6-2-15 Loughridge Presentation Union258 Union
APPEAL
1
Introduction
The role of each community's General Plan is to act as a constitution for development, the foundation upon which all land use decisions are to be based... (INT-1, paragraph one) This
is the very first sentence in the General Plan
To be considered consistent with the General Plan, a project must not only be consistent with the Land Use Plan, but it must also further the goals of all elements of the General Plan
and meet the intent of its policies.
LU--1.4 AND LU-6.6
The type, density, and intensity of new land use shall be consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood.
CD-6.2
Balance the size and number of units to achieve appropriate intensity.
Purpose of the General Plan
2
Project zoning
3
Density vs. Intensity
2
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
4
Density vs. Intensity cont’d
Density
Density measures the of units/acre
Intensity
Intensity is a measurement of the amount of development on a site or area.
Methods for measuring intensity vary - there is no one standard for measuring intensity
Not all factors affecting intensity are quantitative
Density and FAR both factor into intensity. It is possible to have a low density-high intensity project, or the reverse, a high FAR project with a low density.
Easy Measurements of Intensity include:
FAR (Floor area ratio) (%)
Building site coverage (%)
Impervious surfaces (%)
Building height (maximum)
Front parcel setback
Side to side distance between buildings
Back to back distance between buildings
Intensity is not just a numbers game
Intensity is affected by what is included and what is excluded from the measurement
Qualitative factors, including mass, scale, site layout and building design, which may not be measurable, can affect the perception of intensity
5
Floor area ratio
(a) The objective of the floor area ratio (FAR) is to assist in determining whether the mass and scale of the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The FAR is a nominal
limit, not a goal, and shall be used in conjunction h the residential development standards adopted by resolution.
(b) The FAR applies to those lots developed or proposed to be developed with a single- or two-family dwelling in all residential zones (except the RC and HR zones). The following standards
shall be used to regulate new construction: (emphasis added)
(1) The allowable FAR for all structures, excluding garages, on lots between five thousand (5,000) square feet and thirty thousand (30,000) square feet shall be determined by the formula:
(2) The allowable FAR for a garage on lots between five thousand (5,000) square feet and thirty thousand (30,000) square feet shall be determined by the formula:
(3) The allowable floor area ratio for all structures, excluding up to four hundred (400) square feet of garage space, on any lot containing less than five thousand (5,000) square feet
shall be determined by the formula.
The lot coverage, setbacks and FAR of the proposed project is compatible with the development on surrounding lots.
(Ord. No. 1316, § 4.10.110, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1789, § VII, 5-15-89; Ord. No. 1851, § I, 5-20-91; Ord. No. 1872, § I, 10-7-91)
Sec. 29.40.075. - Floor area ratio. (For single or two family dwellings in all residential zones)
6
Floor area ratio cont’d
(a) The objective of the floor area ratio (FAR) is to assist in determining whether the mass and scale of the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The FAR is a nominal
limit, not a goal, and shall be used in conjunction with the residential development standards adopted by resolution.
(b) The FAR applies to those lots developed or proposed to be developed with a single- or two-family dwelling in all nonresidential zones. The following standards shall be used to regulate
new construction:
(1) (Ord. No. 1316, § 4.40.090, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1789, § VIII, 5-15-89
Sec. 29.50.060. - Floor area ratio. For single family and duplex developed on a all non-residential zones
7
Residential Design Guidelines
The maximum house and garage sizes are established by the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard set forth in the Town of Los Gatos Zoning Ordinance.
The maximum allowable floor areas are established by the formulas below which will be used in conjunction with the design guidelines to determine allowable building sizes.
A is net lot area in thousands of sq. ft. (e.g., 7,500 sq. ft. is 7.5)
Basements are included in the allowable FAR, Cellars are not.
The formula for all structures, excluding garages, on lots between 5,000 and 30,000 square feet is:
Structure: FAR = .35 - (A-5)/ 25 x .20 Garage: FAR = .10 (A-5)/ 25 x.07
The formula for structures (excluding up to 400 square feet of garage space) for lots smaller than 5,000 square feet
FAR = .40- (A-2)/ 3x.05
Parcels containing more than 30,000 square feet are subject to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
8
Maximum Density Potential
RM, RD, and R 1:8 Residential Zone and Proposed Project
9
Residential Project APPLIED with CUP
Notes:
ALL EXCEPT 258 UNION: THE APPROVED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND THE ZONING CATEGORY.
Hubble Way started as detached units but final approval was for attached units
All four of these projects required multiple Planning Commission and Town Council hearing.
10
Residential in Commercial Zone
East and West Main Street
Santa Cruz Ave from Main to Blossom Hill
West of Santa Cruz between Tait and Almendra
Los Gatos Blvd
All CUP's with a 100% residential use have a Residential General Plan Designation with commercial zoning.
CUP that combine commercial and resideniresidentaltal use (either above or behind) have a Commercial GP designation with a Commercial Zoning.
258 Union is the only CUP with a 100% residential use that has both a Commercial GP designation and a Commercial Zoning.
My research shows the residential development in Commercial zones is located primarily in 4 areas of town
11
258 Union General Plan Land Use Map
12
258 Union Zoning Map
13
General Plan Land Use & Zoning Map
14
“I can pull up the exact language. Staff would not support a General Plan change or zone change to RM- 5-:12, because there is no RM-5:12 adjacent to this site. We would recommend an
R-1:8, so that would be the single-family, which is similar to the properties to the east of the neighbors who have come out here today, and so we would be in that position. ”
Joel Paulson
1/28/2015 Commission Verbatim Minutes
The motion followed immediately after the above, before Commissioner Badame’s question was answered. The motion was seconded and the Chair called the question without giving the Commission
an opportunity to comment on the motion.
15
“By making this motion and sending it back to the Planning Commission, I’m definitely not saying I’m sending it back for this number of units. That is an issue for the Planning to determine
under the existing ordinance, Architecture and Site, CUP, Subdivision and General Plan.”
Council Member Spector
3/17/2014 Council Verbatim Minutes
16
“They had a lot of factual issues with the development, Yes, they did discuss whether a condominium project of this type was appropriate, but they were told yes, and they went forward
in that vein. So they did not, in my opinion, make an error in thinking that they could not adopt this kind of project.”
Council Member Spector
3/17/2014 Council Verbatim Minutes
17
“Can you confirm that if we did do a General Plan amendment and zoned it Residential that we would have floor are square footage requirements. We don’t have FAR for a Commercial Zone.
Is it correct that we would have an FAR if it were zoned for residential? Also, wouldn’t we have setback requirements? Right now we’ve got a zero lot line on the south side.”
Mary Badame
1/28/2015 Commission Verbatim Minutes
The motion followed immediately after the above, before Commissioner Badame’s question was answered. The motion was seconded and the Chair called the question without giving the Commission
an opportunity to comment on the motion.
18
Who saw the video?
Who viewed the 3/17/2014 TC video and how did they vote?
The Question: If all Commissioners had viewed the video in conformance with Planning Commission Procedure would it have affected the outcome of the vote?
?
2 Commissioners viewed the 3/17/14 TC video
1 Commissioner likely viewed the video
2 Commissioners did not view the video
1 Commissioner likely did not view the video
1 Commissioner don’t know
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
How did they vote?
Who viewed video?
1/28/2015 Commission Verbatim Minutes
Page 47, line 18
Commissioner Kane
...I’m a new Commissioner, so I don’t know what you’ve done previously, so I’m asking, did you come to the first Planning Commission, and did you go to the Town Council meeting to talk
to them about these matters?
(likely did not review 3/17/2014 TC video)
Page 48, line 4
Commissioner Kane
My question is have you shown these pictures and made this argument before at the Planning Commission and at Town Council?
Page 58, line 14:
Commissioner O’Donnell
I did not attend nor did I watch the Council when they considered this matter, but I’ve heard things tonight that I don’t see in the piece of paper we got when he appeal was sustained.
I see nothing in that paper that suggests the Town Council was unhappy with the number of units....
Note assume “piece of paper” refers to the Council Resolution, which does not include fact that repeal is not based on Commission Error.
(did not review video)
2/25/2015 Commission Verbatim Minutes
Page 56, line 9:
Commissioner Talesfore:
While I was watching the previous meeting.....
(watched 1/28/15 hearing video at which she was absent)
Page 59, line 16:
Commissioner Badame:
......how can we control development of detached condominium units in a commercial zone with the purpose of achieving the goals of the General Plan and our Town Code?
(likely listened to tape based on how question was phrased.)
Page 68, line 4:
Commissioner Hansen:
I had gone back and looked at the entire Council public hearing prior to coming to this meeting, because I had not viewed it before.
(watched 3/17/2015, video)
Page 70, line 10:
Commissioner Erekson:
I don’t see anything that suggests to me that they had provided any direction to reduce the number of units, so I didn’t see that kind of specific direction from Council.
If I understand it right, they accept the appeal that we had erred in the way that we did about the legality of the kind of condominium and remanded it back.....
(did not watch 3/17/2015 video
Page 71, line:
Commissioner Talesfore:
....I am going to comment about the Council meeting as I remember it and I would say all five Councilpeiole were concerned about the density
(viewed 3/17/2015 TC video)
19
Hindsight
20