Attachment 14 - September 14, 2022 Planning Commission Addendum Report with Exhibits 19-20PREPARED BY: RYAN SAFTY
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 9/14/2022
ITEM NO: 3
ADDENDUM
DATE: September 13, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review and Recommendation of the Draft Objective Standards to the Town
Council.
REMARKS:
Per the request of the Planning Commission at the August 24, 2022 Planning Commission
hearing, the community of local architects submitted written comments related to their
concerns with the drafted Objective Standards document (Exhibit 16). Staff has prepared a
numbered list of the 29 bulleted items presented in the architect community input (Exhibit 19)
including staff responses to suggestions and questions. There were several recommendations
in the comment letter that staff supports if Planning Commission choses to incorporate them in
their recommendation to Town Council. There were also 10 items which staff recommends
that the Planning Commission discuss further; these are summarized below:
•Comment 9 relates to the continuous streetscape requirement in A.11.1, which requires
development in a Community Growth District to place at least 75 percent of the ground
floor within five feet of the street-facing property lines. The comment suggests that it is
not clear whether it applies to the proposed buildings, or the entire length of the
property line. This draft standard is currently worded to apply only to proposed
buildings.
•Comment 10 questions why section A.11.2 has a maximum percentage for site
amenities in front of the front façade. The maximum percentage was originally included
to ensure visibility to ground floor commercial uses; however, in the case of restaurant
uses, it may be overly restrictive, and therefore the standard could be modified to
include a minimum, but no maximum.
•Comment 12 questions how the arcade (B.1.1.d) and the recessed building entry
(B.1.1.c) standards could be incorporated in the same building. The Planning
Commission could consider removing the “full height of the façade” requirement from
B.1.1.c or removing the arcade option (B.1.1.d) in its entirety to remedy this concern.
ATTACHMENT 14
PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: Draft Objective Standards
DATE: September 13, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
• Comment 13 also related to the arcade option in B.1.1.d, stating that longer buildings
would look monotonous with a continuous arcade. The arcade option could either be
removed, or a limit to the required arcade length could be added.
• Comment 14 requests that an additional section be added to deal with corner lots.
Although this does not currently exist, these could be developed in the future.
• Comment 18 and 19 are related to the belly band option in B.4.1.d. Based on the
reasoning provided, Planning Commission can consider removing this option.
• Comment 23 questions how B.4.3 would be applied, for example if a single bay window
would be sufficient to qualify for the points listed. Staff can either add greater
specificity for certain items or remove this requirement. Staff looks for direction from
the Planning Commission.
• Comment 24 suggests that the illustration of pilasters should be removed. This
illustration was a specific request from a previous hearing, but it could be removed.
• Comment 27 suggests that rather than prohibiting rooftop and upper floor terraces and
decks that they could be allowed given certain controls.
In addition to the comments received from the community of local architects in Exhibit 16,
additional public comment was received from a local architect and are included in Exhibit 18.
The public comment expresses concern with using “real world photo examples” within the
document and makes recommendations for specific sections of the draft document. First, the
public comment requests that parking structure entry gate setback be reduced to under 25 feet
in standard A.5.1. Second, the public comment requests that the six-foot height limit for
vehicular entry gates be increased in standard A.8.3. Third, the public comment questions
whether landscaped roofs can count towards the landscaping requirement in standard A.10.1.a,
and whether 20 percent is too high. Last, the public comment requests that the private and
community recreation spaces be reduced in size in standard A.10.1.
Exhibit 20 includes public comment received between 11:01 a.m., September 9, 2022, and
11:00 a.m., September 13, 2022. These comments are meant to update the comments
provided in Exhibit 15 with the August 24, 2022 Desk Item report. The public comment in
Exhibit 20 also expresses support with the information provided in Exhibits 16, 17, and 18, and
provided additional suggestions throughout the Purpose and Applicability section of the
document. Staff is supportive of these recommendations and can incorporate the
recommendations when forwarding the revised document to the Town Council.
PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: Draft Objective Standards
DATE: September 13, 2022
EXHIBITS:
Previously received with the June 22, 2022, Staff Report:
1. Town Council Resolution 2019-053
2. Summary of feedback received during community engagement meetings
3. Draft Objective Standards
4. Public Comments received prior to 11:00 a.m., Friday, June 17, 2022
Previously received with the June 22, 2022, Addendum Report:
5. Staff response to Commissioner’s questions
6. Issues considered by the Objective Standards Subcommittee
7. Commissioner email regarding City of Palo Alto Objective Standards
Previously received with the June 22, 2022, Desk Item Report:
8. Suggested additions and modifications provided by a Planning Commissioner
Previously received with the August 24, 2022 Staff Report:
9. Revised Draft Objective Standards
10. Revised Draft Objective Standards with Redlines
11. Summary of Revisions Made and Responses to Comments Received at the Planning
Commission Hearing of June 22, 2022
12. Evaluation of Existing Developments
Previously received with the August 24, 2022 Addendum Report:
13. Planning Commissioner Comments
Previously received with the August 24, 2022 Desk Item Report:
14. Planning Commissioner Comments
15. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., August 23, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., August 24,
2022
Previously received with the September 14, 2022 Staff Report:
16. Architect Comments, received September 7, 2022
17. Planning Commissioner Comments
18. Public Comments received prior to 11:00 a.m., Friday, September 9, 2022
Received with this Addendum Report:
19. Staff’s responses to architect comments in Exhibit 16.
20. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., September 9, 2022, and 11:00 a.m.,
September 13, 2022.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
To:Chair and Planning Commissioners
From: Lee Quintanta
Re :September 14, 2022, Agenda Item 3
Planning Commission:
1. Attached as Attachment 1 are my comments submitted for the August 24th Planning
Commission on the Draft Objective Standards. I have added additional comments in
red.
2. I concur with Exhibit 17 attached to the Staff Report.
3. I agree with most of the comments contained in Exhibit 16 and Exhibit 17. The following
are my Comments on Draft Objective Standards and to the included Exhibits 16, 17, and
18. Both Exibits 16 and 18 raise indicate that further work is needed for clarity in the
areas of landscaping, private and community recreation space and the question of line
drawings/photos.
4. Below are a few additional suggestions to increase the understanding of these
Objectives. Many of the suggestions are based on Section 18.24 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code Project Contextual Design Criteria and Objective Standards. While I
understand that it is not the intent of the Town’s Objective Standards to include
Contextual Design Criteria, I none the less suggest considering the following ideas
taken from of the Palo Alto Code be incorporated into the Town’s Objective Standards
Document.
●Purpose:Purpose of the Objectives:
○ The purpose of these Objective Design Standards is to establish the
intent of and objective design criteria and their intent for project that
qualify for the streamlined approval review of Housing Development
Projects eligible as defined ty the Housing Development Act., ie eligible
for ministerial approval (as defined by Cal. Gov. Code 65589.5)
○ Include an statement of intent prior to each section of the Objectives b
(before A.1, A.2 etc) to provide guidance as to what the objectives are
intended to achieve. (18.24.010 Purpose and Applicability)
○ Include a statement that diagrams are illustrative only, that They are not
intended to convey a required architectural style. Rather the objective
standards aim to accommodate a variety of styles, construction types.
●Applicability: Suggestions:
○ Include a list of the zoning districts in which Housing Development
Projects (as identified in California Gov. Code) and add a statement that
the Objective Standards applies to both new construction and
renervations.
○
EXHIBIT 19
Page 2
○Include a statement to the effect that the streamlined approval process
applies only if all objective standards are met, both those in these
Objective Design Standards, and those in all other Town Regulation etc.
(i.e. as listed on page one of the Objective Standards.
5.In order to submit this by 11:00 my additional comments on landscaping, private and
common space and illustration/photos will follow tomorrow.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lee Quintana
To Planning Commission
Item 2 August 24th Planning Commission Meeting
From: Lee Quintana
COMMENTS ON TOWN OF LOS GATOS
DRAFT OBJECTIVE STANDARDS,
AUGUST 24, 2022
GENERAL COMMENTS:
Comprehensive stand alone document:It is my understanding,from previous public discussions
of the Objective Guidelines, that the Objective Standards would be a comprehensive “stand
alone” document containing the objective standards from all relevant documents and
regulations. It is difficult to assess the Draft Objective Standards without knowing what other
objective standards also apply to “qualified projects”. At a minimum, please consider adding a
list of all objective standards contained . Consider adding a Table of all other objective
standards that would apply to multi-family and mixed-use residential projects and include
hyper-links to the individual standards.
PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY
This section defines “qualifying project” and where the definition can be found in the California
Government Code. However it does not define “Objective Standards” as defined by the
Government Code. Most importantly, it does not explain how these apply to the approval
process for “qualifying projects”.
Please delete and revise the first paragraph to better define the purpose of Objective Standards,
(streamlining approval process? .
Delete and receive revise the second paragraph and to include the following as part of that
paragraph:
Gov. Code 65559.5 identifies Qualifying Housing Development Projects:
●Multi-family housing developments,
●Residential Mixed Use Housing developments with a minimum of two-thirds of
the square footage is designated for residential use,
●Supportive and transitional housing development
Delete and revise the last paragraph as follows:
A Qualifying project shall be approved through a ministerial review process when the
project complies with these Objective Site Standards as well as complying with all
existing objective development regulations in the Town,:, including but not limited to the
following:
●General Plan
●Town Code
●Guideline and Standards Near Streams
●Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
●Parks and Public Works Standards
●Santa Clara County Fire Department Regulations.
ORGANIZATION
The Following Objective Design Standards are organized into two primary sections:.....
KEY TERMS
Community recreation space Delete and replace with:Note:Separate the definitions for
Community Recreation space in mixed use developments and multi-family developments
as individual definitions.
Community recreation space in a mixed use residential development means public
gathering spaces such as: plazas, outdoor dining, squares, pocket parks, or other
community areas for the use of the general public.
-Please clarify whether this applies to non-residential and residential parts
of a mixed use residential project or just to the non-residential part.
-Note:Residential uses in a mixed use development should have some
opportunity for gathering space as do residents in a MF only
development. - please modify here and in objective standards to include
this.
-Should the Community space require a public access easement.?
-
Community recreation space in multi-family developments means gathering spaces such
as: play areas, pool areas, patios, rooftop decks, and other community areas available
for the use of all residents.
-Please clarify whether this applies to projects just with MF zoning
designation or applies to the multi-family part of a Mixed Use Residential
Project See Note above.
Mixed Use means a development project where a variety of uses such as office,
commercial, or institutional,and residential are combined with residential use(s)in a
single building or on a single site in an integrated project.
Private recreation space above ground level means an outdoor balcony,or rooftop deck,
or similar,accessible from a single dwelling unit.
similar” = subjective. Delete or replace with more specific language
Note:Add a space to separate above and at ground private recreation space
Private recreation space at ground level means a single an outdoor enclosed patio or
deck accessible from a single dwelling unit.
Objective Standard means………………………………(add language)
A .SITE STANDARDS
A.1 Pedestrian Access
1.2 & Figure A.1.1:Is there a minimum width for the sidewalk? Or for the planting strip
A.2 Bicycle Access
2.4. 1.2 was “modified from walkway” to “pathway”. Should 2.4 also be changed to
“pathway as well?
A.3 Vehicular Access and A.4 Parking Location and Design
Figure A.3.1, A.3.1 and A4.3 need clarification
What is the difference between aisle to aisle circulation (A3.1) and parking areas (Figure
A3.1)? Does Figure A.3.1 represent multiple parking areas (see A.4.2) or aisle-to-aisle
circulation of A.3.1.
4.3 Comment:Consider decreasing spacing between trees. Aside from aesthetic value,
the shading trees decrease radiation from the parking lot surfaces
Note: Shading from trees also lowers the temperature in cars. Consider adding a
standard to ensure X% of parking spaces are shaded, or that addresses of trees
to optimize shading (relates to Climate Change, eneray, resiliency etc)n
4.4 Move 4.4 up under 4.1
Note:
I still suggest moving 4.4 up under 4.1 or combining the two as follows:
Except for driveways to access surface parking lots or carports, surface parking
lots and carports shall not be located between the a primary building frontage
and the street.
A.5 Parking Structure Access
Add a standard for pedestrian access to a parking garage
A.6 Utilities
6.3 Delete and separate ground and rooftop:
6.3 Views from the street of ground level utility cabinets, mechanical equipment, trash
enclosures shall be screened from view.
a.Screening shall be provided by landscaping, fencing or a wall.
b.The screening shall be at least the same height as the utility being screened,
Comment:Should they also be screened from within a site? Or at a minimum
from common areas?
6.4 Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the street
a. Solar equipment is exempt from this requirement
Consider a height exemption of the area required for an elevator shaft.
Note: I still think my comments under A.6, including screening utilities from within
the site, are valid and should be incorporated.
A.7 Landscaping and Landscape Screening
A.7.2.c Comment:Is there a requirement for planting between the trees?
Note: Suggest requiring shrubs between the trees X high at planting
A.10. Landscaping, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces
A10.1. The following landscaped, private, and community recreation spaces shall be are
required for all qualifying projects and are shall be calculated independent of each other:
A.11 Building Placement
11.1. 10.c. How shade is calculated needs to be more specific.
Note: Break this paragraph up into:
- Minimum dimensions…….
- % of to sky
- % shading
B.4 Facade Design and Articulation
4.3 Change format consistent with the rest of the document
B. BUILDING DESIGN
B.1.3.e and Figure B.1.3..e
Comment:I don’t understand this one. The illustration does not fit my
understanding of a courtyard. Is this intended to be private the private use of the
dwelling units? Is this an illustration of B.1.3 (Townhouse)
B.2.2 If the intent is to prevent full transparency into the structure, should there be a
minimum as well as a maximum?
B.3 Roof Design
Figure B.3.3 Comment: This figure looks more like the gable ilustrated in Figure.3.1 than
it looks like a dormer
B.4 Facade Design and Articulation
B.4.3 Why change in format?
1
Architect Comments with Staff Responses (in italic font)
GENERAL
1. The Planning Dept needs to make sure the Planning Commissioners understand that these
design guidelines/standards are not to be referred to or used at all when evaluating
Discretionary Review projects that go through the normal DRC/PC approval process. The two
processes are mutually exclusive, and Discretionary projects should be reviewed on their own
merits. It must be understood and clearly stated that these “Standards” are not to be
considered a standard that is compared to projects that do not apply for this streamlined
process. These standards are not standards of excellence and should never be considered as
such.
• Staff supports this recommendation and can include an additional statement when
forwarding do Town Council.
2. Could there be a tiered system for some of these requirements? Projects that are 3 units or 50
units or 500 units shouldn’t necessarily have the same standards.
• Although Objective Standards could be developed to differ depending on project size, the
metric for most Standards has generally been applied to the street-facing façade. They have
also been developed under the assumption that most projects will be 3-stories or less based
on current height limits, and therefore significant differentiation may not be warranted.
KEY TERMS
3. Are community recreation space and landscaped areas mutually exclusive?
• Yes, per A.10.1, “the following landscaped, private, and community recreation spaces are
required for all qualifying projects and are calculated independent of each other.”
4. In community areas, is there a minimum size of such ap space? How big must it be to have it
considered community space? Example: could a widened, paved node at a pathway intersection
be considered community space? Like with a bench?
• Yes, minimum horizontal dimensions are 10’ by 6’ for each area.
5. Does landscape area include pathways? A pathway is not included in the list of elements that
are considered to not be a part of “Landscaping.” (additional site open space and/or maximum
lot coverage standards exist in the Municipal Code.)
• If landscaping is proposed along the walkway, it would count towards the landscaped space
requirement. A pathway/walkway without landscaping would not count.
A.10 LANDSCAPE, PRIVATE, AND COMMUNITY RECREATION SPACES
6. Does landscape area mean any and all planted areas, including planters and pots on every floor?
• Area used for landscaped, private, and community recreation spaces are calculated
independent of each other with no area counted twice, additional clarity could be added.
EXHIBIT 20
2
7. Private recreation space should be proportionally based on the size of the unit. The Palo Alto
standards require just 50 SF for each unit regardless of which floor or unit size. We propose a
requirement of 10% of the living area. A 500 SF studio should not be required to have a 10’x15’
balcony. There could be a minimum as well, 50 SF, so that it must still be able to hold a couple of
people comfortably.
• The private recreation space standard was included for consistency with Town Code Section
29.10.065. Section A.10.1 requires each new dwelling unit to have private recreation space:
200 square feet on the ground floor, and 120 square feet above the ground floor. If the
Planning Commission recommends an adjustment to this requirement, staff recommends
ensuring there are still minimum dimension requirements.
8. Can the required recreation space be broken down into many smaller community spaces? If so,
what are the minimum dimensions? (Refer back to key terms comment.)
• Yes, if each area is a minimum of 6’ by 10’ for both community and private recreation spaces
(A.10.1).
A.11 BUILDING PLACEMENT
9. Requirement 11.1 states that 75% of the ground floor of a building shall be placed within 5 feet
of the front & street side setbacks. Does this mean all the buildings on site? Does this mean 75%
of the entire street frontage must have a building on its frontage? Or only the buildings that
abut the street when multiple buildings are on site? Will buildings be calculated individually?
What about corner lots and corner open plazas?
• This draft standard is currently worded to apply only to proposed buildings. The requirement
applies to the buildings, not the street frontage. This does not mean that 75 percent of the
street frontage needs buildings along the front; instead, it means that 75 percent of the area
of the primary building(s) proposed must be on the street frontage (see Figure A.11.1).
10. Requirement 11.2 states that there must be between 15-30% of the street frontage area shall
have site amenities. If a restaurant is at this ground floor, and they would like the whole
frontage to be tables & chairs and landscaping, how can they meet the 30% max. Why is a
maximum necessary?
• Staff agrees that the maximum percentage could be deleted. The maximum percentage was
initially included to ensure visibility to ground floor commercial uses.
B.1 BUILDING DESIGN - Massing & Scale
11. Do these options apply to each individual building that abuts the street separately? Does this
apply to buildings on site that do not abut the street?
• Staff can clarify that this requirement applies to the combined area of all primary buildings
that face and abut the street.
12. Some of these options seem mutually exclusive. How would a continuous arcade, continuously
vertical recessed entries and recessed courtyards all exist on the same building facade? How
would any of these options work with the arcade?
• Staff agrees that the arcade (B.1.1.d) and recessed building entry (B.1.1.c) options could not
be used together unless the “full height of the façade” requirement is removed from B.1.1.c.
An additional option would be to remove the arcade option. Staff looks for direction from the
Planning Commission.
3
13. Longer buildings and corner buildings will look monotonous with a continuous arcade. And
architecturally speaking not attractive unless in a very particular setting. Shouldn’t this option be
contingent on the length of the building? When over 80 or 100 ft long, a 2/3 arcade approach
could apply? And special treatment for corner lots. What about open corner plazas?
• If the Planning Commission agrees, staff can remove the arcade option (B.1.1.d) or include a
limit when the building façade is over a certain length.
14. There should be an entire section that deals with corner lots, with points awarded for an open
plaza/public amenity at the corner, or a tower at a corner (with a height increase exception for
the tower), or another creative way to highlight/celebrate a corner, etc. although maybe too
complex for this cookie cutter approach document.
• Though not currently included, these could be developed in the future.
15. B.1.1c suggests entries should be recessed all the way up the entire building height, but it is not
good practice to have uncovered entries. How will this option be beneficial? Would a
roof/covered porch at these entries be allowed for this option? Especially when this conflicts
directly with the recommendation for a 3’ recessed entry per diagram B.4.6a. If any fenestration
element needs an awning it’s the entrance.
• A covered awning or eave would be allowed as long as the wall plane for the entry is
recessed. Staff can clarify that this requirement applies to the wall plane, and projections
such as awnings beyond the wall plane would be allowed.
16. Option B.1.1f offers pilasters as an option, but pilasters are much less about massing as they are
about facade articulation. Shouldn't this be in section B.4?
• The pilaster option was added here as it would break up massing, but could be relocated.
B.3 ROOF DESIGN
17. B.3 illustration has all pitched roofs This is not exemplary of most modern architecture and
seems to show favor for sloped pitches. Offer more examples of flat roofs with eaves or
parapets.
• Staff recommends keeping the text of this standard, but deleting the graphic.
B.4 FACADE DESIGN & ARTICULATION
18. B.4.1d & f shows a continuous belly band and cornice. Do these bands have to be continuous
and unbroken? The pop outs, recesses, and continuous pilasters suggested in the other options
would not be very harmonious with these options. These also seem to conflict with the
recessed courtyards and entries and recessed upper floors if the bands must be continuous.
What about different roof heights? This option is not very compatible with many other design
elements suggested.
• Staff can remove the belly band option (B.4.1.d).
19. B.4.1d - A 10” tall belly band is quite thick for a modern line. This suggests only a traditional style
building will be allowed. Palo Alto objectives require 4” min, not 10” min.
• Staff can remove the belly band option (B.4.1.d), or the standard can be revised to reflect
Palo Alto’s four-inch requirement.
4
20. B.4.1f - Requiring a “floor to ceiling height” is a structural dimension that is measured in a cross
section and cannot be perceived from the outside. The height between the top of the top
windows and the top of the parapet is what is perceived. Is this what is supposed to be 24” +
lower floor framing/ceiling assembly height? Interior finishes, such as dropped ceilings should
not be part of this calculation as they are not perceived from the outside. How does a sloped
interior ceiling height get calculated? It’s really the facade height, parapet height, etc that
should be controlled.
• Staff agrees and can work with the Consultant to update the standard to apply to the
exterior façade height.
21. B4.2 - When a building side facade is on the property line or within 5' of it, how can this
requirement be fulfilled? Windows are not allowed. Further, expensive accent materials, that
can enhance a street side facade will be wasted money on a side no one can see. This will
prohibit small amounts of high end exterior materials from being used at all.
• This section refers to window types, not windows in general. The Commission directed staff
to include a 360-degree architecture requirement.
22. B.4.3 - Almost all of the first listed architectural features are found in the previous section under
B.4.1. These are redundant.
• Section B.4.1 includes four items that are listed under B.4.3 (awnings, belly bands, balconies,
and material changes); however, B.4.1 only applies to buildings greater than two stories,
while B.4.1 applies to buildings greater than one-story. Due to the requirements in Section
B.4.1, buildings greater than two-stories will already have implemented some of the
requirements in B.4.3. Section B.4.3 is to ensure that buildings greater than one-story also
include façade variations.
23. B.4.3 - Who will determine if a particular architectural “solution”, aka decorative feature, will
constitute points? Will one juliet balcony, or planter box mean the points are achieved? One
chimney, one bay window? This points system lacks specificity and at the same time is entirely
too specific about traditional style architectural features. Most of these features are entirely
inappropriate on modern architecture. When we say "Bay Window", can we add in “or Box
Window”, and “angled Box Window”? The term Bay Window is too specific/limiting. And what
about the unfortunate designer that decides "hey maybe I’ll take one of each thing on the
menu?" One bay window, one planter, one awning, one pilaster, one arcade - oh wait maybe
two, one balcony, one trellis, one braced overhang, one corbel, one scoop with sprinkles, and
why don’t you just throw in a 10” thick caramel flavored belly band just for fun”. Are we making
an ice cream sundae here? In my absurd example, the Town would have no choice but to
approve it as long they scored the minimum 16 points” To quote their own language: “ . . . by
incorporating any combination of the following architectural solution to achieve a minimum of
16 points” with no mention of any cohesive design theme, scale, proportion, repetition,
cadence, architectural nuance, color, materials, etc.
• Staff can either add greater specificity for certain items or remove this requirement. Staff
looks for direction from the Planning Commission.
24. B.4.5 - This illustration should be stricken of the “Architectural Features” pilasters. Not Good
• The illustration showing the column or “architectural feature” was a specific request from a
previous Planning Commission hearing, but it could be removed.
5
25. B.4.6a - This requirement seems to conflict with the vertically continuously recessed entry
option from section B.1.1c.
• This section requires recessed entries or covered entries. Additionally, Section B.1.1.C refers
to the wall plane, not an awning projection. Staff can clarify that B.1.1.c applies to the wall
plane.
26. B.4.6b - How about adding in another drawing that shows glass extending to the floor? Why say
between 2 and 10 feet above the sidewalk? Why can’t the glass extend to the sidewalk?
• Glass can extend down to the grade, but it wouldn’t count towards the 60 percent
requirement between two and 10 feet.
27. B.4.10 - Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to have a setback to roof top decks and balconies,
rather than prohibiting them entirely from a building? The building could be very large and
deep. What about a daylight plane?
• This change could be made if recommended by Planning Commission.
28. B.4.11 - Why can’t the balconies extend beyond the footprint if you can prove that views to
residential uses are prevented?
• As previously discussed, this is included as one method for objectively reducing privacy
impacts.
29. B.4.12 - Why is this even a section? Isn’t this all covered in great detail in the previous sections?
• This standard was developed from Planning Commission Subcommittee direction to restrict
long, unarticulated buildings fronting the street.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank