Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.1 _ Town Of Los Altos Hills March 11, 1998 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: WORK PROGRAM RE: POLICIES AND ORDINANCES FROM: Curtis S. Williams, Planning Director RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: Review the attached list of issues and establish priorities and a schedule for making recommendations to the City Council. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission and City Council conducted joint study sessions on October 29, 1997 and February 10, 1998 to discuss a number of issues of concern related to planning review. Attached are staffs summaries of those items, including City Council direction on how to proceed on each. DISCUSSION A total of ten planning issues were discussed at the two joint study sessions ("three story facade/single story"was discussed at both sessions), as outlined in the summaries. Some of the concerns discussed (scope of Commission review, staff review process, and sensitivity to applicants) do not require any follow-up actions, other than for staff to report to the City Council regarding distribution of staff reports to applicants. The City Council directed that staff report directly to the Council on a couple of other items regarding fire turnarounds and Building Code requirements for basements, such that further Commission review is not required. It is staff's understanding that the remaining issues regarding: 1) secondary dwellings, 2) chimney heights, 3) height limitations for "single story" buildings, 4) development area restrictions for "challenged lots", and 5) options for garages or carports, are to be presented for review and recommendation by the Commission,prior to Council action. Staff expects to return to the City Council regarding fire turnarounds and basements within the next two months, and will report to the Commission in advance regarding those issues, for your information. The Council has suggested that the other items be grouped together so that separate hearing dates are not required for each. Staff suggests that secondary dwellings be considered along with garages/carports, and that chimney heights be considered along with single story height, and that development area for "challenged lots" perhaps be treated as a separate item. It would be desirable to attempt to address one grouping per month, but that is dependent on the project workload and on the number of meetings it takes to review each item. Staff is looking for direction regarding the scheduling of these items, and any suggestions you have about information you might anticipate needing to evaluate these issues. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Summary of October 29, 1997 Study Session 2. Staff Summary of February 10, 1998 Study Session PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION OCTOBER 29, 1997 Summary 1. Scope of Planning Commission Review • Restate conclusion of January 29, 1997 study session: design features may be modified where the structure would be "highly visible", otherwise applicant preference should be allowed (within Code limits). • Reasons for reducing heights, modifying architectural features, etc. should be stated for the record and shown in the minutes. • Staff should try to identify design details of potential concern prior to Commission meeting. 2. Staff Review Prior to Commission Meeting • Staff reports should be made available to applicants at least a week in advance of the Commission_meeting, to provide applicants with a chance to review staff concerns; could either clarify issues at meeting or applicant could postpone to modify plans; also allows neighbors more time to prepare response in advance of meeting. • Staff should inform applicants that time frame for approval also will include time for their professionals (architects, engineers, geotechnical, etc.) to prepare designs and drawings, so that what may be a 3-4 month process for staff is more likely a total of 8-10 months. • Direction to staff: Return to the Council with a report on process improvements to address these issues. 3. Sensitivity to Applicants • The Council should not discuss applications pending before the Planning Commission, either with the applicants or with neighbors. • The Commission and Council in their comments should be sensitive to the applicant, especially being aware that the review process is often a once in a lifetime experience for them. Council/Commission Study Session: October 29, 1997 Page 2 4. Backup/Turnaround Areas • Uncertain determination of whether "turnaround" for fire department should be same as "backup" for vehicles and therefore allowed in setbacks; also option to allow with use of grasscrete or other semi- pervious materials. • Direction to staff: Return to Council with information on requirements for turnaround areas and options. 5. Secondary Dwellings • Criteria that secondary dwelling units must be "subordinate" to main residence should generally address concerns about garages, access, height, etc.; could relate to Housing Element applicability as"affordable". • Direction to staff: Evaluate Building Code access requirements to identify potential for limiting habitable area, or at least bedrooms, in basements; revisit second unit policy as needed. 6. Basement Definitions • Be strict regarding the interpretation of basements (below grade, minimum UBC exits and lightwells, etc.). • Backfill to keep basements below grade should be minimal (within grading policy and generally with some good reason). • Height of structures with basements should be measured from ceiling of basement or natural grade,whichever is lower(not from basement"pad"). 7. Three-Story Facade and Single Story • "Stepping" structure with slope should be priority, but so that there is sufficient relief to avoid 3-story vertical appearance. • No conclusion or consensus regarding"single story". PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION FEBRUARY 10, 1998 Summary 1. Chimney Heights • Chimneys should be reduced only when they are identified as being highly visible and obtrusive, which should then be noted in the minutes. • Direction to staff: Review chimney height regulations and present issue to Planning Commission to consider recommending whether to modify or to maintain current rules. • 2. Three-Story Facade and Single Story • "Stepping" structure with slope should be priority, but so that there is sufficient relief to avoid 3-story vertical appearance. • Concern about height of"one-story" structures up to 27 feet. • Direction to staff: Prepare alternatives for a maximum height limit for one-story homes on "highly visible lots", as well as options for evaluating height of interior floor space (current limitation of 17' from finished floor to ceiling). 3. "Challenged"Lots • Site analysis with Planning Commission might be useful for some such lots; use of models to show preferred designs might help,too. • The grading policy is useful for appropriate siting, but must be flexible to recognize constraints of the lot. • Development area limit of 5,000 square feet is difficult to comply with given Fire Dept. requirements and backup areas, etc. • Direction to staff: Prepare alternatives to allow greater minimum development area (6,000-7,000 sl) or to not count some of driveway or turnaround areas if in semi-permeable surface (grasscrete, etc.). 4. Garages/Carports • Carports are unattractive, sometimes obtrusive. • Variances have been requested to allow garages or convert carports as residence was built to maximum allowable floor area. • Direction to staff: Prepare options to either require 2-car garages or to count carports as floor area or to allow additional floor area for garages.