations and/or a scale model may be required when it is deemed necessary to fully understand the impacts of the proposed project. 8. Application of HDS&G: Staff is seeking direction from Council on the application of the HDS&G with regards to projects currently in the planning process. The following are the various points where an application may be in the planning process. One of these points could be designated as the cut-off where an application would or would not be required to demonstrate compliance with the HDS&G: 1. Development application has been filed but has not been deemed complete. 2. Application has been deemed complete but has not been considered by the Planning Commission. 3. Application has been considered by the Planning Commission and was continued for redesign. PAGE 7 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: CONSIDER INTRODUCING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TOWN CODE TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF LOT AREA; AND ADOPTION OF HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & GUIDELINES. October 16, 2003 4. Application is approved but is not yet in the building permit plan check process. 5. Application is approved and is in the building plan check process. For the past year planning staff has been advising prospective applicants about the draft hillside standards, and that projects may be required to comply with the new standards and guidelines if the document is adopted prior to approval of an application. Currently there are nine new hillside home applications, and two second story addition applications in the process. Two applications have been deemed complete but have not been scheduled for public hearing as story poles are not yet in place, one application has been advertised for a Planning Commission hearing and eight applications have not been deemed complete. The Council should discuss and make a determination on the appropriate cut-off point. Staff recommendation: Applications that have already been deemed complete should not be required to demonstrate compliance with the HDS&G (item 2 above). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On August 27, 2003 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward the draft HDS&G to the Council for final action with its comments (see Attachment 9). The Commissions' comments have been summarized for the four key items discussed above. The Commission requested that staff carefully review the use of the word "shall" as discussed earlier in this report. The Commission unanimously supported the Town Code amendment to revise the definition of lot area. Because some portions of the recording of the meeting were inaudible Planning Commissioners were asked to submit their comments for any missing segments (see Attachment 10). CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Council adopt the ordinance amending the Town Code (Attachment 1) as drafted; and that the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines be continued to a date certain with modifications to be made by staff as directed by Council. To assist the Council in its discussion the following list of issues included in this report should be discussed: House Size Regulations (pages 29-31) a. Prohibition on homes larger than 6,000 square feet on lots smaller than 21/2 acres b. Prohibition of homes larger than 6,000 square feet on visible lots • Exclusions from allowed floor area (page 31) • Sustainability criteria (pages35-36) • Maximum house size that can be approved by DRC (pages 70-71) • Standards versus Guidelines a. Recommended changes from matrix (Attachment 3) b. Exceptions (page 71) PAGE 8 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: CONSIDER INTRODUCING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TOWN CODE TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF LOT AREA; AND ADOPTION OF HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & GUIDELINES. October 16, 2003 • County properties/Hillside Area map (page 9) • Visual aids Application of HDS&G Other changes that have Council consensus ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: It has been determined that this project could not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore, the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (section 15061 (b)(3)). Hillside projects will be evaluated for CEQA compliance and against the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines at the time individual applications are filed. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: 1. Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment (one page) 2. Draft Resolution (two pages) 3. Matrix of standards to guidelines and other recommended changes (two pages) 4. Comments from Lee Quintana (four pages), received on August 27, 2003 5. April 23, 2003 Report to the Planning Commission with exhibits A-T (sent under separate cover) 6. April 23, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes (12 pages) (sent under separate cover) 7. August 27, 2003 Report to the Planning Commission with exhibits U-Z (sent under separate cover) 8. August 27, 2003 Planning Commission desk item with exhibits AA-DD (sent under separate cover) 9. August 27, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes (28 pages) (sent under separate cover) 10. Planning Commissioners' additions to meeting minutes (four pages) BNL:SD PAGE 9 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: CONSIDER INTRODUCING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TOWN CODE TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF LOT AREA; AND ADOPTION OF HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & GUIDELINES. October 16, 2003 cc: Mike Abkin, 122 El Olivar, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ken Anderson, 14932 Diduca Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Curt & Bernadette Chadwick, 220 Wooded View Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ray Davis, P. O. Box 625, Los Gatos, CA 95031 John Lien, Architect, 196 College Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Gary Kohlsaat, Architect, 501 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Suite A, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Bill Maston, Architect, 384 Castro Street, Mountain View, CA 94041 Joe McCarthy, McCarthy Land Co., LLC, P.O. Box 361256, Milpitas, CA 95036-1256 Eric Morley, Morley Hunter Group, 99 Almaden Blvd., Suite 720, San Jose, CA 95113 Thomas P. O'Donnell, Ferrari Ottoboni, LLP, 333 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 700, San Jose, CA 95113-1716 Lynn O'Brien, 17990 Daves Avenue, Monte Sereno, CA 95030 Len Pacheco, 50 Hernandez Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Bob Rice, 150 Wooded View Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ted Sayre, Cotton, Shires & Associates, 330 Village Lane, Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 Terry Szewczyk, TS Civil Engineering, 1776 Technology Drive, San Jose, CA 9511 Dave Weissman, 15431 Francis Oaks Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032 N:1DEV\SUZANNE\Coun :iRReports\FY2003-04\HDS&G.wpd ORDINANCE 2003- AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING TOWN CODE SECTION 29.10.020 (DEFINITION OF "LOT AREA"). THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I Town Code Chapter 29.10.020 shall be amended as follows: Sec. 29.10.020. Definitions. Lot Area means the total horizontal area included within lot lines, except as otherwise provided in the chapter, and excluding land required for public dedication and any land determined to be riparian habitat. SECTION II This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on , 2003. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after it is adopted. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ATTEST: CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA N:\DEV\ORDS\Lot Area - HDS&G.wpd Attachment 1 RESOLUTION 2003- RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ADOPTING HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & GUIDELINES WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos desires to update its current Hillside Development Standards, and WHEREAS, the General Plan Work Plan includes the adoption of hillside design standards and guidelines (Implementing Strategy CD.I.2.1); and a number of related Implementing Strategies including L.I.2.4, L.I.8.5, CD.I.1.13 and CD.I.2.3; and WHEREAS, adoption of such standards and guidelines will help provide clear direction to developers and homeowners processing development applications (General Plan Implementing Strategy L.I.7.4); and WHEREAS, adoption of such standards and guidelines will help reduce the bulk, mass and scale of new and remodeled homes in the hillside and help new development blend better with its site; and WHEREAS, The Architectural Standards/Hillside Committee recommends that the Revised Public Hearing Draft dated August 2003 be adopted; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing and forwarded a recommendation for adoption of the same document; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: the Town Council of the TOWN OF LOS GATOS does hereby recind Resolution 1998-20. Attachment 2 FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Council adopts the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines, attached hereto as Exhibit A. In addition, these standards and guidelines shall be used to review development applications in conjunction with the development standards set forth in the Comprehensive Blossom Hill Open Space Study, dated January 1990. In the event of a conflict, the more restrictive standard or guideline shall apply. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council held on the 20`h day of October, 2003, by the following vote: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ATTEST: CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 2 MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA N:1DEV\RESOSIHDS&G.wpd Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines Standards to Guidelines and other recommended changes Page Item Reason for change 13 Constraints analysis Will be required when deemed necessary (not an absolute requirement). 14 Pre -application meeting Will be strongly encouraged (not an absolute requirement). 17 C. standard 9. Building sites should be located where they will have the least impact on other properties 17 C. standard 10. The building site should be located to minimize grading. 18 A. standard 4. Creation of flat pads should be avoided. 19 A. standard 7. Delete. Grading within 20 feet of a property line may be necessary to preserve trees or keep development off steeper slopes. 22 B. standard 4. Change prohibited to discouraged. Lining of a natural drainage course may be needed for erosion control. Concrete lining is not appropriate, but natural materials such as rock may be. 26 D.2. standard a. Building locations should avoid areas of severe fire danger. 26 D.2. standard c. Defensible space should be established around structures. 31 B.1. Delete. Arbitrary lot size. 31 B.2. Delete. Applicant to demonstrate how floor area in excess of 6,000 sq. ft. does not substantially increase the visibility of the home. 31 B. Add: Compliance to Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards are shown using computer methods. The compliance margin must be at least 10.0. 31 B. Add: The house will be pre -wired for future photovoltaic (PV) installation. Attachment 3 Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines Standards to Guidelines and other recommended changes Page Item Reason for change 35 C. standard 1. Delete. Sustainability criteria has not been adopted on a Town -wide basis and should not be mandatory for hillside homes. 35 C. standard 2. Same as above. 47 A. standard 5. Only open fencing should be allowed within 20 feet of a property line or road. 47 A. standard 6. Chain Zink fencing should be coated with green, brown or black vinyl or finish. Posts may be required to be wood. 51 D. standard 3. Outdoor Tight fixtures at a height of four feet or greater should use full cut-off fixtures. 55 A. standard 2. First bullet: shrubs and trees should be individually planted and spaced is such a manner that they do not form a means of transmitting fire. 57 B. standard 1. Plant materials should be selected for their tolerance to drought.. . 57 B. standard 2. Plant material should be adaptable to climate and soil conditions of the site. 57 B. standard 4. Second sentence: These plants should be adaptable to the Los Gatos climate.. . 58 D. guideline 1. Grading outside the dripline is considered a potential impact.. . 58 D. guideline 2. Pruning of existing trees should be limited as much as possible. 60 B. Applicability Delete the word shall (not needed). N:\DENSUZANNE\Council\Misc\standards to guidelines-HDS&G.wpd To: Planning Commissioners From: Lee Quintana Subject: Comments on Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Date: August 27, 2003 Following is discussion of issues and recommendations: ISSUES Exclusions from floor area Exceptions to maximum floor area How floor area is counted Applicability of tables for determining maximum floor area View analysis - timing and method Timing of technical reports Density of new subdivisions/slope density formula Amendment/review of HDS&G Recommended zoning changes Exclusions o Cellars have not been removed as an exclusion. The section of the text was eliminate but cellars are listed as an exclusion in the Glossary under Floor area, gross. o Keep garages as exclusions or exclude x square feet for detached garages o Consider revising and clarifying what is counted as floor area See Consider Recommending Zoning Changes below Exceptions to Maximum Floor Area o The exceptions, as currently written, appear too broad; as one comment letter stated "you could drive a truck through them". o Consider deleting the section on exceptions. The HDSG would still allow approval of larger homes if the applicant could clearly demonstrate that they have met the goal, objectives, standards and applicable guidelines. o An alternative would be to revise this section so that exceptions are truly exceptions: For example: - site is 5 acres or larger - site has an average slope of 30% or less - no grading or construction will occur on slopes greater than 20% Attachment 4 is not located on a highly visible hillside, on a significant ridgeline, or is not prominently visible along mountain collectors, or viewing platforms. How floor are is counted o The focus here should be on building homes in the hillsides that have the least impact physically and visually, not on what has been approved in the past. Structures or features that add to the overall mass/bulk/volume of a home or add to the apparent intensity of development should be included in the calculation of floor area. o See recommended zoning changes below Applicability of Table 1 ( Reduction of Net Site Area on Sloping Lots p. 29) and Table 2 (Maximum Allowable Floor Area p.30) These tables are the same the Town use for sloped areas in R-1 districts. In R-1 areas few lots have slope, and in general, the lots are smaller and the densities higher. In contrast, especially in the undeveloped portions of the hillside area, lots with slopes in excess of 30 % are common(see Blossom Hill Comprehensive Open Space Study). o Replace with tables specifically developed to reflect the characteristics of the town's hillside areas. o If these tables are not replaced consider the following changes: - Heading column 1 - Change to read Net Lot Area Adjusted for Slope. I think the concept of adjusting the lot area is too important to be relegated to a foot note. - Column 3 - Change to read Maximum Floor Area that Could be Allowed. Add footnote 2 - Delete footnote 2 and replace with the following: See Section B below for exceptions. - Add to footnote 3 - Also see Floor area, gross in the glossary for areas excluded from floor area calculations. View Analysis: o See comments in April 15th desk item Sustainability While sustainability is an important issue throughout the town, it is even more important in hillside areas where homes do tend to be larger, therefore, consuming a greater amount of resource, (materials, energy and water) to build and to maintain, and generally have a greater impact on trees and the existing landform. o Keep the sustainability section as recommended by ASC. o Add qualifying language that when the Town adopts a sustainability policy it will supersede the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. Ideally future policy would be based on "performance standards". Density of new subdivisions in hillsides o Revise zoning and or slope density formula to better reflect a density that is likely to be approved o Limit building envelopes in new hillside area to slopes less than 300 Approval by DRC o Recommend that DRC have the ability to approve new homes that are under 4000 sq feet and are not visible. Issue here should not be whether a home is one or two story. Timing of Reports Amendments to HDSG o Add a mechanism for review and amendments RECOMMEND ZONE CHANGES: o Grading Moratorium: - Grading Moratorium in hillsides o Height of structures in hillside areas: - 25' maximum height in hillsides etc. - 18 for highly visible hillsides and significant ridgetops o Setbacks for accessory structures in hillsides o Require story poles for PD's in hillside areas o Slope Density - Only one zone in hillside with maximum density that could be allowed based on slope density formula - Use site specific topography at contour intervals to calculate average slope and slope density. o Changes to what is counted and excluded from floor area calculations. Some changes to consider: Count all structures in hillside - Possible % (up to maximum #) for detached garages Add a component that factors in volume for large volume rooms/entry ways etc. - Exclude x square feet for a detached garage - Count covered areas other than eaves (up to x") such as carports/covered walkways and breezeways, covered loggias, patios, etc. Page 1 of 1 Marilyn Cosden - Hillside From: "P Dubois" <pdubois@tomasidubois.com> To: "Bud Lortz (Bud Lortz)" <blortz@town.los-gatos.ca.us> Date: 10/9/2003 2:42 PM Subject: Hillside Bud: The following are my inaudible clarifications: Page 17 line 6 - Unk. Page 45 line 9 "items that need to be addressed." Page 48 line 4 " on the list." Page 60 line 22 "yes" Page 70 line 3 "commissioner Drexel." Page 104 line 3 "Utilizing what has just been suggested by Mr. Lortz;" Page 107 line 5 Unk. In my opinion none of my inaudible remarks had a substantial impact the clarification if any hillside issues. Paul Dubois pdubois@tomasidubois.com file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\MCosden\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW )000( Attachment 10 Jeanne Drexel Comments for Town Council HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES I. Style and grammar 1. Pg. 10 E. "s" at end of hillside in first sentence. 2. Read: Ensure that projects are compatible with the constraints of the site. 3. Read: Minimize the potential risks of geologic failures, fires and floods that could result from hillside development 8. Read: Promote residents' enjoyment of the hillsides by the creation of hillside hiking/biking trails. 9. Read: Ensure that development does not dominate, but rather visually blends and harmonizes with the natural environment 11. Promote sustainability of hillside development. 2. pg. 11 F. 2nd paragraph, first sentence: Development plans must demonstrate full compliance with all standards, and substantial compliance with all applicable guidelines unless there is a substantial reason why the guideline should not be followed. 3. pg. 13 II. A. 1. paragraph 2: "s" after goal. 4. pg. 18 II. A. last paragraph at bottom: Cross out "to" 5. pg. 56 6. Read: Trees and highly flammable vegetation should be planted no closer than 30 feet away from the home II. Substantive changes A. pg. 35 C. Design for Sustanability As suggested by staff, forward the concept of establishing town wide sustainability standards to Council for its consideration. Delete standard 2 under design sustainability on page 35. Something more concrete is necessary for the application of a standard. Standard one covers the issue. B. pg. 38 Guideline 2: Conflict between the resource of the view shed and minimizing downhill windows. Word "Minimized" is too restrictive. Object is to make guidelines easy to apply. Most houses will have down hill views. We need to take that into consideration now and allow the deciding body discretion, since the guidelines are to be followed like standards unless there is a substantial reason not to. If there is in fact greater danger from fire from the downhill side of the house, other remediation measures could be used, such as sprinklers. C. pg. 55 Standards 3 and 7: Conflict with the requirement for plants to be fire retardant and native species. The Fire Marshall has stated that native species are not fire retardant. Suggest the following language be added to anticipate this conflict as No. 9: Fire safety shall be controlling in the choice of plant materials. Within 30 feet of the house non-native species may be planted. At the Planning Commission Meeting on the issue, a member of the public who helped draft the standards said that the intent of the standards was to allow people to plant non-native species within 30 feet of the house. If that was what was intended, then that is what the standard should say. D. pg. 70, No. 2. Project that May be Approved by the DRC, letters A and B. Allow DRC to approve houses up to 5000 square feet as recommended by staff. DRC will be applying these guidelines. If a 5000 square foot house is inappropriate because of the constraints of the site, it will be denied at DRC level and referred to us anyway. However, making the limit 5000 square feet will encourage applicants to design to that size on lots without constraints. We have not required anyone to build a 4000 square foot home on a site without building constraints so it seems excessive to do that now. Table 2 pg. 30 Area upon which FAR is calculated should be reduced not only by the slope but by the presence of a riparian corridor. Garages up to 800 square feet should not be part of FAR, nor should stables and barns. The appropriateness of these accessory structures can be determined by comparing the property in question with the degree of development on adjacent properties. At the planning Commission meeting, there was a consensus that there need not be an upper limit for the size of hillside homes. FAR maximums would always be tempered by the constraints of the site, anyway but an upper limit might discourage some of the more outrageous applications. I have mixed feelings about this one. GENERAL COMMENT: s discussed at the Planning Commission meeting, many of the standards should be made guidelines because each piece of land is unique and boxing in the Town with inflexible standards can be counter productive. SOME Examples are: 1. Standard about not allowing any grading within 20 feet of a property line (pg. 10, No. 7A), 2. Buildings shall be located in a manner that minimizes the need for grading, etc. (pg. 18, No. Al) 3. Minimum 25 foot setback of gated entrances (pg. 23, No. C3), 4. Lining of natural grading courses is prohibited (pg 22, No. B3) It should be spelled out clearly that cellars are excluded from FAR and maximum graded Cuts and Fills.