Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.15.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS October 4, 2007 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING CODE (ESTATE HOMES ORDINANCE). FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director -3A RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: Forward a recommendation that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the proposed Estate Homes Ordinance. BACKGROUND On May 24, 2007, the City Council directed staff to bring the Estate Homes Ordinance back before the Planning Commission for review. Specifically, the stated that the ordinance should address setbacks for larger homes but no further study of maximum house size is necessary. The Estate Homes Ordinance was last discussed and reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 3, 2006, minutes attached (Attachment 1). DISCUSSION At the August 3, 2006 Planning Commission meeting the Commission concluded the following: • Defined an Estate Homes as a building totaling 10,000 square feet of floor area and greater • Require that Estate Homes come back to the Planning Commission for Landscape Screening review Staff has simplified the setback table associated with the Estate Homes Ordinance (Attachment 4) and added language to the Ordinance for clarification (Attachment 3 (b)(h)and (i)). CEQA Status: Categorical Exemption per Section 15308 - Actions of Regulatory Agencies for the Protection of the Environment. ATTACHMENTS 1. May 24, 2007 City Council Minutes 2. August 3, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes 3. Proposed Estate Homes Ordinance Attachment appropriate. He also supported the use of taller deer fencing especially to protect gardens and vineyards but did not want to see properties completely fenced. Councilmember O'Malley noted that he was comfortable with forwarding the topics to the Planning Commission for discussion. However, he was concerned with MDA being increased on sloped lots. O'Malley explained that the velocity of runoff from the lot potentially hurt the person residing below the property and could cause erosion but he was open to listening to proposals. Mayor Warshawsky thanked staff for the report. He believed that it was a good survey and he had garnered several key points from his review of the findings. Warshawsky noted the trend that new residents and younger residents believed the Town's development policies were too restrictive. There also was a clear indication that the long term resident population was decreasing. Warshawsky suggested that the new/younger residents might be more supportive of the Town's long term capital improvement projects. In review of the discussion items proposed by Mayor Pro Tem Jones, Warshawsky's comments included: no support for changes in the fence ordinance; support for green energy incentives as long as they were "carrots not sticks'; review of setback requirements for estate homes but no limit to the size of homes; and, he would support discussion of MDA/MFA requirements. City Attorney Steve Mattas advised the Council that they could refer the matters where there had been Council consensus back to the Planning Commission for further evaluation. He suggested that it would be preferable for the Council to give clear direction on rather they wanted the Commission to consider and refer recommendations to Council or consider, take action and then refer the matter to Council. Mayor Pro Tem Jones suggested that he would be interested in the Planning Commission's input on the issues being forwarded to Council for further Council consideration. He acknowledged that there was no clear consensus on the topics but Council had indicated they would like further discussion on the matters. He suggested the topics be referred to the Planning Commission for study, analysis and recommendations. The topics included: 1) Fencing: fence amendment to allow replacing 6 foot fences with 8 foot fences (open deer fencing only). 2) Slope properties: analysis of a set of recommendations of what development might be allowable given the advancements in technology, building techniques, and materials for projects on sloped lots. This would include review of materials that did not result in an increase of runoff from the property and could be discounted on development calculations. An additional option to be considered was calculations for a second floor not being counted as development on a very steep slope. 3) Estate Homes: Review of setbacks for larger homes but no further study of maximum C house size. 10 Regular City Meeting Minutes May 24, 2007 Attachment 2 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 09/07/2006 August 3, 2006 Page 3 Chairman Collins supported the application and commented the land transfer was an agreement between the applicants. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to recommend approval of the lot line adjustment and conditional exception to the City Council subject to the applicant's submittal of a legal description and plot map for review and approval by the City Engineer and recordation of a certificate of compliance and spike the first sentence of Finding A in Attachment 2 that states "Both approved residential buildings (house and garage) on the Kirk property currently are located with portions over the property boundary of the Stubbs property". AYES: Chairman Collins, Commissioners Carey, Clow, Cottrell & Harpoothan NOES: None 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 ESTATE HOMES ORDINANCE -Proposed ordinance recommended by the Ad / Hoc Planning Committee defines "estate homes" and addresses the calculation of floor area, setbacks, and the approval process for estate homes. (staff -Brian Froelich) Brian Froelich, Assistant Planner stated in the staff report that the Ad Hoc Planning Committee had worked on the Estate Homes Ordinance for several months. At the May 4`" Planning Commission meeting the item had been reviewed and discussed. The Commission then requested Staff to meet with the Ad Hoc Committee and return at a future meeting. Mr. Froelich gave a brief summary of the Ordinance and explained the Estate Home definition as any primary dwelling totaling 10,000 square feet or more. Homes with any square footage over the 10,000 square foot measurement would have that amount counted twice in the MFA. Estate Homes would not be eligible for the Fast Track process and would come before the Planning Commission. Specific findings would be required for approval and additional setbacks necessary depending on the size of the house. Staff is requesting clarification on the topics of whether Estate Homes should be 10,000 square feet or 12,000 square feet in size and if Estate Homes should have greater setbacks. Direction is requested so the Estate Homes Ordinance can be completed by staff, returned to Planning Commission and then forwarded to City Council. Commissioner Clow explained the differences in the two charts relating to Estate Home setbacks. The first chart applies incremental setbacks according to the height and the size of the home and the second chart creates a standard setback for Estate Homes. Debbie Pedro, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission has the authority to require additional setbacks and Estate Homes would automatically be reviewed by the Commission and not qualify for the Fast Track process. This creates an opportunity for requirement of additional setbacks for an Estate Home. Chairman Collins requested Commission input on the question of the 10,000 square foot or 12,000 square foot designation for Estate Home size. Ms. Collins established that the Planning Commissioners agreed that the 10,000 square feet definition was appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 09/07/2006 August 3, 2006 Page 4 Commissioner Harpootlian could not support floor area being counted twice. He felt that was artificially using floor area to restrict house size. Commissioner Carey noted the precedent of ceilings over 17 feet high being counted twice as floor area. Chairman Collins confirmed that the majority of the Commission supported the double counting of floor area over 10,000 square feet. Debbie Pedro asked the Planning Commission to discuss the setback issue. Ms. Pedro asked for clarification on the Commission's decision to double count floor area over 10,000 square feet and whether the effective floor area would be used for the purpose of setback requirements. Discussion continued among the Planning Commissioners and staff regarding the doubling of floor area over 10,000 square feet and the implications it held for setbacks, MDA and MFA. Debbie Pedro stated that for the purpose of implementing the ordinance it probably would be easier to use the effective floor area (double counted floor area) for all purposes. She suggested returning to the Commission with an improved setback chart that more clearly reflected the requirements. Commissioner Harpoothan asked for clarification on the Planning Commission findings required before approving an Estate Home in Attachment One. Brian Froelich, Assistant Planner, called attention to the required findings in Attachment 2 (page 3, Gl-7) of the staff report. He explained that the findings are new and would not need to be addressed for projects other than Estate Homes. Commissioner Cottrell felt that the findings were mandatory and wished to leave out the need for findings and require guidelines to be followed instead. Commissioner Carey felt he wanted to eliminate the required findings entirely and have staff move forward without it. Chairman Collins wanted to continue to try to make the findings work in the ordinance. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to recommend that staff move forward with changes (eliminate G) to the ordinance and return to the Planning Commission at a future date. AYES: Commissioners Clow, Carey, Cottrell & Harpootlian NOES: Chairman Collins The Commissioners concluded that landscaping screening plans for Estate Homes should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Attachment 3 Proposed Estate Homes Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS ADDING SECTION 10-1.508 TO ARTICLE 5 OF CHAPTER I OF TITLE 10 OF LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING AREA, COVERAGE, HEIGHT AND SETBACK LIMITATIONS. WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to establish a consolidated ordinance section that provides regulations and limitations with regards to estate homes. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does ORDAIN as follows: AMENDMENT OF CODE. Section 10-1.508 (Estate Homes) is hereby added to Article 5 (Area, Coverage, Height, and Setback Limitations) of Chapter I (Zoning) of Title 10 (Zoning and Site Development) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 1: Zoning Section 10-1.508. Estate homes. (a) Purpose. Single-family residential development on a grand scale typically includes a primary dwelling of substantial size as well as accessory structures such as a swimming pool, tennis court, secondary dwelling, pool cabana, bam, and stables. The following regulations have been established to address the potential impacts of estate homes and to ensure that they are developed in a manner that is compatible with the open, rural character of the Town. (b) Definitions. The following definitions are established for the purpose of this Article: Estate Home. A building with floor area totaling 10,000 square feet of floor area or more, not including areas that meet the definition of "basement' set forth in Sec. 10-1.208. For the purposes of this ordinance, buildings connected by a breezeway, covered walkway, or other means shall be deemed one (1) building. (c) Setbacks. (1) Additional setbacks. Additional setbacks shall apply to Estate Homes as follows: Front setback: 40 ft. plus 4 ft. per 2,000 s.f. over 10,000 st up to a maximum of 60 ft. Side and rear setbacks: 30 ft. plus 3 ft. per 2,000 s.f. over 10,000 s.f. Size of Setback Requirements for Estate Homes building Front Sides and Rear 10,000- 44 33 11,999 s.f. 12,000- 48 36 13,999 s.f. 14,000- 52 39 15,999 s.f. 16,000- 56 42 17,999 s.f. 18,000+ s.f 60 45 (2) Exceptions. Exceptions to the additional setbacks required in subsection (d)(1) may be granted by the Planning Commission where the options for siting of buildings are substantially constrained by existing natural features of the lot (e.g., steep slopes over 30%, significant natural water courses, unusual lot configurations or size, mature oak trees, earthquake fault zones, or native vegetation) or by dedicated conservation, open space, or access easements. Nothing in this section or any decision made under this section shall preclude a property owner from applying for a variance under Article 11. (d) Height. Primary dwellings shall be permitted a maximum structure height of up to 32 feet if the standard setbacks as defined by Sec. 10-1.505 are increased in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 10-1.504. The maximum overall building height of 35 feet shall not be exceeded. (e) Approval Process. Site development applications for estate homes are not eligible for the fast-track process under Sec. 10-2.1305.1. (f) Conditions. Every Site Development Permit granted for an estate home may be subject to conditions that are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and to secure the objectives set forth in the findings above. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, reduction in Maximum Development Area allowed, reduction in Maximum Floor Area allowed, reduction in grading, installation of landscaping, and resiting of buildings. Proposed Estate Homes Ordinance October 4, 2007 Paget (g) Additions. Additions to an existing building which brings the total floor area of such building over 10,000 square feet shall be subject to the Estate Homes Ordinance and Planning Commission review. All portions of floor area exceeding 10,000 square feet shall be subject to the increased setbacks of this Ordinance. (h) Landscape Screening. Any development project subject to the Estate Homes Ordinance is required to provide an application for Landscape Screening. The Landscape Screening Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Proposed Estate Homes Ordinance October 4, 2007 Page3