Item 3 - Desk Item & Exhibit 15TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 3
DESK ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: April13, 2016
PREPARED BY:
APPLICATION NO:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER:
CONTACT:
APPLICATION
SUMMARY:
EXHIBITS:
REMARKS:
Marni Moseley, AICP , Associate Planner
MMoseley@losgatosca.gov
Architecture and Site Application S-12-1 03
Subdivision Application M-12-008
Negative Declaration ND-16-001
341 Bella Vista Avenue (west side of Bella Vista Avenue, north of
Charles Street)
Jake Peters and Dan Ross
Dan Ross
Requesting approval to merge two lots and to construct a new single
family residence and remove large protected trees on property zoned
R-1 :8. No significant environmental impacts have been identified and
a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APN 529-23-015
and 016.
Received under separate cover:
1. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, March 4, 2016
2-14. Previously received with Aprill3 , 2016 StaffReport
Received with this Desk Item Report:
15. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. onApril7, 2016to 11:00
a.m. on Aprill3, 2016
Staff received additional public comments after di stribution of the staff report (Exhibit 15).
Additionally, staff received questions from Planning Commissioners. Their questions and staffs
responses are provided below:
Question: Why does the lowest level of the residence count as cellar if it is exposed more than
four feet ?
Planning Commission StaffReport-Page 2
341 Bella Vista Avenue/S-12-103/M-12-008/ND-16-001
April 13 , 2016
Town Code provides the following definition for cellar:
Cellar means an enclosed area that does not extend more than four ( 4) feet above the existing or
finished grade in any location. Cellars, as defined here, shall not be included in t he floor area
ratio calculation for residential developments. That area of a cellar where the building height
exceeds four (4) feet above existing or finished grade shall not be included in this definition and
shall be included in the floor area ratio calculation . For purposes of this definition which eve r
grade (existing or proposed) results in the lowest building profile of a building shall be used.
As discussed within the third sentence (underlined above) when an area extends more than four
feet above grade, that area is counted as floor area, while the area of the re sidence which is less
than four feet above grade would continue to be counted as cellar and be exempt from FAR
calculations. The area shown in blue on sheet A2.3 of the proposed plans is considered cellar
based on the Town Code definition, whereas, the area shown in purple, extends more than four
feet above grade or is not located below the footprint of the resi dence above and would count as
floor area.
Question: What is the property information for 331 Bella Vista Avenue?
It was requested that the property infonnation for 331 Bella Vista A venue be included in the
neighborhood comparison chart. Upon further review , 331 Bell a Vista Avenue is one ofthree
units located on the parcel with 333 Bella Vista A venue. Information for thi s site is provided
within the neighborhood analysis chart on page 5 of the staff repo rt.
Prepared by:
Marui Moseley, AICP
Associate Planner
JP:MM :sr
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\20 16\Bella Yista-341-DESK.doc
Approved by:
Joel Paulson, AICP
Community Development Director
)\, 1attconi
£ 9 'Laughlin
\.X Hech tma n
I I HI
\ \1. I •
I • I 1
RECEIVED
APR 8-2016
April 8 , 20 16 TOW N OF LOS GATOS
PLAN NIN G DIVISION
Advance Copy via Email
M ary Badame and M embers of the Los Gatos Plannin g Comm iss ion
T ow n of Los Gat os
11 0 E. M a in Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re : 341 Be lla V i sta Avenue
Dear Chairperson Badame and Member s of t he Comm issio n:
This office represents Dan and Deborah Ross , the owners of
339 and 341 Bella Vista. They have applied to construct a s i ngle fam ily
home util izing both of those parcels . The plan for that home, wh ich w i ll
be a subject of your meeting on April 13th, reflects substantial input from
neighbors, Town staff, Planning Commissioners and Town
Councilmembers over a multi-year period . It requires no variances and
has been sensitive ly designed to address a myriad of concerns. M r . and
Mrs . Ross and I look forward to describing the project and answering
you r questions at the hearing, and look forward to your approval of the
application . Please copy me on all future notices a nd p ublic
communications issued by the Town regarding the application .
Very truly yours ,
k 11-JX_
BARTON G. HECHTMAN
BGH :cab
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Ross
\\moh -us01-fs01\Data \Ciie nts\RO SS Dan\corresp ondenceV..os Gatos Pla nning Commission.docx
L~HIEUT 1 51
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PATRICKK. TILLMAN
Attorney at Law
April10,2016
RECEIVED
APR 1 1 201 6
TOWN OF LOS 0Ai09
PLANNING DIVISION
Sent via e-mail to: MMoselev@Josgatosca.gov
and planning@Josgatosca.gov
Mami Moseley
Los Gatos Planning Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue Applications
Applicant: Dan Ross
Dear Ms. Moseley:
Planning Commission Meeting-04-13-16
Objections to Proposed Construction
Supplement
Upon reading that the Planning Department considered the above referenced
plan satisfies the Town's General Plan and the HDS&G, I must supplement my
objections to the project.
The laundry list of HDS&G and General Plan violations is similar in length to
the warnings this Applicant was provided over the last five ( 5) years about his
plan(s). (See 04-07-16 correspondence)
It should be recognized that "mitigation," if any there will be, addresses "non-
compliance." The proposed plan does not conform to the Town's General Plan or
the HDS&G. Giving Applicant umpteen exceptions/waivers ... and a front yard ...
is not appropriate.
2021 The Alameda, Suite 160, San Jose, CA 95126
Phone: (408) 615-9670 Fax: (408) 615-9715 E-mail: pat@pktlawoffice.com
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
AND GUIDELINES
Authority.
-The Planning Commission, not the DRC or Director, determines
compliance of proposed projects with the greatest impact on neighbors .(@ pg. 63)
-The R-1 lots are included in the HDS&G because ofthe presence of a
hillside environment and/or steep slopes.(@ pg. 7)
-"Standards" are mandatory, nondiscretionary regulations that must be
followed.(@ pg. 10)
-The Burdon of Proof for exceptions to "Standards" is on the
Applicant to show compelling reasons for each deviation. (@ pg. 67)
"Standards" violated:
1. LRDA. (@ pgs. 12-15) There is no LRDA.
2. Avoid Hazardous building site. (@ pg. 16) + 30° slopes are
considered "hazardous" by the HDS&G.
3. Cut and Fill. (@ pgs. 17 -18) Both were exceeded.
4. Driveway and Parking.(@ pgs. 22-23) Exceeds 15° slope and has
inadequate line of sight.
5. Geological hazards.(@ pg. 23) 53 ° slope, soft dirt, too close to
downhill Townhomes-one (1) of them has small children.
6. FAR.(@ pgs. 27-30) Plan exceeds FAR by +600 sq. ft. Exceptions
to the FAR cannot result in significant visual impact to neighboring properties.
(@ 30)
7. Architectural Design.(@ pgs. 31-32) Privacy not coherently
addressed.
8. Building Height. (pgs . 35-36) Exceeds the 28' max.
2
9. 3-Story building Prohibited.(@ pg. 36) This is a three (3) story
building.
10. Bulk and Mass.(@ pgs. 36-38) Is prominently visible to
surrounding properties.
11. Tree Preservation.(@ pg. 54) Removal of one (1) +200 year-old
tree and another+ 100 year old tree leaves a 60' open gap to the tree-lined ridge.
Both trees are healthy. A recent change to the Tree Ordinance precludes removal of
both trees.
LOS GATOS
2020 GENERAL PLAN
"General Plan provisions" violated:
Citation Item
LU-1 Goal #1. To preserve, promote, and protect the existing small-town
character and quality of life within Los Gatos.
LU-1.3 Policy. Preserve existing trees, natural vegetation, natural
topography ...
LU-1.4
neighbors.
Policy. "Infill projects shall be designed" with respect to
LU-7 Goal #7. Encourage appropriate infill development.
LU-7.2 Policy. Ensure compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods.
LU-7.3 Policy. Infill projects shall contribute to the neighborhood, and
"shall not detract from the existing quality of life."
LU-7 .4 Policy. Infill projects shall not compete with the surrounding
neighborhoods as to scale or character.
3
Citati on Item
CD-2 Goal. Limit the intensity of new development.
CD-2.1 Policy. Building setbacks shall increase as mass and height
mcrease.
CD-4 Goal. Preserve existing trees.
CD-4.3 Policy. Protected trees should be preserved.
CD-6 Goal. Promote and protect the physical and other distinctive qualities
of residential neighborhoods .
CD-6.1
neighbors.
Policy. Reduce the visual impact of new construction to its
CD-6.3 Policy. "Encourage basements and cellars to provide "hidden"
square footage in lieu of visible mass." (Emphasis not added)
CD-6.4 Policy. Site new homes to maximize privacy, livability. Siting
should not create visual impacts affecting other properties.
CD-14 Goal. Preserve the natural beauty and integrity of surrounding hillsides
by regulating new homes.
CD 14.1 Policy. Minimize development and preserve and enhance the
rural atmosphere and natural plant and wildlife habitats in the hillsides.
CD-14.3
elevation.
CD-14.4
CD-14 .6
hillsides.
Policy. A maximum of two (2) stories shall be visible from every
Policy. Projection above the ridge view is prohibited.
Policy. Discourage inappropriate development on and near the
4
Citation Item
CD -15 Goal. Preserve the natural topography by regulating grading.
CD-15.4 Policy. Preserving native trees.
CD-15 .5 Policy. Promote minimal disruption of existing native plants.
CD-16 Goal. Promote and protect view sheds and scenic resources .
CD-16.1 Policy. Prevent development that significantly depletes,
damages, or alters existing landscape vista.
CD-16.3 Policy. Respect the views of neighbors ([uphill or down])
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Is/
Patrick K . Tillman
cc: Mary Badame (by e-mail)
TownofLosGatos.Pianning.041 016
5
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Marni Moseley
-Fr~m:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
--------Barnickei;--Jonn1 RVP--<john;barnickel@medtronic.com>
Monday, Aprilll, 2016 3:42 PM
Marni Moseley
341 Bella Vista
----
Dear Ms. Moseley: I am writing to express my support for the proposed home development at 341 Bella Vista .
I am a neighbor and my wife, kids, and I walk by this site several times per week. As you know, this is a neighborhood of
one to three story homes, some with apartments and condos in the back, and attached higher density townhomes with
reduced setbacks, adjacent to highway 9. I have viewed the story poles, and this plan is r easonab le for the
neighborhood and appears to be an improvement over many of the existing sites and structures.
It should be mentioned that I prefer that the proposed plan include a garage to minimize on street parking demands.
My travel plans do not allow my in-person support so I hope this email correspondence will suffice . Thank you.
John Barn i ckel
Templeton lane, Los Gatos
Vice President, Pacific Region
Cardiac and Vascular Group
Medtroni c, Inc.
(925) 872-3000 Mobile
www .medtronic.co m
[CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY NOTICE] Information transmitted by this ema il is proprietary to Medtronic and is
intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is p r ivate,
privileged, confidential or exempt from d isclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or it
appears that this ma i l has been forwarded to you without proper authority, you are notified that any use or
dissemination ofthis information in any manner is strictly prohibited . In such cases, please delete this mail from your
records. To view this notice in other languages you can either select the following l in k or manually copy and paste the
link into the address bar of a web browser: http://emaild isclaimer.medtronic.com
1
Planning
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
-Jade Corral <jadecorral@gmail.com>
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 11:27 PM
Planning
Marni Moseley
341 Bella Vista
341BellaVista.docx
Dear Planning Commissioners,
April 12, 2016
. When you are to look at the homes already constructed along Bell Vista it is evident to see that the
homes are built around the trees. The homes that are already established take advantage of the rich natural
. resources that the trees provide. Yet, the applicant looks to annihilate three currently protected Oak trees on the
plan building site. Why would this sole individual be above the protection of these trees? What precedent would
this set for future developments looking to level Redwoods, Oaks and other trees that are over a hundred years
old? It would clearly set a precedent that invaluable resources that have stood for over a hundred years can be
decimated for a quick profit.
The trees are not the only concern on the hillside. Removing the undergrowth would allow for soil
erosion, an increase in water runoff and the migration of wildlife that currently resides in the undergrowth. To
bring in copious amounts ofheavy, hazardous machinery to remove the greeny would cause severe soil erosion;
the roots of the trees and undergrowth which currently hold all the soil and nutrients to the hillside will be
uprooted. With the plants no longer present to absorb water this will cause runoff into the trail that runs directly
below the hillside. Many residents use this path to access Bella Vista and Downtown, it would be impossible to
utiliz e the path once the runoff is flooding down the demolished hillside. The runoff would not be the only thing
to flood down into the paths and homes that are nestled below. The removal of the undergrowth will be a
detriment to all wildlife that is currently housed in and on the hillside.
For the above reasons the only action that is conceivable is to deny the application.
Jade Corral
( 408) 458 0520
j adecorral @ gmail. com
160 Maggi Court
1
TO :
From:
Re :
Hearing :
Chair Bodome and the Planning Commission
Lee Quintana
34 7 Bella Vista
4/12/2016
ORGANIZATION:
I. Attachment: Most relevant section of Planing Documents
ll.lntroduction: Site Constraints
lll.lssues and Questions
IV.Ciosing Thoughts and Suggested Project Modifications
1 of 8
RE C E IV ED
APR 1 3 2016
TOWN OF LOS GAT OS
P LA NN ING DIVI SI ON
I. ATTACHED: SECTION OF MOST RELEVANT PLANNING DOCUMENTS
• General Policy on Cellars
• Zoning definitions for a story and for a cellar
• Residential Design Guidelines
• Town Council Resolution on Cellars and Attics
• Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G)
II. INTRODUCTION: SITE CONSTRAINTS
The physical constraints of this site make it a challenge to develop. This is not a
typical R-1 lot. Nor is it a typical of a lot subject to the HDS&G .
It is smaller than a typical hillside lot, it has a higher average slope than the typical
hillside lot, it contains no area that would normally be qualify as a LRDA, it does not
meet the R-1 zoning requirement for depth , and it is located uphill from a PO zoning
that allows townhouses at a higher density than and with different development
standards than the R-1 zone.
In addition it is heavily wooded, contains several heritage tree , and trees identified to
be removed may affect adjacent trees which may require the removal of additional
trees not currently identified for removal in the final report of the Town's arborist.
It is not appropriate to compare the proposed homes on the east side of Bella Vista
with the project; the depth and width of the homes to the east are very different. Nor
is it far to compare a single family home in an R-1 Zone with multi-famiy homes in a
PD.
lll.lSSUES AND QUESTIONS
There are numerous issues and question raised by this application related to
individual aspects of the project, as well as to the application as a whole, These
need to be addressed before the Planning Commission makes any decision on this
project.
2 of 8
Are the individually aspects of the project consistent with the relevant sections
Town's planning regulations (General Plan, Zoning Code , Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines, Residential Design Guidelines etc.)?
But, more important, when taken as a whole is the project consistent with the intent
and forward the goals of the Town's various land use regulations and documents?
Story, Cellar, Garage:
• Is the lower level a cellar or a story?
• Can a Story also be a Cellar or are they mutually exclusive?
• If a cellar, is it compatible with the intent of the GP Policy on cellars?
• Are cellars (or basements) allowed to extend beyond the footprint of the story
above?
• How was the mass of the bottom floor of this structure (and the overhang of the
main floor) included in the analysis of mass and bulk ?
• Should the garage footage above 400 be counted towards floor area?
Grading and Foundations:
• Should piers that are required to support foundations or retaining walls be
considered when evaluation the projects consistency with the HDS&G grading
standards (the heigh of the piers are not discussed in the staff report).
• Is the retaining wall, which runs parallel to Bella Vista and along the far south side
of the property, required to support the Bella Vista, to support the house
foundation, or both?
• Can the area created by these walls be backfilled to more closely recreate the
original topography?
• Is this area consistent with the Council Policy on Cellars or the intent of the
General Plan Policy on cellars?
• If the NW portion of the main floor were set back from the floor below (as is the SW
side) would the requirements for retaining walls , foundation wall, and piers be
reduced?
• Is the projecting western portion of lowest floor (adjacent to living room) a usable
balcony or a green roof not intended for use as a balcony?
Additional Questions:
• Why is the setback line along the east side measured from the edge of pavement
along Bella Vista rather than from the lot line?
• What portion of the understory to the trees will be removed to conform with the
geotechnical recommendations?
• How does the proposed landscaping meet the HDS&G and fire code
recommendations for defensible space on steep hillsides?
• Maximum floor area allowed :
• The above questions and answers as they relate to allowed floor area.
3of 8
IV. CLOSING THOUGHTS AND SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS :
Closing thoughts and conclusions
Based on the the Attached list of relevant Town regulations the conclusions I have
reached are that the project:
• The proposed project Is not consistent with the intent of the General Plan policy on
cellars, the Council Policy on Cellars or with the Residential Design Guideline
regarding cellars when considering mass and bu lk.
• The proposed lower level of the proposed house is a story not a cellar
• The project does not meet the intent of the HDS&G regarding the maximum
allowed intensity
• The project does not meet the HDS&G grading standards
While this is legal lot with a right to build, the project is still subject to discretionary
action regarding to the intensity of the development approved. While the
Commission my reach a different conclusion I do not find the intensity of
development the currently appropriate given the site's very real constraints.
Please require the applicant to return to the Planning Commission with a project
redesigned to an appropriate intensity based on the site constraints.
Redesign :
To achieve an appropriate intensity the redesign needs to :
• Reduce the overall mass and bulk of the structure
• Better address privacy concerns
• Reduce grading impacts regardless of how the lower floor is defined (a story or a
cellar),
• Restore more of the site to its original topography
Modification to Consider
The following are some concepts to achieve an appropriate intensity. They are are
not specific design directions . No doubt others and better ideas I have not thought
of.
• Replace the garage with a parking pad . Garages are not required. The surface
parked cars would not be highly visible from Bella Vista.
• Replace garage storage with modest sized storage unit(s) at the edge of the
parking pad designed to be consistent with the architecture of the house and
integrate into the house design. If the dimensions were kept modest(+/-5'deep ad
6' high) the visual impact of the garage would be reduced .
• Setback the entire main floor from the bottom floor. Currently the SW side is set
back, however the NW corner extends beyond the lower floor.
• Replace the roof deck (SW portion of roof) with a green roof similar to one on the
NW corner of the main floor roof.shown.
o Limit light exit wells on the west side and front to the minimum required by fire
code .
o Reduce the size of the lower south side patio
4 of 8
• Eliminate the stairwell to the roof deck and reduce the size of the upper south side
patio
Thank you for your consideration ,
Lee Quintana
5 of 8
II. MOST RE LEVANT POLI CIES, REGULATIO NS A ND DEF IN ITIONS
General Pl an Policy LP 2.3 Cellar/basements
Encourage basements and cellars t o prov ide hidden square foot age in l ieu
of v isible mass."(emphasi s added)
Zoni ng Code Sect ion 29.10.20 Definit ions: Story
Story mean s that porti o n of a bui ldin g included bet wee n th e uppe r surface o f a ny fl oor a nd
the uppe r s urface of the fl oor next a bove , e x ce pt tha t the topmost st o ry s ha ll be t ha t portio n of a
building included bet ween the uppe r surface o f th e to pm ost fl oor a nd the ceiling o r roof above. If
th e .finished floor leve l directly ab ove a basem ent or cellar is more th a n six (6)feet above grade,
such basement or ce llar s ha ll be cons ide red a story. Three st ory building eleva t ioll s are
p roh ibited in Hills ide Res idential and Resource Co n se r va tion Zones.
Zoning Code 29.10.020 Defin itions: Cellar
Ce llar mean s a n en closed a rea that d oes not extend more th an fou r (4 )feet above the
existing or fin ished grade in a n v locat io n. Cell ars, as d e fin e d here. sha ll no t be incl ud ed in th e
flo o r area ra ti o c alcu latio n for resi dentia l deve lo pments. That area o f a cell ar w he re t he buil d i ng
height exceed s fo ur (4 ) feet a bove ex isting o r fin is hed g rade sh a ll no t be included in thi s
definit io n a nd s hall be included in t he floor are a rat io calculat ion . Fo r purposes o f th is d efinit io n
w h iche ve r g rad e (ex istin g o r pro posed ) res ults in the lo west bui ldin g pro fil e of a bui lding s ha ll
be used . (em phas is a dde d )
Resident ial Design Guidelines. Cellars (p.23)
Cellars are defined as an enclosed area that does not extend more than 4 feet
above th e exi sting or finishe d grade, and are not counted in the Floor Area Ratio
calculation , by Town Poli cy. However, if any part of a cellar is above grade, it shall
be cons idered in analyzing the bulk and mass of the structure, even if it is not
incl uded in the FAR. The intent set forth in the General Plan is "to provide hidden
square footage in -lieu of visible mass ." (emphasis added)
Town Council Resolution 2002-167 Adopt ing Cell ars a nd Att ic Po licy:
Definition :
Cellars as defined he re , shall not be included in the FAR . That area of a cellar
where the building he ight exceeds four feet above existing o r fin ished grade s hall not
be included in this definition and shall be included in the floo r area calculation . Fo r
purposes of this policy, whichever grade (existing or p ropose d) results in the lowest
building profile of a building shall be used .
Policy :
In reviewing plans for cellars staff shall conside r the following :
· A cellar shall not extend more than four feet above the adjacent finished
grade at any point around the perimeter of the foundation. B e low grade fl oo r
6of 8
area must meet the above definition of cellar to be excluded from the floor area
calculation for the structure.(emphasis added)
• If any portion of a cellar extends more than four feet above grade, that area shall
be included in the floor area calculation.
• Light and exit wells may encroach into front and side yard set backs provided
that a minimum three-foot wide pedestrian access is provided around the
light well(s). Light wells and exiting shall be the minimum required to
comply with the Uniform Building Code criteria for natural light and
ventilation. (emphasis added)
• Below grade patios may extend out from a cellar into the required rear yard
provided that a minimum 10 foot setback is retained from the rear property line .
• Cellars and basements (except light and exit wells) shall not extend beyond
the building footprint. (emphasis added)
• The Planning Commission may allow an exception to this policy based on
extenuating or exceptional circumstances applicable to the property including, size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings. The Commission shall make findings
to support such a decision.
(emphasis added)
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
Things to Consider Before you Begin the Design Process (bullets 3-6 and footnote
1):
• The HDS&G establish a framework for appropriate design, standards and minimum and/
or maximum requirements. However, stricter standards may be required to avoid
potential impacts and to achieve the goals and objectives of the HDS&G.1
• The illustrations provided in the HDS&G are schematic and meant to show the intent of a
standard or guideline.
• Not every site can be developed at the maximum density or intensity allowed by the
Zoning Ordinance . Some sites cannot accommodate a two-story home
• tDesigns that are bulky and massive may be more difficult to get approved (see Chapter V.
section F. on pages 37-39).
Grading Standards:
Cut/Fill Standards (1 to 6)
l.Cuts and fills in excess of the following levels are considered excessive and contrary to the
objectives of the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines. Grade to the minimum amount
necessary to accommodate buildings and to site structures consistent with slope contours.
These are maximum numbers and may be reduced by the deciding body if the project
does not meet other grading standards or is not consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.
Table 1 Maximum Graded Cuts and Fills
House and attached garage: 8' cut, 3' fill (excluding cellar)
Other (decks, yards): 4' cut 3'fill
Combined combined depths of cutjfill for development other than main residence shall
be limited to 6'.
7 of 8
3. Buildings shall be located in a manner that minimized the need for grading and
preserves .....
4. Unless specifically approved by the Town, strip grading and clearing land of native
vegetation is prohibited except for small areas adjacent to buildings, access drives and
parking areas.
S.Graded areas shall not be larger than the area of the area of the footprint of the
house, plus that area necessary to accommodate access, guest parking, and
turnaround areas. (emphasis added}
6.After placing development the site shall be restored as closely as possible to its
original topography. (emphasis added)
Development Intensity Maximum Allowable Development
A.Maximum allowed gross floor area
The maximum allowable gross floor area for homes subject to the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines is determined using a floor area ratio (FAR) adjusted for slope as
provided in Table 1, below. However, achieving the maximum floor area allowed is not
guaranteed due to individual site constraints. The priority is to comply with the
standards and guidelines rather than designing to the FAR . T he FAR is a numerical
guide and achi eving the allowable square footage is not a goal. Greater weight
shall be given to issues, including but not limited to, height, building mass and
sca le, visual impacts, grading and compatibility. (emphasis added)
B. Exclusions from allowable Floor Area
1. Cellars
2. Ga rages up to 400 square feet in area. (emphasis added)
Exception to Maximum Floor Area
The Town Council or Planning Commission may approve residential projects greater than the
maximum allowed floor area ( when all of the following conditions apply:) Of the 9 criteria
listed the proposed project may or may not meet the following criteria for an exception.
2. There will be no significant impacts on protected trees, wildlife habitat or movement
corridors.
3. Any grading necessary to accommodate the building area that exceeds the allowed FAR or an
accessory building will be m inimized.
4. All standa rds and applicable guidelines are being met.
7. A minimum of 25% of hardscape material is permeable (certain types of interlocking pavers,
grasscrete, pervious concrete, etc.).
8. A significant cellar element is included in the design, unless it conflicts with other standards.
9. There will not be a significant visual impact to neighboring properties.
Cellars And Basements
Posted on July 2. 20 14 by Michael Zenreich mzarcharchitects.com/cellars-a nd-basem ents-2/
Let's start off by agreeing that the English languag e is ambiguous.
That being said, there are some words and definitions that are clear, but are constantly used
incor rectly. Th e best example of this is the misuse of the words "cellar" and "basement".
8 of 8
In the world or Architecture there is a major difference between a "cellar" and a
"basement". The New York City Zoning Resolution, The New York State Multi ple Dwelling
Law, The New York City Housing Maintenance Code, and the New York City Building Code all
use both of these terms differently.
All of these Codes draw a distinction between a "cellar" and a "basement'. I would like to
break down the different definitions and discuss why it is important be clear in label ing a
sub grade floor either a cellar or basement.
According to the New York City Zoning Resolution, a "cellar" is a space wholly or partly
below curb level with more than one-half .its height (measured floor to ceiling) below curb
level. A "basement" is a story (or portion of a story) partly below cu rb level, with at least
one-half its height (measured from floor to ceiling) above curb level.
Why does this matter? Generally "cellar" space is not counted as "floor area " and does not
count towards the amount of 'floor area" that the zoning district permits one to build. A
'basement" on the other hand is "floor area" and counts as a "story". The zoning resolution
sometimes limits the maximum number of stories and therefore a 'basement" is considered
like any other "story" above grade.