Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 ITEM 3.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS September 15, 2015 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION TO PRESENT ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO MODIFYING REGULATIONS THAT AFFECT SUBSTANDARD LOTS. FILE#342-15-MISC FROM: Suzanne Avila,AICP, Planning Director 3!3\- RECOMMENDATION lRECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: Present alternatives for regulation of floor area for substandard lots (lots less than one acre) including proposed setback variance findings, receive public comment, and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND In the past year there has been an increase in the number of site development permits for development on lots less than one acre. After hearing concerns raised by neighbors on several projects, the City Council placed the matter on the May 21, 2015 agenda for discussion. At that meeting the Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to review CDP regulations and to consider alternative means of regulating floor area for constrained lots, with an emphasis on small lots (lots of.50 acres or less). A Planning Commission Ad-hoc Committee consisting of Commissioners Mandle and Partridge was formed and has been working with staff to review current codes and develop draft code amendments related to maximum floor area and variances. A Town-wide notice of the study session was mailed to property owners (see Attachment 1). DISCUSSION The purpose of the study session is to present recommendations on alternative approaches to regulating floor area on substandard lots, receive public comment, and provide direction to staff on draft Zoning Ordinance amendments (see Attachments 3 and 4). A Planning Commission public hearing will be scheduled at a future date for consideration of proposed ordinance amendments. The Ad-hoc Committee considered the following means of regulating floor area and the bulk and mass of homes on substandard lots: • Modification of the Lot Unit Factor(LUF) formula • Development of a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for substandard lots • Use of a building circle to determine allowable floor area • Reduction of setbacks based on lot size • Reduction of allowable building height based on lot size and/or proposed setbacks Staff Report to the Planning Commission Study Session on Conditional Development Permit Regulations September 15,2015 Page 2 of 2 Based on comments from the Council and residents,it was clear that the Town's required setbacks are highly valued. The Ad-hoc Committee decided against recommending reduced setbacks for substandard lots and instead developed a new set of findings for setback variances(see Attachment 4). These findings would be required to be made in addition to the standard variance findings. In addition to the findings for setbacks variances,the Ad-hoc Committee is recommending adding a Floor Area Ratio(FAR)for substandard lots. FAR is a.percentage of allowable floor area related to the lot size. An applicant with a substandard lot would be required to calculate maximum allowable floor area using the applicable LUF formula and the FAR, and the more restrictive of the two numbers would be applied. A FAR range of.14 to .20 is under consideration. A FAR of .14 is consistent with the allowable floor area for a oneacre lot. A FAR of.20 cap is consistent with several recent CDP approvals. The chart below shows some examples of small lots and how the inclusion of a FAR would affect the allowable floor area. Lot Size LUF-MFA* FAR.20 FAR.18 FAR.16 FAR.14 .80 acre 5,000 6,970 6,273 5,576 4,879 .70 acre 5,000 6,098 5,489 4,879 4,269 .60 acre 5,000 5,227 4,704 ' 4,182. " 3,659 .50 acre 5,000 4,356 3,920 3,485 3,049 .40 acre 4,000 3,485 3,136 _ 2,788 2,439 .30 acre 3,000 2,614 2,352 2,091 1,830 *Assumes average slope of 10%or less Using the above examples, a .50 acre lot with a LUF based MFA of 5,000 square feet and a .20 FAR of 4,356 square feet, the FAR would be used as the maximum floor area. If a lower FAR is adopted, it will limit floor areas maximums further. Lots of.50 acres or less would have a lower allowable floor area based on the application of the FAR. Attachment 6 is public comments on regulation of substandard lots. ATTACHMENTS 1. Study.Session notice 2. Current Conditional Development Permit regulations 3. Draft Zoning Ordinance amendment 4. Draft setback variance findings 5. List of lots of.50 acre or less 6. List of lots of.51 to .83 acre 7. Public comments ATTACHMENT 1 LOS ALTOS RILLS hi CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Clerk of the Town of Los Altos Hills, State of California, has set after the hour of 7:00 p.m. TUESDAY, September 15, 2015 in the Council Chambers of Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos.Hills, California, as the time and place for a Public Hearing on the presentationiof +i= The Planning Commission will hold a`}'studysession to consider alternative approaches to development regulations for small lots'andto:receive public comment. Small lots include parcels that are less than .50 acres that>equire\Conditional Development Permits. Maximum floor area for lots up to .83 acres will also be discussed.. Proposed floor area regulations may result in reductions of Maximum Floor Area (MFA)for small lots. No action will be taken at this meeting. Planning Commission and City Council public hearings will be scheduled at a future date. (Staff-Suzanne Avila). All interested persons may appear and be heard at said time and place. Written communications should be filed at Town Hall prior to the date of the hearing. Court challenges to the action of the Site Development Committee, Planning Commission,or City Council may be limited to issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence received at Town Hall at, or prior to, the time of the public hearing., Further details may be obtained from the Planning Department at(650) 941-7222. ATTACHMENT 2 Current CDP Regulations 10-1.503 Floor area. Except as provided in subsections c and d below, the amount of floor area in square feet allowed on a parcel or lot shall not exceed the amount determined by application of the formula in: subsection(a) of this section,where S is the average slope of the parcel or lot in percent, as defined in Section 10-1.202, LUF;is the lot unit factor as defined in Section 10-1.202, and MFA is the maximum floor area allowable. (a) For all parcels or lots, the allowable floor area in square feet shall relate to the average slope of the parcel or lot and the lot unit factor for the parcel or lot as specified in the formula given in subsections (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section: (1) For parcels or lots where S is equal to or less than ten(10)percent: MFA=LUF x 6,000 square feet (2) For parcels or lots where S is greater than ten(10)percent and less than thirty(30) percent: MFA=LUF x [6,000-50(S-10)] square feet (3) For parcels or lots where S is equal to or greater than thirty(30)percent: MFA= LUF x 5,000 square feet (b) Floor Area. Floor area shall be measured as defined in Section 10-1.202 of this title. (c) Minimum MFA. The allowable floor area on any parcel or lot shall not be reduced to less than five thousand(5,000) square feet by application of the provisions of this section, except as set forth in subsection(e) of this section or except in the case of parcels or lots which have a lot unit factor of 0.50 or less. I°arcels at&whalik have aft `a o , factor`s o' o o s requite a*Condition"al Develop c m Permit c1 floor area o estricted Below thousand(5 000)�qu�arefeet`as condition 0 4'the permit: ax�im�u s.19 0 P s aa, o f iii r: � � 4 e �.�_�� �� �.y, Lt shalll� is o©r area o o :require a Condit"1onal Development Pe, i i o- established e Iatio C @ :thalt factor(LU0F)forith lot divide'a* 0 0 t ousand({5,000 uar £eet F DevelO ent�At hon_t ay a rove floor o ' o o \� o; i ousazid q �, p Y �Y� Y pp , ��� '�'� Hundred(2,5®®) square f et for any loot w.lathout req nn� \arlaace;.wj o a 6366 �indiiims for"a Coridihonal Dev'elo cmeht Permit are made (d) For any lot on which substantial areas of slope in excess of thirty(30)percent constrain the allowable floor area for the site, the lot unit factor and maximum floor area may be calculated based solely on the flatter portion of the property,provided that: (1) the area used in the calculation results in a lot unit factor(LUF)in excess of 1.0 and provides a minimum of a one hundred sixty(160) foot diameter building circle within that area; (2)the remaining steep slopes excluded from the calculation are contiguous and placed in a conservation easement,prohibiting any construction, grading or development in perpetuity; and(3) driveway access to the building site is located outside of the conservation easement area. (e) The standards set forth in this section for maximum floor area(MFA) are maximum standards. The City Council and Planning Commission have the discretion to apply stricter standards to reduce floor area where site specific constraints dictate further limitations, such that the purposes of the ordinances are complied with. Some examples of site constraints include,but are not limited to, the shape or natural features of the lot, easements which restrict development, or high site visibility. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 3, Ord. 382, eff. May 17, 1996; § 2, Ord. 389, eff. August 15, 1997; § 2, Ord. 412, eff. July 7, 2001; § 1, Ord. 522, eff. December 18, 2010) 10-1.1007(3) Conditional development permits—Approval—Condition. (a) On substandard lots, due to the difficulty..of accommodating development which 'eeets the objectives and standards of the Town, any lot which has a lot unit factor of.50 or ss shall require a Conditional Development Permit from the Planning Commission: In addition, any lot significantly constrained by a human habitation setback for geologic hazard areas or a nonhuman habitation setback for noise shall require a Conditional Development Permit from the Planning Commission,unless the Zoning Administrator finds that the lot is not significantly constrained by such setback or zone. Prior to the granting_oi any permit, the Planning Commission must find that: 1) The site for the proposed development is adequate in size,shape and topography` o accommodate the proposed intensity of development, including all structures, yards, pen spaces,parking, landscaping, walls and fences, and such other_fea_tures as maybe equired by this chapter. (2) The size and design of the proposed structures create a proper balance,unity and harmonious appearance in relation to the size, shape and topography of the site and irk relation to the surrounding neighborhood (3) The rural character of the site has been preserved as much as feasible by minimizing vegetation and tree removal, excessive and unsightly grading and, alteration of natural land forms. 1(4). The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in the Site Development ordinance. (li) Every Conditional Development Permit granted may be subject to such conditions as 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, installation of landscaping, and resisting of structures. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 6, Ord. 314, eff. November 6, 1987; § 1, Ord. 337, eff. September 14, 1990; Ord. 338, eff. September 19, 1990; § 1, Ord. 341, eff. January 4, 1991) ATTACHMENT 3 Proposed Amendments to CDP Regulations 10-1.503 Floor area. Except as provided in subsections c and d below, theamount of floor area in square feet allowed on a parcel or lot shall not exceed the amount determined by application of the formula in: subsection(a) of this section, where S is the average slope of the parcel or lot in percent, as defined in Section 10-1.202, LUF is the lot unit factor as defined in Section 10-1.202, and MFA is the maximum floor area allowable. (a) For all parcels or lots,the allowable floor area in square feet shall relate.to the average slope ofthe parcel or lot and the lot unit factor for the parcel or lot as specified in the formula given in subsections (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section: (1) For parcels or lots where S is equal to or less than ten(10)percent: MFA=LUF x 6,000 square feet (2) For parcels or lots where S is greater than ten(10)percent and less than thirty(30) percent: MFA=LUF x [6,000-50(S-10)] square feet (3) For parcels or lots where S is equal to or greater than thirty(30)percent: MFA=LUF x 5,000 square feet (b) Floor Area. Floor area shall be measured as defined in Section 10-1.202 of this title. (c) Minimum MFA. The allowable floor area on any parcel or lot shall not be reduced to less than five thousand(5,000) square feet by application of the provisions of this section, except as set forth in subsection(e) of this section or except in the caseof parcels or lots which have a lot unit factor of 0.50 or less. I'arcels have el riit factor of 05'0 raft big tequ re i o diLion ii Developm.ent Permit floor area no t' restricted below Thousand 5,0®0) square feet .r cond tion Crib@ permit. mime tee• oor'area torequire Co diti Develop, enL Permit i t 041established he Map(PON 1n10factor(ILic fob.the lot divided 0 p tithes. t Dios. d Q5,000 s o Hare Ist ( AR ahr�hevert 'gyp Stte Developmen+ Aithor4 roo. approve Dor`, . o >up,to taw thousand hued ed 02,500 square is any o rwithou xisyttiat variancesolon!'as the findin•s o CoriditionalDeveloomeni 1ennit are made. (d) For any lot on which substantial areas of slope in excess of thirty(30)percent constrain the allowable floor area for the site, the lot unit factor and maximum floor area may be calculated based solely on the flatter portion of the property,provided that: (1)the area used in the calculation results in a lot unit factor(LUF)in excess of 1.0 and provides a• . minimum of a one hundred sixty(160) foot diameter building circle within that area; (2)the remaining steep slopes excluded from the calculation are contiguous and placed in a conservation easement,prohibiting any construction, grading or development in perpetuity; and(3) driveway access to the building site is located outside of the conservation easement area. (e) The standards set forth in this section for maximum floor area(MFA) are maximum standards. The City Council and Planning Commission have the discretion to apply stricter standards to reduce floor area where site specific constraints dictate further limitations, such that the purposes of the ordinances are complied with. Some examples of site constraints include,but are not limited to, the shape or natural features of the lot, easements which restrict development, or high site visibility. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 3, Ord. 382, eff. May 17, 1996; § 2, Ord. 389, eff. August 15, 1997; § 2, Ord. 412, eff. July 7, 2001; § 1, Ord. 522, eff. December 18, 2010) 10-1.1007(3) Conditional development permits—Approval—Condition. (a) On substandard lots, due to thedifficulty of accommodating development which meets the objectives and standards of the Town, any lot which has a lot unit factor of.50 or less shall re•uire a Conditional Develo.ment Permit from the Plannin:. Commission. In addition, any lot significantly constrained by a human habitation setback for geologic hazard areas or a nonhuman habitation setback for noise shall require a Conditional Development Permit from the Planning Commission,unless the Zoning Administrator finds that the lot is not significantly constrained by such setback or zone. Prior to the granting of any permit, the Planning Commission must find that: (1) The site for the proposed development is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate the proposed intensity of development, including all structures, yards, open spaces,parking, landscaping,walls and fences,and such other features as may be required,by this chapter. (2) The size and design of the proposed structures create a proper balance,unity an 1 harmonious appearance in relation to the size, shape and topography of the site and ii relation to the surrounding neighborhood; (3) The rural character of the site has been preserved as much as feasible by minimizing vegetation and tree removal, excessive and unsightly grading ands alteration of natural land forms. (4) The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in the Site Development ordinance. (b} Every Conditional Development Permit granted maybe subject to such conditions as 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,,installation of landscaping, and resisting of structures. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 6, Ord. 314, eff.November 6, 1987; §. 1, Ord. 337, eff. September 14, 1990; Ord. 338, eff. September 19, 1990; § 1, Ord. 341, eff. January 4, 1991) September 9,2015 ATTACHMENT 4 10-1.1007(2)Variances—Approval—Conditions. The Staff Committee comprised of the Zoning Administrator and City Manager or designee(herein called the"Staff Committee")and Planning Commission are empowered to grant variances from the requirements of this title.The Staff Committee or Planning Commission shall act as the authority to grant variances as specified in subsections (e)and(f)below. (a) Purpose.The purpose of the variance is to resolve practical difficulties or undue hardships,not of the applicant's own making,which may result from the exceptional size, shape, topography,location, or other physical site conditions, or the use or development of property in the immediate vicinity.In this context,personal,family,or financial difficulties,loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not practical difficulties or hardships justifying a variance.In some cases,the location of existing structures may result in a practical difficulty or hardship. (b) Findings.The Staff Committee or Planning Commission may grant the requested variance in whole or in part only if,from the application or the facts presented at the public hearing, it can affirmatively fmd that all of the following four(4)requirements have been met: (1) That,because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape,topography, location or surroundings,the strict application of the provisions of this title is found to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; (2) That upon the granting of the variance,the intent and purpose of the applicable sections of this title will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners; (3) That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property,improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district; (4) That the variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning district regulations governing the parcel or property. (c) Findings for setback variance. The Staff Committee or Planning Commission may grant a requested setback variance in whole or in part only if, from the application or the facts presented at the public hearing,it can affirmatively fmd that one or more of the following requirements has been met in addition to the findingsin subsection(b): (1) The setback encroachment conforms with existing legal nonconforming setbacks; or (2) Thesetback encroachment is minimal and provides significant accommodation of site- specific building constraints while still fitting intothe neighborhood context; or (3) The setback encroachment is necessary due to unique site characteristics,the semi-rural character of the town will be maintained,and there will not be a significant adverse impact on neighboring properties. (d). Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity within the same zoning district. (e) The Staff Committee shall act as the permitting body for all applications involving the 'following: (1) Maximum Development Area(MDA). Requests to exceed MDA by five hundred(500) square feet or less; (2) Maximum Floor Area(MFA).Requests to exceed MFA by one hundred fifty(150) square feet or less; (3) Setbacks.Requests for encroachments into any setback of two(2)feet or less and measuring one hundred fifty(150) square feet of floor area or less; (4) Fences and Walls.Requests to locate fences on the roadway side of the"reference line" defined in Section 10-1.504(d)(1). (f) The Planning Commission shall act as the permitting body for all variance applications involving the following: (1) Maximum Development Area(MDA).Requests to exceed MDA by more than two hundred fifty(250)square feet; (2) Maximum Floor Area(MFA).Requests to exceed MFA by more than one hundred fifty (150)square feet; (3) Setbacks.Requests for encroachment into any setback of more than two(2)feet or measuring less than one hundred fifty(150) square feet of floor area; (4) Height.All requests for height envelope encroachments,to exceed maximum height of twenty-seven(27)feet and/or to exceed special height limitation of thirty-five(35)feet; (5) Others.All other variance applications not specified above, and any applications referred to the Planning Commission by the Zoning Administrator. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 5, Ord. 314, eff.November 6, 1987; § 3, Ord. 3.26, eff. September 16, 1988) July 23,2015 ZEN" Lot Scze.(fetroscan) ReuilsAlot srM(4sser"sso Address ° _ : _- Ezimi MUM floorGarage allifiSq.i , 175 03 008 0.42 0.4300 14696 Manuella Rd 1963 2,315 991 - 790 4,096 175 03 043 0.46 ,. - 14848 Manuella Rd 1953 2,274 - - 624 2,898 175 04 003 0.34 0.3500 25851 Estacada Wy 1954 2,262 - - 2,262 175 04 006 0.47 0.4800 25875 Estacada Wy . 1955 2,173 1,400 - 527 4,100 175 04 007 0:46 .. 0.4700 .. 25881 Estacada Dr 1956 3,552 - 440 3,992 175 04 008 0.46 - 14660 Saltamontes Wy 1955 1,618 - - 504 2,122 175 04 012 0.45 0.4600 14555 Debell Rd 1956 2,869 1,035 - 610 4,514 175 04 013 0.42 . - 14554 Debell Rd. 1953 2,144 -. . - 644 . 2,788 175 04 014 0.47 0.4800 14576 Debell Rd 1953 3,129 - 496 3,625 175 04 016 0.47 0.4800 14555 Miranda Rd 1953 2,310 - - 635 2,945 175 04 018 0.44 0.4500 25835 Estacada Dr 1957 2,228 - - 462 2,690 175 04 019 0.20 0.2100 25861 Estacada Wy 1954 2,183 385 - . 462 3,030 175 21 038 0.08 0.0800 Lowell Avenue 175 21 100 0.08 0.0800 Kingsley Avenue 175 04 022 0.47 0.6300 25811 Estacada Dr 1954 2,262 - - 484 2,746 175 23 023 0.31 0.3200 25531 W Fremont Rd 1930 848 - - 200 1,048 175 25 060 0.23 - 13613 Burke Rd 1978 2,197 - - 568 ' . 2,765 175 25 063 .0.41 0.4200 13621 Burke Rd 1995 2,449 543 _ - 521 _ 3,513 175 26 002 0.41 - 25561 Deerfield Dr 1949 2,022 1,456 - 500 3,978 175 26 004 0.40 - 25701 Deerfield Dr 1955 1,588 1,200 1,136 420 4,344 175 26 006 0.47 . 0.4800 25731 Deerfield Dr 1952 . 1,572 1,200 - 400 3,172 175 26 008 . 0.44 0.4500 25710 Deerfield Dr 1951 1,757 525 672 2,954 175 26 009 0.49 - 25700 Deerfield Dr. 2003 . 1,709 1,960 245 3,914 175 26 043 0.38 - Burke Rd - - - 0 175 28 033 . 0.43 - 25691 Chapin Rd 2000 2,474 563 - . 507 3,544 175 28 035 0.40 0.4000 13530 WFremont Rd 1954 2,447 1,585 - 463 • 4,495 175 29 003 0.51 0.50 13331 Lennox Wy 1955 3,446 372 3,818 175 54 077 0.30 - Concepcion Rd - - - 0 182 05 016 0.38 - Purissima Rd - - - 0 y 182 20 046 0.24 Lucero Ln - . - . - .0 182 23 024 0.42 - Julietta Ln - - - 0 182 25 018 0.25 - no site address - - - - 0 182 29 048 0.47 - Central Dr - - - - 0 Fx 182 50 044 0.49 - 13531 Paseo Del Roble - - - - 0 4 331, 15 061 0.37 . . . - Mora Dr - - - - 0 . 331 15 062 0.40 - Mora Drive - - - - 0 336 15 006 0.44 0.48 24600 Summerhill Av 1951 1,818 - - 360 2,178 336 17 001 0.48 - 12370 Hilltop Dr 1949 2,145 - - 506 2,651 C11 336 17 002 0.49 - 12380 Hilltop Dr • 2007 1,918 1,495 - 1,010 4,423 .APN z i A Size(Metros_c_an) Reviserirlot size((4sser essor g Address .' n , Moor adfloor 4Affloor Garage Sq. 336 17 020 0.42 - 12450 Hilltop Dr 1952 2,008 - 484 2,492 336 17 021 0.42 - 12460 Hilltop Dr 1950 1,966 , - - 1,966 336 17 046 0.47 0.47 12390 Hilltop Dr 2007 3,370 700 4,070 336 19 006 0.24 - 11991 Hilltop Dr 1953 1,610 - - 408 2,018 336 20 040 0.43 . Hilltop Dr. - - - . 0 .. 336 33 008 0.49 - 25309 La Loma Dr - - - 0 336 43 010 0.29 - Rhus Ridge Rd - - - 0 351 08.016 0.44 - Ravensbury Av - - - 0 Lots.51 to.83 acres APN Lot size Address Year Built 1st floor 2nd floor garage total sq.ft. 175 03 004 0.54 25935 Estacada Drive 1955 3,389 462 3,851 175 03 005 . 0.69 . 25955 Estacada Drive 1957 2,510 648 3,158 175 03 006 0.52 14650 Manuella Road 1955 2,128 440 2,568 175 03 007 0.501 14690 Manuella Road 1954 1,758 440 2,198 175 03 009 0.53 14700 Manueall Road 1928 3,067 560 3,627 175 03 011 0.54 14710 Manuella Road 1954 2,852 286 . 3,138 175 03 014 0.78 14884 Manuella Road 1910 1,933 462 2,395 175 03 042 0.75 14846 Manuella Road 1952 2,038 0 2,038 175 04 011 0.54 14575 Debell Road 1955 3,169 740 3,909 175 04 015 0.51 25830 Estacada Drive 1953 1,955 594 2,549 175 04 020 0.66 25871 Estacada Way 1954 . 2,098 484 2,582 175 04 022 0.63 25811 Estacada Drive 1954 2,262 484 2,746 175 05 025 0.8 14381 Miranda Way 1954 2,519 617 3,136 175 10 019 0.8 .. 14000 Miranda Road 1978 . 2,997 .. 600 3,597 ... 175 26 001 0.54 25531 Deerfield Drive 1955 1,734 620 2,354 175 26 005 0.53 25711 Deerfield Drive 1952 2,071 660 2,731 175 26 007 0.61 25740 Deerfield,Drive 1975 2,168 532 2,700 175 26 010 0.53 25620 Deerfield Drive ' ' 1980 , 2,625 646 . 3,271. 175 26 011 0.8 25610 Deerfield Drive 1939 2,702 702 3,404 175 26 044 0.51 13631 Burke Road 1924 1,282 285 1,567 175 27 015 . .0.79 13310 E Sunset Drive 2011 - 3,516 '434 3,950 1,119 basement 175 27 017 0.8 13204 E Sunset Drive 1948 2,757 400 3,157 175 27 029 0.8 25670 Chapin Road 1961 2,293 426 2,719 175 28 010 0.51 13340 W Fremont Road 1951 2,349 420 2,769 y 175 28 011: 0.52 ' 13500 W Fremont Road . 1955 2,812 528_ 3,340 175 28 013 0.52 13625 Hill Way 1920 2,713 2,713 175 28 014 0.52 13571 Hill Way 2011 2,506 1,754 0 4,260 1,783 basement n 175.28.017 0.51 13640 Burke Road . .2000 1,845 .798 583 3,226 916 basement x 175 28 022 ' 0.68 13620 Hill Way 1992 2,253 1,743 0 3,996 175 29 003 0.5 13331 Lennox Way 1970 2,332 462 2,794 175 29 004 0.74 13303 Lennox Way 1984 4,092 504 4,596 175 29 005 0.74 13290 Lennox Way 1955 3,446 372 3,818 01 175 29 007 0.6 13332 Lennox Way 1964 2,794 1,029 3,823 175 29010 0.79 13310 Lennox Way 1979 1,224 1,452 528 3,204 175 40 025 0.75 12784 Normandy Lane 1962 5,051 1,175 6,226 175 46 011 0.61 13050 Alta Tierra Road 1953 1,782. 496 . 2,278 175 46 012 0.59 13080 Alta Tierra Road 1950 2,961 839 3,800 175 48 021 0.8 12422 Robleda Road 1965 2,296 624 2,920 175 48 022 0.77 12444 Robleda Road 1988 4,016 759 4,775 182 04 010 0.79 Gigli Court . 0 undeveloped 182 07.066 0.76 14250 Berry Hill Lane .2000 3,885 660 4,545 182 10 002 0.83 13460 South Fork Lane 1949 3,358 0 3,358 182 13 037 0.58 26631 Taaffe Road 2010 1,774 1,499 477 3,750 182 28 008 0.75. Central Drive 0 undeveloped 182 30 022 0.69 27101 Moody Road .. 0 undeveloped 182 30 026 0.68 Moody Road 0 undeveloped 182 30 034 0.79 27360 Sherlock Court 1979 1,684 0 1,684 182 30 041 0.8 . 27381 Moody Road. . . . 1980 2,614 . 462 3,076 ., 182 30 048 0.77 26691 Moody Road 1940 1,200 0 1,200 182 50 008 0.52 13531 Paseo Del Roble Drive 1977 2,943 693 3,636 331 01 028 0.71 11521.Crestridge Drive 1995 5,851 744 6,595 annexed 331 15 055 0.65 , 10810 Mora Drive 1940 , 2,932 576 3,508, 331 15 056 0.79 10840 Mora Drive 1986 4,044 660 4,704 331 15 057 0.77 10868 Mora Drive 1940 2,452 440 2,892 331 17 079 . 0.7 10500 Sunhills Drive 1993 3,493 738 4,231 331 17 083 0.76 10435 Berkshire Drive 2008 2,591 740 3,331 336 15 003 0.52 24624 Summerhill Avenue 1952 1,705 480 2,185 336 15 004 0.58 24616 Summerhill Avenue 1952 2,926 480 3,406 336 16 050. 0.74 24300 Summerhill Avenue 1995 3,144 630 3,774 336 15 003 0.52 24624 Summerhill Avenue 1952 1,705 480 2,185 336 17 026 0.73 24220 Hillview Road 1975 3,590 624 4,214 336.17.028 .0.75 . 24129 Hillview Road 1960 . 2,952 568 3,520 336 17 041 0.75 24142 Summerhill Avenue 1989 3,629 484 4,113 336 29 012 0.7 25005 Oneonta Drive 1962 3,395 552 3,947 336 29 016 0.74 24965 Oneonta Drive 1953 1,217 441 1,658 336 29 018 0.74 24985 Oneonta Drive 1953 1,601 573 2,174 APN Lot size Address Year Built 1st floor 2nd floor garage total sq.ft. 336 37007 0.81 23225 Ravensubury Avenue 1951. 3,161 1,006 4,167 336 38 034 0.77 12200 Winton Way 1996 4,110 590 4,700 110 basement 336 39 011 0.75 10251 Magdalena Road 1948 2,316. 572 2,888 351 01 016 0.61 27730 Canyon Road 1935 1,020 234 1,254 351 01 017 0.6 27850 Canyon Road 1947 1,085 550 1,635 351 01 043 0.73 11470 Page Mill Road 1940 1,983 0 1,983 351 01 044 0.66 27920 Moody Road 1926 • 1,092 0 1,092 35102.009 0.68 27220 Moody Road 1928 1,120 .216 • 1,336 35102 012 0.82 27050 Moody Road 1942 3,035 549 3,584 • ATTACHMENT 7 Suzanne Avila From: Hal Feeney <hal@feeney.us.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 19,2015 1:00 PM To: Suzanne Avila Subject: Substandard Lots May 19, 2015 Sent via email Ms.Suzanne Avila, AICP Planning Director Town Hall Office 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 RE: Substandard Lots Dear Ms. Avila We appreciate Councilmember Larsen's effort to focus the LAH Council's attention on the founding principles of LAH, particularly the rural character of the Town and the 1 acre minimum zoning. In response to Councilmember Larsen expressing concerns about substandard lots in Los Altos Hills, we want to comment about the issue. Although Mary Jo and I are not residents of LAH, we are concerned about potential decisions that LAH may make regarding decisions in the development of substandard lots. These concerns have intensified because the recent annexation of part of our Mora Drive neighborhood did not yet deliver on the expectation that the LAH town governance would strongly protect the one acre building rule. We have lived on Mora Drive for forty years. During that entire time, the County Zoning has been R- 1 E (one acre). Prior to 2006, no new lots smaller than 1 acre were created on Mora Drive. Recent Staff Reports have analyzed the variances granted to sub-0.5 acre development in the Town. Only a few of those variances enabled complete homes to be constructed; most variances were room additions or for driveway construction in the setbacks. An entire home should not be constructed in the setback. This is not merely a small lot development issue; lots larger than 1 acre could have problems, too. The-real issue that needs to be addressed is managing development on some poorly configured lots, lots that perhaps should not be developed under any circumstances. In the recent Planning Commission review of a substandard lot on Deerfield, the original variance request was for a 1 foot variance for construction into the setback (refused by the Planning Commission); subsequently, the developer redesigned his project such that no portion of the house extended into the setback. This developer obviously has a well-configured lot that allowed him to design a home that would meet all of the setback requirements for the structure. On the other hand even a 1-acre lot may be poorly configured such that it might be 60 feet by 700 feet. Would LAH allow a home to be built on such a poorly configured lot? Visualizing the "building envelope" (i.e. the space left after subtracting the required setbacks from the lot lines) is the issue that should be addressed. Setbacks can reduce the size of a useful "building envelope" on both small 1 (substandard) lots and on standard parcels (1 acre plus) that are poorly configured. The computation of the MFA should consider the building area available on a lot once the setback areas are subtracted—a 60 foot wide lot would offer little space for a "building envelope" once the setback areas are subtracted. If LAH focuses its effort on the poorly configured legal lots, the appropriate conclusion may be that although the lots are legal, they are not configured to meet setback requirements that are compatible with the Town standards. The appropriate development decision should be that the lots should not be developed if they are poorly configured; as an alternative the lot lines might be reconfigured with those of adjacent parcels such that a home can be built without extending into the setback—this could be a reconfiguration such that setbacks would meet LAH requirements, not a forced merger of parcels. If there is a reconfiguration of lot lines, no substandard lot should be allowed to shrink in area. A corollary to this discussion may be a consideration of the maximum incursion into the setback that might be allowed (1 foot, 5 feet—what about 20 feet?) before declaring a lot unbuildable. Similarly, consider the maximum percent of a home that can be built in the setback (outside of the "building envelope") under LAH ordinances (1%, .5% -- what about 95%?). This is a discussion (and a decision) that can apply to large lots as well as small lots. On Mora Drive, the original subdivision map included 0.8 ac. lots at the top of the hill and 1 ac. or more as the hill became steeper. The smallest lot may be the 0.67 ac. lot at the corner of Terry Way. As a result, poorly configured 0.4 ac. lots are not compatible with this neighborhood. The 0.4 ac. "legal" lots on Mora Drive are approximately 60 feet in width. No matter how LAH may analyze the footprint of proposed homes on these "legal" lots, the only way homes could be constructed on these lots would be for LAH to grant variances for more than 90% of the home footprint to be built into the setback. Has such a precedent ever been set? Moreover, have any significant (>5 feet) variances been given to new buildings in the last few decades? To extend this thought a bit further, perhaps the MFA and MDA need to be constrained by the configuration of lots—both the MFA and MDA should be computed based on the area available within the setbacks (i.e. the building envelope). If the area available within the setbacks approaches zero, then the developable area should also approach zero. This analysis could be uniformly applied to large parcels and to small parcels. We hope that these comments contribute to the dialog on this issue. Since we are in the sphere of influence of Los Altos Hills and expect annexation in the future, we are concerned that the rural character of LAH be maintained. Sincerely, Harold V. Feeney Mary Jo Feeney P.S. Our home was built in 1937 with 10' side yard setbacks. We now must live with a poor setback decision that was made almost 80 years ago. Adequate setbacks are necessary for space between homes as well as to provide access for equipment to the rear of the property. Please do not allow setbacks in LAH to shrink. 2 May 20, 2015 Los Altos Hills City Council Dear City Council members, On May 21, 2015 you will be reviewing Conditional Development Permit Standards. I will address some of the issues I have found and considered. The Constitution requires that governments must treat similarly-situated persons similarly. With this in mind it is apparent that the most objective metrics, as opposed to subjective opinions, should be utilized when making planning decisions. This is a very important requirement because any perceived deviation may result in litigation against the Town and possibly elected and appointed officials. A poor planning decision may haunt us for years if it sets a precedent. The existing ordinance for Conditional Development Permits requires the Planning Commission or City Council to make findings detailed in 10-1.1007(3) of the municipal Code. This section of the Code provides examples of remedies to insure that the objectives and standards of the Town are met. MDA and MFA limits are the effective tools along with resiting of structures and landscape screening. Variances are often associated with overly developed lots and should be avoided primarily because they often have a negative effect on adjoining properties because of loss of privacy, noise, and open space loss. The loss of prospective profits is not justification for a variance. The most important factor to the applicant for a Conditional Development Permit is MFA and MDA; these numbers,particularly MFA translate into dollars. MDA and MFA are calculated from LUF which is calculated by a formula utilizing slope and net lot area. Article 10-1.1007(3) a 2 states that the Planning Commission must find that the size and design of the proposed structures create a proper balance,unity, and harmonious appearance in relation to the size, shape and topography of the site and in relation to the surrounding neighborhood when approving Conditional Development Permits. When making a determination of what the MDA/MFA should be on a constrained lot requiring a Conditional Development Permit, a quantifiable metric should be used. A true net lot area is the obvious metric for these calculations for several reasons. LUF is not a good choice because the formula used to determine the LUF does not reflect sound engineering but is primarily a political decision supporting esthetics.Net lot area needs to be normalized by defining it in a logical and consistent manner. I suggest that net lot area be defined by the rear and side property lines as described by the County land records and the front as a line 30 feet from and parallel to the official centerline of the road. I also suggest that setbacks should be measured from the net property lines or from required creek bank setbacks determined by state law. Utilizing a true and consistent net lot area, an average floor area to net lot area may be calculated for neighborhood properties that require a Conditional Development Permit. Ideally,there would be a sufficient number of constrained properties in the neighborhood to calculate a MFA/MDA consistent with existing neighborhood constrained lots for new development requiring a Conditional Development Permit in the neighborhood. There may be situations where there are not enough similar properties in the neighborhood to develop a reasonably accurate floor area vs. net lot area number in which case similar neighborhoods should be used. A credible unbiased number for the ratio of floor area vs. net lot area for constrained properties will produce a fair and consistent MDA/MFA that can be calculated for new applications for site development for neighboring constrained properties. The Town may be annexing additional areas in our sphere of influence in the future; some of these potential annexations contain very small lots. Having a good process in place for dealing with small lots requiring Conditional Development Permits would be a very valuable standardized requirement to have in place not only for the Town but for the future property owners should the annexation(s)be completed. I do not anticipate your being able to be able to provide full directions at the meeting;this is a complicated and very important subject requiring a lot of thought and time for analysis. I suggest that you put in place a moratorium on Conditional Development Permits until the issues are fully vetted and ordinances and possibly General Plan updates are put in place and are in effect. There is much to be lost without competent resolution of these issues now, little to be lost in the overall with a small delay. Respectfully, Jim Abraham Los Altos Hills, CA GCA: LAW PARTNERS LLP May 20, 2015 Mayor Corrigan and Members of the Town Council The Town of Los Altos Hills, 23679 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 cccorrigan@losaltoshills.ca.gov john.harpootlian@gmail.com findrichlarsen@gmail.com jradford2011@yaheo.com gcwaldeck@losaltoshills.ca.gov Re: Undersized Lot Development in Los Altos Hills Dear Mayor Corrigan and Members of the City Council:. This firm represents certain residents on Mora Drive in Los Altos Hills ("LAH")who are very concerned about the development of undersized lots. We understand that there will be a meeting on May 21, 2015.to discuss this issue. We request that this letter be included in the. packet of documents considered. At the City Council meeting on April 20, 2015, the City Attorney stated that the LAH needed to be careful it was not "taking" property rights in response to requests for development of these undersized lots. This letter addresses the issue of takings. I attach an article Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff which is an excellent overview of the takings issue. As stated in this article, LAH is entitled tomake regulations of the use of land and development so long as it is for a legitimate purpose. As stated by the City Attorney on April 20,2015, if there is still value to the property, it probably will not be a taking. As shown below, LAH is within its rights,to require certain sizes for lots and setbacks and this will not be a taking. Law Supporting LAH Regulating the Development of Substandard Lots • The California Constitution,Article XI, Section 7 states that"A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local,police, sanitary,and other ordinances and regulations not in 2570 W. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 510 MOUNTAIN VIEW. CA 94040 • TEL 660.426.3900 FAX 660..428.3901 www.gcalaw.com Los Altos Hills City Council May 20, 2015 • Page 2 . • conflict:with general laws" This rule of law has been upheld for many years. (See Miller v. • Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477 (1925)) Courts have traditionally construed the police power to authorize local land use regulation. (See Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist., 39 Cal. 3d 878, 886 (1985) • • There are several United States Supreme Court cases that have reviewed regulations to • determine if there is a taking. The first question is whether the regulation deprives the property owner of all economic interest in the property. If there is still value, it is probably not a taking. Examples of cases where the Court found no taking include: • Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002)where there was only a 32 month moratorium of any development and the Court held there was no taking. If the property retains some value,there will not be a categorical taking • Penn Central Trans. Co. v. City of New York,438 U.S. 104 (1978) where the Court confirmed the City could deny the construction of an office building on top of Penn • Central station and this was not a taking. • Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001)where the Court confirmed the government agency could deny development of property which loss was claimed to be $3.1 million because there was still$200,000 in value in the property. Penn Central Trans. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, (1978) is the seminal case on the issue of partial taking. Though there is no test for taking, there are factors to be considered which include the magnitude of the regulation's impacts, the investment backed expectations of the property owner and the timing and fairness of the regulation. In LAH, the minimum lot size and setbacks have been the law for a very long time. Anyone who purchased small lots should have been aware of these requirements. In determining if there is a taking,the Court will also look at the entire property and not just part of it. In many instances,the undersized lots are from annexed land where there are more than one lot at one address. Because of the problem with LAH's merger law,LAH cannot • force merger. However, these lots can be combined and still have significant value. In turn, there is no taking if LAH requires the proper setbacks and acreage. LAH Municipal Code and General Plan LAH's General Plan includes the following: 1. The Los Altos Hills planning area is characterized by its natural beauty, extensive open spaces, and semi-rural lifestyle.The rolling hills and Los Altos Hills City Council May 20,2015 • Page 3 rugged mountains of the planning area provide a natural backdrop for the • more intensively developed urban areas around San Francisco Bay. The topography also provides significant constraints to development such as ' steep slopes, unstable soils, seismic faults and other natural hazards. • Preservation of the natural setting is important for maintaining and enhancing the quality of life for residents of the Town,as well as the Mid- Peninsula and Bay Area region. This General Plan provides a policy framework within which Los Altos Hills can develop in a safe, orderly manner while preserving its semi-rural, residential character. 23. The primary uses of land in Los Altos Hills are single-family residences including secondary dwelling units and other accessory structures; small-scale agricultural activities; and recreation and open space. A minimum of one acre of land is required per primary residence. In general, however,the density of dwelling units decreases as the • steepness of land increases,due to Town regulations and physical constraints. In addition,uses within the planning area include public and private facilities necessary to serve the residents on a continuing basis. Municipal Code section 10-1.103 states the purpose of the zoning andbuilding requirements are"to protect and guide the growth and expansion of the Town in an orderly manner"and to preserve the environment of the Town. There are multiple code sections that relate to the required size of lots, setbacks and requirements for allowing a variance which include 10-1.501, 10.1-505, 10-1.1003,and 10.1.1007(1)and(2)which show a uniformed and fair approach to regulation of all property within LAH. Interestingly, in Ybarra v. Town Of Los Altos Hills (1973) 370 F.Supp.742; affirmed (1974) 503 F.2d 250, the Town's General Plan requirement of one acre was upheld as a legitimate government interest. The Town was sued over the one acre requirement saying it discriminated against poor people. The Court held that the LAH General plan had a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest, i.e. preserving the town's rural environment. • LAH has Been Consistent in not Approving Sub Standard Lots for Development In loolcing at the historical data for approval of undersized lots (5.B-Attachment 4 to the • Agenda), LAH has not approved many undersized lots. The last time a lot under .4 acres was approved for development was 1978. There are only three undersized lots that have been approved since 2000 (of which two were .49 acres and the other .43 acres). Historically,these lots have not been developed because they should not be developed. Los Altos,Hills City Council May 20,2015 Page 4 At a minimum, our clients agree with Ms. Steinmetz's letter dated March20, 2015,.,in which she requests a -moratorium on development of substandard :lots. As stated above, sucha moratorium is perfectly legal andwill not be a taking. If we can assist in any manner,please:let me know. Very truly yours, GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP . 411011P' E. avid Marks Cc: stevem@meyersnave.com stangri@meyersnave.com savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov crichardson@losaltoshills.ca:gov jsmandle@hotmail.com jitze@couperus.org jima.pc@gmail.com richard.partridge@comcast.net kavitat@comcast.net ?fi Some thoughts on revising the rules for "Sub-standard" Lots Introduction. Recently,a number of development requests have come before the town involving lots that are less than one acre in size. There has been a strong negative reaction by many residents to the building plans accompanying such requests —the reaction can be summarized broadly as "too big for the lot-size", "not in keeping with our rural environment" and similar.This document is an attempt to describe some choices that might be taken to modify the existing rules that cover what can be built on such sub-standard lots.Specifically this document is not intended to advocate any particular course of action—rather the hope is that it will promote a deeper understanding of factors affecting the problem,and promote wider discussion of some possible approaches to mitigating them. Note—these lots of less than the minimum size that is allowed in Los Altos Hills exist only as a result of having been created before the town existed and/or annexed into the town at a later date.Subdivision of land within the town and since the town was incorporated has had to follow the"minimum one acre" rule.Some of these lots existed within the town boundaries when it was first incorporated, others have "entered"the town since then due to various annexations of land from within the town's"sphere of influence". Basic Concepts. Before there can be any intelligent discussion of this topic,we need to first make sure everybody has at least a basic understanding of three concepts.So if you already understand what is meant by LUF, MFA, and MDA, please feel free to skip the next three paragraphs which give a brief simplified explanation for those who are unfamiliar or unsure of these terms. The Lot Unit Factor(LUF) is a number(maybe with a decimal point in it)which tells you what the "effective"size of a property is relative to one acre.So if you see that somebody has a LUF of e.g. 1.25, it means they have effectively one-and-a-quarter acres for purposes of planning and figuring out how large a house is allowed on that property.This is true only in simple cases—the LUF can be adjusted because of a number of factors(such as e.g. if a lot is on a hill- side slope)when for example a lot that is 1.7 acres(in real geographic terms) might be assigned a LUF of maybe only 1.2 acres because of the steep nature of the lot. In this case the lot would be treated (for planning purposes)as if it was only 1.2 acres instead of 1.7. Other factors besides the slope can affect the value of the LUF for any given lot. The Maximum Floor Area (MFA)is the number of square feet of floor-area a given house can have,and is primarily a function of the LUF. In the simplest case (where a lot is not under one acre—i.e.the LUF is not less than one)the MFA for a house is calculated as the LUF multiplied by 6,000.Stated another way,you can have 6,000 sq ft in your house for every acre of lot size—and proportionately for anything larger. For example, if you have a LUF of 1.2,that means your Maximum Floor Area will be 1.2 multiplied by 6,000 which equals 7,200 sq ft.Also note that this is the total floor area for the house—not the footprint of the house. For example a two-story house with a footprint of 4,000 sq ft might have a ground floor of 4,000 sq ft and a second story of 2,000 sq ft giving a total of 6,000 sq ft of floor area. The Maximum Development Area (MDA)is sort of the same idea as MFA but refers to the total square footage of "developed" area on the property. Besides the footprint of the house itself,this might include tennis court, swimming pool,driveway,and so on.This is calculated pretty much the same as was as the MFA, but using a factor of 15,000 instead of 6,000. Current Rules for Sub-standard Lots. Before we can discuss how we might want to change the current rules defining the maximum size of a house on a sub-standard lot,we need to understand what the current rules are. In greatly simplified form,they may be summarized as follows: Basically,there are two different rules depending on whether the LUF is less than or greater than 0.5. (I.e—assuming a flat lot for simplicity, if it is less than%2 an acre, or between a1/2 and 1 acre) A) If the lot is between 1/2 and one acre,then we have the same basic rule that we have with standard conforming lots, i.e. multiply the LUF by 6,000, but with the proviso that there is also a minimum of 5,000 sq ft that is always allowed for such lots.So for example,of you have a LUF or 0.7,then you would be allowed 0.7 * 6,000=4,200, except that the minimum of 5,000 kicks in so you end up being allowed 5,000 sq ft. But if you had a LUF of 0.9 then you would be allowed 0.9 * 6,000=5,400 sq ft which is greater than 5,000 so the minimum guaranteed does not apply. B) If the lot is less than 1/2 acre (more accurately stated—if the LUF is less than 0.5)then the ruleis to divide the LUF by 0.5 and multiply by 10,000 to derive the MFA.Stated as a formula: LUF/0.5 * 10,000=sq ft.So with a LUF e.g. of 0.272,you get to have a MFA Of 2,720 sq ft. Or a LUF of 0.365 gives an MFA of 3,650. Note—as any mathematician will tell you,dividing by 0.5 and then multiplying by 10,000 is equivalent to just multiplying by 5000 as a single step. (Why the rules specify it this way, I don't understand—somewhere there is a reason, but I have failed to figure out why.) So the rule in this case is very similar to what it was above, except we now multiply the LUF by 5,000 instead of by 6,000. BUT(an important"but"!)there are two differences in the case of(B) above: 1) A Conditional Development Permit(CDP) is required. 2) There is no equivalent provision of a minimum as there was before for lots with a LUF greater than 0.5. Many people think there is a guaranteed minimum of 2,500 sq ft, but if you read the rule carefully, it says: The Site Development Authority may approve floor area of up to two thousand five hundred(2,500) square feet for any lot without requiring a variance, so long as the findings for a Conditional Development Permit are made This is not a guaranteed minimum allowance. It merely says that the Planning Commission may approve up to 2,500 without requiring a variance.The operative words are "may" and "up to". (The actual text of the relevant section from the town's building code is included as an appendix at the end of this document for those who would like to check the above exposition against the real words). From this one might conclude that a house with,for example, a LUF of 0.23 would have an MFA of 2,300 sq ft and no guaranteed minimum. If the set-backs or other development requirements on a given lot are unfavorable,you might end up only being able to build a very small house or maybe no house at all.Take the simple case of a narrow lot that is only 70 ft wide: Either side of this lot is taken up by the 30 ft set-back requirement—which takes out 60 of the 70 feet,leaving a buildable area only 10 ft wide. So,given twodifferent sets of rules for lots that are"between%and 1 acre"versus those "less than%acre", an interesting question arises as what this looks like when we plot LUF versus MFA on a simple XY graph: Fr`.. AWE MFA ^-I MFAvsLUF j :0.20 2500 j ' 14000 i 0.25 2500 j 1 . '0.30 3000 y _ H ;0.404000 I, 12� - . i I 0.50 5000 1> 0.60 5000 i10000 4'i 0.70 5000 r J !.' 6.80 5000 '0.90 5400 H gm " L00 6000 1 1 ! 1.10 6600 H 6000 i ' ' L20 7100 ! } 1.30 7800 i ! • i 1.40 84004000 grie/ i L50 9000 I1 1.60 9600 i 2040 H 1.70 10200 > . 1.80 108 11 L 1 1.90 11400 i ' 0 (' 2.00 12600 11 0.00 050 1.00 150 200 250 t; _. -,,. __ __-__ .: LUF One can see that is not a simple straight-line relationship—two non-linearities jump out A) There is a flat spot at the%acre point, where the guaranteed 5,000.sq ft minimum kicks in for lots just over 1/2 acre B) The slope below%2 acre point is steeper than for lots for greater thanY2 acre, and there is (would be) potentially a similar flat spot at the%acre point if we assume the2500 sq ft valueis treated as a guaranteed minimum (which is sometimes incorrectly assumed). Possible approaches to modifying the rules Given the demonstrated interest by many residents to modify the code to control the proliferation of inappropriately "large" houses on sub-standard lots,there are a number of different approaches to achieving this aim. Furthermore, such options could be used singly or in.combination. Thefirst and most obvious option is to "straighten the line" below the Y2 acre point MFA vs LUF 14000 12000 10000 8000 Guaranteed Minimum of 3,000 sq.ft(no matter what the lot configuration) 4000 - - --=—>. 2000 Vulnerable to being "unbuildable"due to lot configuration a.00 oso L00 L50 2.00 250 LUF In the diagram above,just to emphasize the point, if all we do is straighten the line,there remains the other aspect— namely should we retain some kind of guaranteed minimum for lots greater thanY2 acre (to be more precise—with a LUF of greater than 0.5) in which case a value of 3,000 sq ft would be more.in keeping with the"straight line" change —this value also being the MFA at that point.This would be to cater for the situation where,though a lot might superficially appear to be big enough,the shape of the lot or other constraints(such as set-back requirements) severely impact the actual buildable area, possibly even reducing it to zero. By the same token,any lot under%an acre (to be more precise—with a LUF of less than 0.5) might very well turn out to be an unbuildable lot. Or do we want to remove any form of"guaranteed minimum"? So that even if a lot is fairly large (e.g. a LUF of 0.9 or even a LUF of 1.5)—if it is badly shaped (creating difficulties with set-back requirements)or has other constraints, then there is no guaranteed minimum- let the chips fall where they may and the lot may in fact be unbuildable. "Large Houses" not just a function of MFA Up to now,the discussion has focused almost entirely on the permissible MFA as being the culprit that causes the complaint of"large houses on small lots, not in keeping with our rural atmosphere". But MFA is not the only parameter that contributes to the perception of"large". While there is a "scaling" of MFA according to the size of LUF,the current rules do not currently specify any such scaling with respect to the size of required set-backs or maximum height of a residence—and both of these play a role-and both because they are not proportionately reduced or"scaled back" as is the case with MFA. There is an unintended consequence to maintaining the side setbacks at 30ft, and the front setback at 40 ft.This causes a greater tendency to constrict the buildable area than would be the case if the setbacks too were"scaled back" like the MFA. As a result, a developer is encouraged/forced to design houses that are higher for a given floor area-and therefore appear bulkier/larger than might be the case with a smaller setback.A brief examination of the history of some existing sub-standard lots shows that nearly everyone of them had a variance granted to encroach on a setback, demonstrating that too large a setback requirement will tend to result in inconsistent and subjectively granted variances over time—whereas a "reasonable" setback requirement might have gone a long way to being more maintainable (less variances granted)with attendant benefits towards maintaining a consistent rural atmosphere. Actual numbers are not important at this point in the discussion—it's the basic idea that is being floated. But to give a feeling of how it might be formulated,we might specify that"full" setbacks be maintained for any lot with a LUF greater than 0.75, but for any lot under this size,the 30 ft side setbacks be scaled back linearly down to a minimum of 10ft for lots with a LUF of 0.25.The Front setback could similarly be scaled back over the same range in LUF from 40 ft down to 15 ft. Here is a graphical representation of what those particular numbers might look like: Setback vs LUF 40 ft I-- 1 1. Front Setback Ii pp 30 ft ! i I i t Side Setbacks b zoft ; a C 1 1 k 1 10 ft 1 o I I I t, - -I I . I - moo 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.5 LUF • It would seem reasonable then to similarly scale back the maximum roof height(currently 27 ft.).This is not quite as simple as specifying a new maximum height.Actual roof heights in practice come in "steps" rather than a continuous linear range—we see roofs of e.g. 16ft high for single story homes and 27 ft high for two-story homes-and little call for something in between. However, if we change the concept from "Maximum Roof Height"to "Average Roof Height"then it starts to make sense.A house that might be entitled to e.g.an average roof height of 20ft might be partially single story with a roof area whose average roof height is 16ft and partially two-story with a roof area whose average height is 27ft so that the roof area of the total house ends up at an average height of something under 20ft. (To measure the average height of a roof,one doesn't just look at the peak, but rather the average height of every spot on the roof.) Just as an example, if we were to allow an average roof height of 27ft(which is essentially the case for houses today) but only where the LUF is over 0.75, and then progressively reduce this allowance down 14 ft where the LUF is.25 or lower,then the picture might look like this: Average Roof Height vs LUF 30 ft -- --t r A V g• 20 ft ) •H loft ._ _ _ e g h t. 0 1 + „ + ! ► I I 0.00 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.5 LUF As you can see,at 3/4 of an acre or above,the house can have an average roof height of up to 27 ft, but at%acre the average roof height can only be up to 20 ft—effectively constraining it to be a one-story house with maybe a very small section that is 2-story. Again—it's not the actual numbers that are important at this point in the discussion—but we need to consider the general idea as to whether this might be another parameter that needs to be "scaled" according to the LUF much like MFA. A Variety of Options. The various ideas floated above in this document present us with a variety of options that can be used singly or in some combination: a) Do nothing—the current rules are felt to be sufficient b) Straighten the slope of the line representing the LUF/MFA relationship and adjust minimum guarantee c) Scale back the setback requirements proportionate to LUF in some manner d) Replace Max Roof Height with an Average Roof Height scaled proportionate to LUF in some manner e) Some combination of (b) and/or (c) and/or (d) Appendix— Current text of the Building Code The following is the actual text contained in the current building code: (Text in blue highlighted for emphasis) 10-1.503 Floor area. Except as provided in subsections c and d below,the amount of floor area in square feet allowed on a parcel or lot shall not exceed the amount determined by application of the formula in subsection(a) of this section,where S is the average slope of the parcel or lot in percent, as defmed in Section 10-1.202,LUF is the lot unit factor as defmed in Section 10-1.202,and MFA is the maximum floor area allowable. (a) For all parcels or lots,the allowable floor area in square feet shall relate to the average slope of the parcel or lot and the lot unit factor for the parcel or lot as specified in the formula given in subsections(a)(1), (a)(2)and (a)(3)of this section: (1) For parcels or lots where S is equal to or less than ten(10)percent: MFA=LUF x 6,000 square feet (2) For parcels or lots where S is greater than ten(10)percent and less than thirty(30)percent: MFA=LUF x[6,000-50(S-10)] square feet (3) For parcels or lots where S is equal to or greater than thirty(30)percent: MFA=LUF x 5,000 square feet (b) Floor Area.Floor area shall be measured as defined in Section 10-1.202 of this title. (c) Minimum MFA.The allowable floor area on any parcel or lot shall not be reduced to less than five thousand (5,000) square feet by application of the provisions of this section, except as set forth in subsection(e) of this section or except in the case of parcels or lots which have a lot unit factor of 0.50 or less.Parcels or lots which have a lot unit factor of 0.50 or less require a Conditional Development Permit and floor area may be restricted below five thousand(5,000) square feet as a condition of the permit.Maximum floor area for lots which require a Conditional Development Permit shall be established as the ratio of the lot unit factor(LUF)for the lot divided by 0.50 times five thousand(5,000) square feet.The Site Development Authority may approve floor area of up to two thousand five hundred(2,500) square feet for any lot without requiring a variance, so long as the fmdings for a Conditional Development Permit are made. (d) For any lot on which substantial areas of slope in excess of thirty(30)percent constrain the allowable floor area for the site,the lot unit factor and maximum floor area may be calculated based solely on the flatter portion of the property,provided that: (1)the area used in the calculation results in a lot unit factor(LUF)in excess of 1.0 and provides a minimum of a one hundred sixty(160)foot diameter building circle within that area; (2)the remaining steep slopes excluded from the calculation are contiguous and placed in a conservation easement, prohibiting any construction,grading or development in perpetuity; and(3) driveway access to the building site is located outside of the conservation easement area. (e) The standards set forth in this section for maximum floor area(MFA) are maximum standards.The City Council and.Planning Commission have the discretion to apply stricter standards to reduce floor area where site specific constraints dictate further limitations, such that the purposes of the ordinances are complied with. Some examples of site constraints include,but are not limited to,the shape or natural features of the lot,easements which restrict development,or high site visibility. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 3,Ord. 382, eff.May 17, 1996; § 2, Ord. 389, eff.August 15, 1997; §2, Ord. 412,eff.July 7, 2001; § 1, Ord. 522, eff.December 18, 2010) Planning:: . ' ,l Engineering I Building , , Code Violations APN Reports Planning- Project Review F74--1 s-rreA':', 4 ,:''''si: 0' In '.,';',.'',., ' Noiin0-:,,;,:,-: , .' ,' ::,--:-: ' , :,' -,'.: '. -: ,Application Number 7,' 1, ,' . ..Site ,1 . Fast ., , . .0 6 ' , , CC ::,,, ,,,,Status' .. Staff, . ' . 'Propei-ty'Addrese . ' 'Project peseription - ' - , ' Dev . ' Track .' ' ' , : ,ClOse Dat 06/24/13. Ralph and Vivi Brunner. 210-13-ZP-SD-GD-CDP P I Pending C R 24745 Olive tree Ln :. : . New Residence and , ., WFR - ` 06/20/14 Zoroufy Aboolhassan And Akram 167-14-ZP-SD-CDP P I Pending N H 25711'beet'field Dr ..-; :',- :.--. .''.,- Major Addition/new: -''-,' -;: '-... .-:.' ...'":- '''- ' ',' ...V.A/FI7., 07/30/14 KDel Development Inc. 233-14-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR 06/04 P 1 Pending 4 , , _ _ S P 25608 Deerfield Drive - New residence/Variance/ .: .. . - , WFR 08/12/14 Lisa-Ann Ingham 248-14-CDP-VAR 05/07 P I Pending N H. 25531 Fremont Rd ;.r5. .. ...,:, . :.:.i AdoitiorTernodeliyariance ;.- -. ..:: :-.. ....-.-, :-.... ....'.. -:. uR 12/17/14 Forrest Linebarger 413-14-ZP-SD-GD-CDP- P 1 Pending S A - 16736k/1th-8 Drive Lot 3 . New Residence '" . ' ' .' ' i' , : 'WFR 12/1.7/14 Forrest Linebarger .415-14-ZP-SD-GD-CDP- P Pending . • •-•-• S A 10730 Mora Lot I New Residence WFR Show All . ' ' Find Pending , . Some Further Thoughts on Sub-Standard Lots Introduction At the last Town Council meeting,the council agreed to set up a sub-committee to examine the issues and possibly make recommendations about lots requiring a CDP—i.e. lots less than%2 an.acre (or more correctly LUF<0.5). Subsequently,two issues have been brought to my attention which I think are worth documenting and forwarding for further consideration.They are presented below,each under its own heading. Potential anomaly if only CDP lots considered The sub-committee may want/need to also consider other sub-standard lots, namely those between 0.5 and 1.0. This would be to avoid creating an anomaly where by a graph of MFA vs LUF might exhibit a discontinuity(broken line)at the 0.5 point. Specifically,as it stands now, lots greater than 0.5 have a minimum guaranteed MFA of 5,000 sq ft. If the sub-committee wanted to recommend an approach that permitted an MFA of less than 5,000 sq ft at the .04999 point,then the graph would exhibit an anomaly. For example, if the sub-committee decided they just wanted to continue the general slope of the line as it is now for lots over 0.5,the graph might look as follows: MFAvsLUF 14000 ince woo° Bobo . LL 6000 i 4000 E 0 0.00 0.50 100 150 2.00 250 WE Just for sake of explanation, a potential new line is shown in red, and the old line for below 0.5 is shown very lightly..The anomaly shows how a LUF of 0.5 would still enjoy and MFA of 5,000 sq ft, but a LUF of 0.4999 would have an MFA of only 3,000 sq ft. This could havethe unintended consequence of providing the motivation to gerrymander two adjacent substandard lots to allow fora "big" and a "small" house instead of two"small" houses. For example, consider a chunk of land that is in total 0.8 acre but with an underlying lot line that divides it into two lots, each of 0.4 of an acre, resulting in two houses subject to CDP.A developer might be motivated to seek a lot-line adjustment resulting in a lot of 0.5 acre and a smaller one of 0.3 acre—thus allowing one larger house and one smaller house with a net gain in MFA for the development considered as a whole. (This could be seen as a desirable outcome -is"a medium and a small" preferable to "two smalls" in maintaining a rural environment?) What is a good minimum for Average Roof Height? Assuming that the general idea of scaling back"Roof Height"with diminishing lot size takes hold,the question arises as to what might be the minimal practical/acceptable average roof height? Leaving flat roofs out of consideration for a moment,consider the following"typical" cross-section of a single-story"California rancher"type of house. Wide enough for two rooms and a hallway and with a 4-in- 12 sloped roof,we arrive at an "average roof height" of 11 ft. TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION A 8+(6/2)ft 5 + lftattic < = 11ft (4 in 12 slope roof) Avg height 13+1 ft 2 rooms of 12 ft wide high Hallway of 4 ft wide Wall thicknesses 2ft 8 ft high Total 30.ft wide 30 ft wide One could argue that a lesser house with smaller rooms(e.g. 10ft rooms and 3ft hallway- total width around 25 ft) is closer to "minimal",but the average roof height would not change much from around 11 ft. The concept of an absolute maximum roof height should of course still.be retained, and the average roof height should be measured over the whole footprint of the house but excluding the eaves—this to prevent a design with overly large eaves in attempt to bring the average down artificially. On Calculating MFA based on something other than just "Lot Size" Introduction Currently,the MFA for a given lot is calculated based purely on the net lot size, and given reasonably large lots(e.g. at least an acre)this system has worked pretty well (i.e. LUF* 6000 sq ft). But as lot sizes get smaller,so basing it purely on "net lot size" becomes less and less reliable as an appropriate way to figure the MFA.This can be for a number of reasons—but in particular the overall shape of the lot plays an ever more dominant role in affecting how acceptable a given MFA allowance is for a given lot. Base MFA on something else besides LUF. To explain this idea, let me first define two terms that we'll use in explaining a concept. Let us define a "Friendly" lot-shape as one with a shape that allows a circle to be drawn in it that closely approaches filling up the lot—i.e.as big as possible within the borders of the lot,and with minimal"left over"space.An ideal lot would be round, because a circle could fill it exactly and there would be no "left over". But we don't have round lots—generally they are in the shape of a polygon with 3,4,5 or possibly more straight edges. Conversely,an "Un-Friendly" lot-shape is one that is shaped in such a way as to severely limit the size of a circle that can be drawn within its boundaries,thus leaving a lot of"left-over" space. Some Examples (each blue area is an example lot): Friendly Moderately Friendly Still Sort of Friendly . Unfriendly Very very unfriendly Above are five examples of lot shapes that all have the same lot size, and under current rules,would thus all be entitled to the same MFA. But clearly the circles inside the lots show how they differ in being able to accommodate a house.As is evident,there is a continuum ranging from "Friendly"through "Moderately Friendly"to "Very Unfriendly". So maybe it makes sense for the MFA on substandard lots(where lot-shape impacts the issue more than on larger lots)to base MFA on the size of the circle rather than on the LUF.This way,the size of the permitted house more closely follows how"buildable"the lot is. The following is just provided as a thought experiment on how this might be done—the factors in the formula might need tweaking or even the formula itself might need to be refined, but it is a starting point to show how it might work. The formula would be to take the area of the largest circle that fits on the lot, expressed in feet. Now reduce that area by some defined factor to give the MFA Shape of Lot Largest circle to fit in lot Area of circle shrunk by factor= MFA — )11111111P As an example—consider a lot that is one acre and shaped as a perfect square.The sides of this one acre lot are 207.8 ft,therefore the radius of the circle in this square is half that—namely 104.35 ft.Therefore this circle has an area of 34,216.sq ft. Multiply this by a factor of 0.175 and we get an MFA of 5988 sq ft for this (friendly) 1 acre lot,which happens to be exactly square and consisting of one acre. (Now you can see where the magic factor 0.0.175 came from...but somebody more versed in math than the author should double check this line of thought for false reasoning and mathematical accuracy) As the size of the circle that fits on any given lot becomes smaller,so the MFA becomes smaller—based on how(un)friendly the lot is—even though the overall size of lot might permit more as defined under current rules. There is no intent to suggest any change in the rules for lots of 1 acre or more. But at some point as a lot becomes more and more "sub-standard",the shape of the lot begins to have a greater and greater impact in determining the size of a house that can be built on that lot,without doing major violence to the"Rural Ambience" of the neighborhood.Whether this point lies at 0.9 of an acre,or 0.75 or 0.5 of an acre is open to discussion, but at some point the shape of the lot has to be a factor in determining the MFA—not simply "lot size".