6-2-15 Quintana Presentation Union Ave258 UnionAPPEAL
IntroductionThe 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 PlanTo 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‐6.6The type, density, and intensity of new land use shall be consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood.CD‐6.2Balance the size and number of units to achieve appropriate intensity.Purpose of the General Plan
Project zoningProposed projectC‐1C‐1 Abutting residentialRM Multi‐familyRD DuplexR 1:8 Single familyMinimum lot sizeArea32,706008,0008,000Frontage221006060Depth14800N/A90/125Minimum parcel setbacksFront151525252525Rear20027’8”202020Sides20 North3South025’9” N0 S8 SF10 MF88Max coverage30%50%50%40%40%40%Max height27 + feet35’35’30’30’30’FARFAR 0.51N/AN/AN/AFARFARParking minimum2/unit + 4 guests1 space/235 sqft1 space/235 sqft2/unit2/unit2/unit
Density vs. IntensityLocation*** DensityFARLot Size (Average)Unit Size(Average) Pinehurst (duplex)?0.268,546 sq. ft. 1109 sq. ft. Downing Oak Court(2,4,6 plex)12 units/ acre* 0.3610,897 sq. ft1,095 sq. ft. Lynn Ave. North side(SF)?0.1710,873 sq. ft 1,843 sq. ft. Union Ave. (SF)7 units/ acre0.236,181 sq. ft. 1,428 sq. ftUnion (duplex)11 units/ acre 0.277,630 sq. ft 1034 sq. ft. Project**258 Union9 units/ acre 0.504,088 sq. ft./ unit2,450 sq. ft. Hershner Ct. (SF)6 units/ acre* 0.286,748 sq. ft. 1,908 sq. ft. Howes Ct. (SF)6 units/ acre* 0.257,285 sq. ft. 1,832 sq. ft. Thomas Dr. (SF)7 units/ acre* 0.236,283 sq. ft. 1,477 sq. ft. Union Ave. (Office)N/A0.2311,575 sq. ft. 2,606 sq.ft. 213456789123456789
Density vs. Intensity cont’dDensity•Density measures the of units/acreIntensity•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 buildingsIntensity 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
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 bedetermined 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)
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, 5‐15‐89Sec. 29.50.060. ‐Floor area ratio. For single family and duplex developed on a all non‐residential zones
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 feetFAR = .40‐(A‐2)/ 3x.05•Parcels containing more than 30,000 square feet are subject to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
Maximum Density PotentialRM, RD, and R 1:8 Residential Zone and Proposed ProjectProposed ProjectRM multi familyRD duplexR 1:8Density9 units/acre5‐12 units/acre5‐12 units/acre0‐5 units/acreMaximum units8 units(7 +1 BMP)10 units (1 lot) (9+BMP) MF, duplex, or SmallSingle Family7 units (3 lots) (2 units/lot+1 BMP)6 units (3 lots) (3 SF units + 3 secondary units CUPApproved CUP requiredNo CUP requiredNo CUP requiredNo CUP required
Residential Project APPLIED with CUPForestTown TerraceHubble Way258 UnionProjectincludes:CUP requiredDetached unitsNot required:Guest parkingCommonspaceCUP requiredDetached unitsNot required:Guest parkingCommonspaceNo CUPAttached unitsRequired:Guest parking,Private andcommon openspaceCUP requiredDetached unitsNot Required:Guest parkingRequired:Common/private open space per Town CodeZoningStandardsusedCombines RDwith R‐1developmentstandardsCombines RMwith R‐1developmentstandardsConsistent withRMdevelopmentstandardsCombines RMand C‐1developmentstandardsZoningRDRMRMC‐1General Plan MediumDensityHigh Density High Density NeighborhoodCommercialNotes: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 unitsAll four of these projects required multiple Planning Commission and Town Council hearing.
Residential in Commercial ZoneEast and West Main StreetSanta Cruz Ave from Main to Blossom HillWest of Santa Cruz between Tait and AlmendraLos 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
258 Union General Plan Land Use MapLow DensityMedium DensityOffice ProfessionalOpen SpaceCommercialSan Jose
258 Union Zoning MapR‐1:8 – Single FamilyRD ‐DuplexOfficeRM –Multi‐familyC‐1 Neighborhood CommercialSan Jose(PD)
“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 Paulson1/28/2015 Commission Verbatim MinutesThe 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.
“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
“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
“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 Badame1/28/2015 Commission Verbatim MinutesThe 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.
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 video1 Commissioner likely viewed the video2 Commissioners did not view the video1 Commissioner likely did not view the video1 Commissioner don’t knowNONONOYESYESYESYESHow did they vote?
Hindsight