HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 Supplement SUPPLEMENT
AGENDA ITEM# D.
Suzanne Avila Distributed: 0\I 11,115
From: Susan <jsmandle@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday,June 29, 2015 8:58 AM
To: Suzanne Avila
Subject: FW:CDPs,Variances and the Ad Hoc Committee
FYI.
Susan
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 21:23:33-0700
Subject: CDPs, Variances and the Ad Hoc Committee
From: dkehlet@gmail.com
To:jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net;jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net;
jima.pc@gmail.com
CC: kkehlet@grnail.com
To: Susan Mandle jsmandle cr hotmail.com, Richard Partridge richard,partridge@comcast.net, Jitze Couperus
iitze a(�couperus.orq, Kavita Tankha kavitat(a�comcast.net, James Abraham jima.pc(agmail.com
Dear Members of the Los Altos Hills Planning Commission:
At the June 25, 2015 Planning Commission meeting I addressed the Commission on both the Fremont and
Deerfield projects. These two projects spanned several issues relevant to other small lot development projects
that are certain to come before the Commission in the near term. While it is true that no two projects are
exactly alike--apples and apples--if one person is granted extreme variances, certainly the next person who
comes along will have a reasonable expectation that he or she will be granted them as well. My hope is that
you will consider my thoughts below as you review upcoming applications and look at revising the policies for
Conditional Development Permits.
The commission's discussions and their.Fremont and Deerfield decisions made a distinction between
properties with existing homes and those without. The Fremont case has at least three important factors:
1)There is an existing home on this property. It was clear that we all agree to allow people to improve their
existing homes. The extent of variance allowed, the subject of much of the Commission's discussion on
Thursday night, is an open question. Nevertheless, a variance for the building envelope to encroach into the
setback areas should only.be considered where there is an existing home.
2)The Los Altos Hills Municipal Code on variances says, "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..." In the Fremont applicants'favor, they did not subdivide their property.
3)The Fremont development has the support of the impacted neighbors. When granting an exception, such as
a variance, the support of the impacted neighbors must be a strong factor if we are to promote community.
The Deerfield application is another excellent precedent setting case for small lot CDP policy. In contrast to
the Fremont project, this property does not already have a home on it. The critical factor for the Deerfield case
is that, after a revision of theproposed home, the applicant does not ask for any building envelope
variances. It is significant to:see in the staff report for the Deerfield permit that it has been nearly 30 years
1
(1988) since any building setback variance was granted in the Deerfield area. This is a record is worth
continuing.
The conclusions I suggest from the Fremont and Deerfield decisions are:
1) If there is not already a home on the property, applicants must observe property line setbacks -- no building
variances. The 30 ft side setbacks must be maintained, regardless of the size of the property, including
substandard lots of 0.5 acre or less. The 30 ft side setbacks are critical for maintaining the rural character of
Los Altos Hills.
2) Grant a building variance only when the hardship isn't of the applicant's own making.
3) Grant a building variance only when the development has the support of the impacted neighbors. Regarding
support of the neighbors, developing a metric may be warranted, such as the approval of 75% or more of
neighbors within a 500 ft radius.
There are cases that will come to the Commission that do not match these conclusions and do not follow from
the Fremont and Deerfield precedents. Applications have been submitted for properties on Mora Drive that
have no existing home, and where the building envelope between the setbacks is negative or measured in
single feet, and where the applicant himself created his hardship by subdividing his own property. These same
applications are opposed by 188 of the immediate neighbors. Not all properties are buildable. It is not a right
of a person to build on any size or shape property, nor is it an undue hardship when a property is just too
skinny to support development. I would ask that those of you on the ad hoc committee and all the
commissioners allow that some applications are not just math problems to be solved, but rather are
applications that should be denied.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
David C. Kehlet
Los Altos Hills, CA
2
SUPPLEMENT
Jaime McAvoy AGENDA ITEM# . I
" 'F- Distributed: ci/I� /I J�
From: Deborah Padovan
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 8:04 AM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: FW: Planning Commission Study Session, 9-15-2015
•
Original Message
From: hake dexter [mailto:caroldexhaOgmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 11:35 AM
To: Deborah Padovan
Subject: Planning Commission Study Session, 9-15-2015
Re Development of small lots.
Please go slow and be careful here.
I served on the Environmental Protection Committee when the lot adjacent to and east of the
Park and Ride parking on Page Mill at Arastradero was developed.
This was a sub-standard lot but it was my impression that the owner was a friend of the then
city manager and had limited resources. After the construction the landscaping was never
completed.
And the parking was never large enough.
Dexter Hake
12830 Viscaino Road
Los Altos Hills, 94022
1
Jaime McAvoy
From: Suzanne Avila
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 8:24 AM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: FW: Sept 15th Study Session on building on sub-standard lots like the ones proposed for
Mora Dr.
From: Marj Green [mailto:marjgreen@mindspring.com]
Sent:Sunday,September 13, 2015 5:25 AM
To:Jim Abraham <jima.pc@gmail.com>;Jitze Couperus<iitze@couperus.org>; Kavita Tankha <kavitat@comcast.net>;
Susan Mandle<ismandle@hotmail.com>; Richard Partridge<richard.partridge@comcast.net>;Suzanne Avila
<savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov>; Cynthia Richardson<crichardson@losaltoshills.ca.gov>
Cc: Rich Larsen<findrichlarsen@gmail.com>;John Radford <iradford2011@yahoo.com>; Gary C.Waldeck
<gcwaldeck@gmail.com>;Courtenay Corrigan<cccorrigan@losaltoshills.ca.gov>;John Harpootlian
<iohn.harpootlian@gmail.com>;Ann Duwe<ann.duwe@sbcglobal.net>
Subject:Sept 15th Study Session on building on sub-standard lots like the ones proposed for Mora Dr.
Dear Planning Commission&Planning Department Members,
I strongly support the following actions on building codes for sub-standard non-conforming lots.
For most developers,the only purpose in dividing single parcels into multiple non-conforming lots is to
maximize the profit of developers, regardless of the effect on the surrounding neighborhood and neighbors.
The way to maintain the rural character of Los Altos Hills and prevent high-density development is a strict
adherence to the current setback regulations, such as 30 ft for side setbacks.
Specifically, I support sharpening the following three points:
Enforce 100% adherence to the setback rules
• Enforce a"10% or less"variance flexibility for truly unavoidable situations
• And adopt a rule requiring support by 2/3 of neighbors (within 500 ft) for any variances
With these rules, applicants would have clear direction on how to proceed for success,the decision process
would be unambiguous and streamlined, and the neighbors would feel involved and empowered in maintaining
the rural character that brought them to Los Altos Hills in the first place.
Marj
Marj &Tom Green
10666 W Loyola Dr
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
650-949-4536
marjgreen@mindspring.com
1
Jaime McAvoy
From: Suzanne Avila
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 8:24 AM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: FW: Study Session on Development Regulations for Small Lots
From: David Kehlet [mailto:dkehlet@gmail.com]
Sent:Sunday,September 13, 2015 8:30 AM
To:jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net;jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net;
jima.pc@gmail.com;Suzanne Avila<savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov>
Cc: Karen Kehlet<kkehlet@gmail.com>
Subject:Study Session on Development Regulations for Small Lots
To: Ms. Susan Mandle jsmandle@hotmail.com, Mr. Richard Partridge richard.partridge@comcast.net, Mr. Jitze
Couperus jitze@couperus.org, Ms. Kavita Tankha kavitat@comcast.net, Mr. James Abraham
jima.pc@gmail.com
Cc: Ms. Suzanne Avila savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov
Dear Members of the Los Altos Hills Planning Commission:
I would like to thank the Ad-hoc Committee members for their thought and consideration into the recommendations regarding small lot
maximum floor area and variances. I appreciate that our Planning Commission welcomes residents'input into potential changes to
development regulations.
I suggest that the purpose of a revision to the CDP and variance regulations should be to help applicants and neighbors understand if a
proposed development is likely to be approved,and to streamline the decision process for the Planning Commission and City Council. With
today's situation the City Council must weigh in on many CDP and variance applications,which not only causes extended uncertainty and
delay,but also can be viewed as arbitrary decision making. If the regulations provide more guidance then applicants can design their
projects so they are approved without tedious iterations through the Planning Commission or City Council.
The proposed changes to the variance regulations state that if any one of the following three points is met,the staff or planning commission
may grant a variance:
(1) The setback encroachment conforms with existing legal nonconforming setbacks; or
(2) The setback encroachment is minimal and provides significant accommodation of site-specific
building constraints while still fitting into the 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.
Point 1. There is a general consensus on point 1 that allowing a person to remodel within his or her existing home footprint is fine.
1
Point 2.The"minimal and provides significant accommodation"text needs,I suggest,some revision. "Minimal"and"significant"can be in
conflict,and it is unnecessary to require that an accommodation must be significant.The entire clause"and provides significant
accommodation of site-specific building constraints"can be deleted without loss of point 2's utility. "Minimal"needs a definition to avoid
ambiguity;I suggest that minimal be defined as"equal to or less than 10%." An encroachment of 3 feet into a side setback of 30 feet is
indeed minimal,and accommodating as this could allow for a fireplace or roof overhang.
Point 3. "Unique site characteristics"will simply devolve to"My site is unique because it is not big enough to support the setbacks." This
turns point 3 into a free pass for anyone with an unbuildable lot. A setback encroachment that is larger than minimal is in conflict with the
semi-rural character of Los Altos Hills. Setbacks are fundamental to a semi-rural character. The difficulty with point 3's proposed text can
be envisioned by considering a hypothetical developer and a hypothetical neighbor. The developer would say his or her townhome style
project with a chicken coop preserves the semi-rural character with no adverse impact. The neighbor might say that high density
development belongs in an urban environment. These conflicting points of view illustrate how point 3 will lead to wildly different permit
approval expectations between applicants and neighbors.
All of this is fundamentally resolvable by a firm adherence to setbacks as THE single most important metric of
Los Altos Hills rural character. I maintain that if there is not already a home on the property, applicants should
observe setbacks,period--no building setback variances regardless of the size of the property.
However, as the Ad-hoc committee wishes to provide for exceptions particularly in points 2 and 3 above, a
resolution could be for the applicant to gain the support of the neighbors. If two-thirds of the neighbors within
500 feet support a variance, this implicitly validates that the semi-rural character is maintained and there is not a
significant adverse impact on neighboring properties. Two-thirds ensures neighbor support without granting
veto power to a single owner. 500 feet is already our standard for variance notification. The recent setback
variance approval for the 25531 Fremont Road property is a successful use of the neighbor support concept.
Neighbor support is already used for decision making in another land-use process,that of annexation.
If the Commission were to adopt:
• Strict adherence to setback rules, and
• An "equal to or less than 10%"variance flexibility for truly unavoidable situations, and
• A neighbor support rule of two-thirds within 500 feet support rule for any variances,
Then applicants would have clear direction on how to proceed for success, the decision process would be
unambiguous and streamlined, and the neighbors would feel involved and empowered in maintaining the rural
character that brought us to Los Altos Hills.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
David C. Kehlet
2
Jaime McAvoy
From: Suzanne Avila
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 8:24 AM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: FW: set back requirements
From:Susan Hanson imailto:sghanson@gmaii.com]
Sent:Sunday,September 13, 2015 11:49 AM
To:Suzanne Avila<savila@Iosaltoshills.ca.gov>
Subject:set back requirements
Please keep and fully enforce the current setback requirements to maintain the rural character of Los Altos Hills
Susan and Don Hanson
10401 Lone Oak Lane,
1
Jaime McAvoy
From: Suzanne Avila
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 8:25 AM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: FW: Substandard Lot Study Session
From: mccaulevdon@comcast.net [mailto:mccaulevdon@comcast.net]
Sent:Sunday,September 13, 2015 9:38 PM
To:Suzanne Avila<savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov>; Cynthia Richardson<crichardson@losaltoshills.ca.gov>;
Jitze@couperus.org; KavitaT@comcast.net; iima.pc@gmail.com;JSMandle@hotmail.com;
Richard.Partridge@comcast.net
Cc: marjgreen@mindspring.com
Subject:Substandard Lot Study Session
City of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, Calif. 94022
Subj: Substandard Lots
Dear Sirs,
Being unlikely to personally attend the 15 September Study Session on substandard lots, please accept my comments
and posture on this issue.
The present requirements for structures within Los Altos Hills have been developed over years of practice and
deliberations by both Town officials, staff, and by Town residents and property owners, with the intent to provide fair and
even treatment of property owners and their neighbors, and to offer necessary access for emergency services while still
retaining the highly prized rural character of Los Altos Hills. Thus, these existing requirements exist for good reasons.
However, certain non-conforming properties now exist within the Town boundaries and some of these property owners
are requesting variances or special consideration to permit non-conforming uses of their properties.
In cases where the non-conforming property owners merely wish to occupy their structures as they have existed before
being annexed into the Town, those property owners can be accommodated as they presently exist so long as no
changes are made to their structures or properties. All present neighbors would have come to accept those properties as-
is so long as no changes are made, effectively"grand-fathered into the Town. However, none of these property owners
should be permitted to make structural changes to those properties as they cannot be made to conform to present
requirements.
Unfortunately, certain property owners are apparently attempting to treat contiguous but non-conforming lots under their
ownership but separately to utilize special privileges to build new non-conforming structures on them, ignoring their
neighbor's property values and sensibilities as well as that of the rest of the Town. The Planning Department cannot allow
this corruption of the Town's character, the integrity of it's requirements, ordinance, and policies if it is sincere about the
overall character of the whole Town. If special privileges are bestowed on these property owners, the Planning
Department must then admit that it's requirements have no meaning -and acquiesce to the whim of any and all property
owners to do as they wish. Thus, to preserve the integrity of the Town and it's coveted rural character, no corruption of
existing requirements such as is being requested by these property owners can be allowed.
Donald D. McCauley
23548 Ravensbury Ave.
Los Altos Hills, Calif. 94024-6518
650-948-9471
1
Jaime McAvoy
From: Deborah Padovan
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 1:26 PM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: FW: Study Session on Regulations that affect small lots
From: Enrique J. Klein [mailto:ejklein@mac.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 12:49 PM
To: richard.partridge@comcast.net; Jitze Couperus;Tankha Kavita; Abraham James; Suzanne Avila; Susan Mandle
Subject: Study Session on Regulations that affect small lots
To the Planning Commission,the Planning Department and the City Council:
I would like to thank the City Council,the Planning Department and the Planning Commission as well as the
ad-hoc Committee formed to study and recommend improvements to the CDP regulations applicable to
substandard lots of.5 acres or less in Los Altos Hills.
We, and all neighbors of Los Altos Hills are affected by the outcome of this effort. We ardently welcome the
efforts of the Planning Commission and the Planning Department to codify and improved the current
regulations to allow the coherent development of the few outlier lots in the well established zoning of the Town.
To avoid repetition of much that has already been said I would like to entreat the Members of the Planning
Commission and the Planning Department to refer to the excellent recommendations found in the following
letters and in the Staff Report by Suzanne Avila dated September 15, 2015:
• Hal Feeney [May 19, 2015]
• David Kehlet [September 13, 2015]
• Esther John [September 13, 2015]
Both the current Conditional Development Permits and their proposed modified version, include Section 10-
1.1007(3). This section is key to the entire subject of CDPs for the development of substandard lots and says in
part that: "Prior to 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,landsca ing,walls and fences,and such other features as may be
reguired by this cha ter. •
(2)The size and design of the proposed structures create a proper balance,unity and
hannonious appearance in relation to the size,sha e and to o-a by of the site and iri
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 fonns.
(4)The proposed development is in com liance with all regulations and olicies set
forth in the Site Develo ment ordinance."
This section truly reflects the wishes of the founders of Los Altos Hills and has made our Town such a unique
and desirable place to live. However, the trouble with this language is that it is not easily quantifiable, and
i
different people can agree or disagree on whether a proposed CDP development is in compliance with these
four findings.
Even though it is not spelled out in the four findings quoted above,there appears to be a common thread to all
of them. To enforce these findings, the setbacks should be the same and should be uniformly enforced for full
sized lots[1 acre +]as well as for the smaller lots that require a CDP approval process.
Such setback rules have served the Town so well in the past and I urge the decision makers to maintain them in
effect for all development applications that come before the Planning Department.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion on this important topic.
Sincerely,
Enrique 5. 7(&in
10710 Mora Drive
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
Phone/Fax 650-559-7477
2
5 SUPPLEMENT
AGENDA ITEM# 3 .
Suzanne Avila Distributed: Gi 9 1 5 / 15
From: Esther John <Esther.John@cpic.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 12:22 AM
To: jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net;jima.pc@gmail.com;jsmandle@hotmail.com;
richard.partridge@comcast.net
Cc: Suzanne.Avila
Subject: Study Session on regulating development on substandard lots in LAH
To: Mr. Jitze Couperus iitzecouperus.orq, Ms. Kavita Tankha kavitatcomcast.net, Mr. James Abraham
jima.pc@gmail.com, Ms. Susan Mandle jsmandle@hotmail.com, Mr. Richard Partridge
richard.partridgeQcomcast.net
Cc: Ms. Suzanne Avila savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov
Dear Members of the Los Altos Hills Planning Commission:
I would like to thank the Planning Commission and the Ad-hoc Committee for their time in exploring alternative
means of regulating floor area for substandard lots of less than 1 acre. I would like to comment on the Staff
Report that will be discussed at the Study Session on September 15, 2015.
1) Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
The use of the FAR seems a sensible approach that will directly and effectively address the concerns raised at
the Planning Commission meetings that dealt with the Deerfield development, as well as development on other
substandard lots. The FAR will prevent the building of massive new homes on small substandard lots. This
was a major concern for the Deerfield neighbors.
2) Setback variances
The current setbacks (30 ft for side setbacks) are the most important ingredient to maintaining the rural
character of Los Altos Hills and preventing high-density development in neighborhood pockets with small
substandard lots. The current setbacks must apply to the development of any new homes on lots of any size or
shape, including substandard lots. The granting of variance requests will invariably result in high-density
development that is not consistent with the General Plan of Los Altos Hills.
Minimal encroachment(point 2) needs to be defined. Encroachment into the setback area should not exceed
10% of the current setback,rules (i.e., less than 3 ft) and should be granted only on rare occasions.
Variances should be granted only with direct approval (a minimum of 2/3 approval) of close neighbors within
500 ft of a proposed development. The Fremont development is an example where the neighbors provided
strong support.
The quantification of the criteria for granting setback variances is necessary in order to provide clear and
unambiguous guidelines both to the applicants and the reviewers of variance requests (i.e., Planning
Commission and City Council).
Thank you for considering these suggestions and maintaining the rural character of Los Altos Hills.
Sincerely,
Esther M. John .
Los Altos Hills
1
Suzanne Avila
From: Aart de Geus <Aart.deGeus@synopsys.com>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:58 PM
To: jsmandle@hotmail:com; richard.partridge@comcast.net;jitze@couperus.org;
kavitat@comcast.net;jima.pc@gmail.com; Suzanne Avila
Subject: Comments on the development regulations.
To: Mr. Jitze Couperus jitze@couperus.org, Ms. Kavita Tankha kavitat@comcast.net, Mr. James Abraham
jima.pc@gmail.com, Ms. Susan Mandle jsmandle@hotmail.com, Mr. Richard Partridge
richard.partridge@comcast.net
Cc: Ms. Suzanne Avila savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov.
Dear Members of the Los Altos Hills Planning Commission:
I would like to thank the Ad-hoc Committee for investing time and effort towards sharpening-up the
development regulations in light of the constant push for new development on significantly sub-standard
parcels. Retaining the"rural look and feel" of Los Altos Hills is not an easy task when confronted with the
economic interests of builders and investors motivated to maximize financial returns with no regard to historical
nor neighborhood principles. Thank you for your effort towards protecting the character of our town!
After attending a number of Planning Commission and Town Council meetings, and after numerous discussions
with literally dozens of neighbors, I have come to a very simple conclusion: rigorously guarding the setback
rules is the single most powerful mechanism to protect the rural character of our town. This could easily be
accomplished if the Commission adopts:
• A rigorous refusal to grant setback variances for new homes on lots of any size,period. (i.e. 30ft side
setback),
• A less than 10% (i.e. less than 3ft)variance to be granted only in unavoidable jeopardy cases that are not
self-caused,
• With such a variance grant requiring a 66.6%majority support of the neighbors within a 50011 radius.
These sharper rules all but eliminate uncertainty, endless lobbying, arbitrary decision making, and costly time
wasting for the Planning Department, Planning Commission, and Town Council. Simultaneously neighbors
would feel involved and empowered in maintaining the rural character of Los Altos Hills.
Thank you for your service to our town and your consideration of these suggestions.
Sincerely,
Aart J. de Geus
Los Altos Hills
1
Jaime McAvoy
From: Suzanne Avila
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 3:01 PM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: FW: Study Session
Attachments: substandard study 150915.docx
Here is one more!
Original Message
From: Alice Rimer [mailto:4bigfootOsbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 1:55 PM
To: Suzanne Avila <savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov>
Subject: Study Session
Hi Suzanne,
I know I am late with my comments. Can this still be included in the packet for tonight?
Thanks,
Alice Rimer
1
Thank you for your efforts to review the existing ordinances and to suggest changes
that will solve some of the issues associated with substandard lots in Los Altos Hills.
I think that all substandard lots are unique and standardizing"a reduction of
setbacks based on lot size"leads to large massive homes on less land, or"row
houses".This type of development will eliminate the privacy and rural atmosphere
we enjoy now.
I believe Floor Area Ratio for substandard lots would be fair to existing and future
residents alike. Perhaps a packet explaining the requirements of development in
Los Altos Hills could be part of a handout to existing and future residents.
I also agree that a reduction of allowable building height based on lot size would
address many of the concerns that residents have had in the past over proposed
development. Please consider a new Resident Survey, like the one in 2011,to see
how the residents feel about Maximum House Size Restriction. Many residents I
have spoken with would like to see the house size and building height reduced on
ALL lots in Los Altos Hills. This would protect the rural atmosphere described in the
General Plan.
I would also like to suggest that a representative from Environmental Design,
History,and Pathways committees be required to attend the PC meetings for
substandard lots. Since the committees make recommendations without the
minutes of their meetings available to the PC, I believe this would allow the
Commissioners to better understand their recommendations and allow the
Commissioners to ask questions if needed.
Thank you.
Chapter 14.06 C. The following shall apply to those areas
designated in the Los Altos General Plan as Resi- •.
8110 SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT dential 3—Single-Family Small Lot:
Sections: 1. Flag lots are not permitted; and
14.06.010 RI-10 District. 2. Combining of existing small lots is not
14.06.020 Permitted uses(R1-10). permitted, as it is not consistent with the city's
14.06.030 Conditional uses (R1-10). intent to preserve existing small lots. (Ord. 04-267
14.06.040 Site area (R1-10). §2 (part))
14.06.050 Site frontage, width and depth 14.06.020 Permitted uses(R1-10).
(R1-10).
The following_ uses shall be permitted in the
14.06.060 Coverage(R1-10).
R1-10 District:
14.06.070 Floor area ratio (R1-10). A. Single-family residences, including ancil-
14.06.080 Setbacks(R1-10). lary accessory structures;
14.06.090 Height of structures(R1-10). B. Second living units as provided in Chapter
14.06.100 Daylight plane(R1-10). 14.14 of this title;
14.06.110 Basements (R1-10). C. Home occupations;
14.06.120 Accessory structures, outdoor D. Agriculture and horticulture;
barbeques and swimming pools E. Animals as provided in Chapter 5.10 of
(R1-10). this code; and
14.06.130 Design control (R1-10). F. Small family day care. (Ord. 05-285 § 2
14.06.140 Off-street parking(R1-10). (part): Ord. 04-267§2(part))
14.06.150 Signs(R1-10).
14.06.160 Fences (R1-10). 14.06.030 Conditional uses(R1-10).
14.06.170 Nonconforming use regulations Upon the granting of a use permit in accor-
(RI-10). dance with the provisions of Chapter 14.80 of this
title, the following uses shall be permitted in the
14.06.010 R1-10 District. R1-10 District:
The regulations,general provisions,and excep- A. Flag lots;
tions set forth in this chapter and in Chapter 14.66 B. Large family day care; and
shall apply in the R1-10 District. which shall in-
clude: C. Pre-existing community facilities as pro-
A. Most properties in the general plan desig vided in Chapter 14.70 of this title. New commu-
nated Residential 2– Single Family: nity facilities are prohibited.(Ord.05-285§2(part):
B. Residential 3 Single-family small lot. Ord. 05-271 §2 (part): Ord. 04-267§2 (part))
Existing clusters of established small lots from
four thousand (4,000) to nine thousand (9,000) 14.06.040 Site area(R1-10).
square feet in the R1-10 zoning district have been The minimum site area shall be ten thousand
identified in the city's adopted general plan.Where (10,000)square feet,except that on corner lots the
indicated, it is the intent of these regulations to minimum site area shall be eleven thousand(11,000)
allow for additional flexibility, in order to provide square feet and on flag lots the minimum site area
for house designs that are usable. proportional, shall be fifteen thousand(15,000)square feet.(Ord.
and appropriate to smaller lots: and 04-267§2 (part))
Supp.No.20 376
14.06.080
14.06.050 Site frontage,width and depth Front 25 feet
(R1-10). Interior side
A. The minimum site frontage and width shall First story 10 feet
be eighty (80) feet and the minimum site depth Second story 17.5 feet
shall be one hundred (100) feet, except that the
minimum site width for a corner lot shall be ninety Exterior side 20 feet
(90) feet and the minimum site frontage on a cul- Rear 25 feet
de-sac turnaround shall be sixty (60) feet. B. A minimum of fifty (50) percent of the
B. The minimum width of the access corridor required front yard area shall be pervious.
for each flag lot shall be twenty(20)feet,and shall C. The second story setback shall be mea-
access directly to a public or private street. The sured from the wall of the second story, or in the
access corridor shall not connect to any portion of case of a sloping ceiling or roof where there is no
the turnaround space of a cul-de-sac.(Ord.04-267 exterior wall, from the point the second story
§2(part)) _ ceiling has a height of five-feet or greater from the
finished floor.
14.06.060 Coverage(R1-10). D. On flag lots, the minimum width of side
A. The maximum coverage for all structures yards shall be fifteen (15) feet.
in excess of six feet in height shall be thirty-five E. On a lot less than eighty(80)feet in width,
(35)percent of the total area of the site where the or in the case of a corner lot less than ninety (90)
height of one-story development does not exceed feet in width (hereinafter referred to as "narrow"
twenty (20)feet. lots), the minimum width of side yards shall be as
B. The maximum coverage for all structures follows:
in excess of six feet in height shall be.thirty (30) 1. On a narrow corner lot,the minimum width
percent on sites where the height of one-story of the side yard adjoining the street shall be twenty
development exceeds twenty (20) feet or is devel- (20)percent of the average lot width but in no case
oped with a two-story structure. less than ten (10) feet, whichever is greater. The
C. On sites where the lot coverage exceeds minimum interior side yard setback for corner lots
thirty (30) percent, two-story structures shall not greater than eighty (80) feet in width shall be as
be allowed. (Ord. 04-267§2 (part)) provided in subsection A of this section.The min-
imum interior side yard setback for corner lots less
14.06.070 Floor area ratio (R1-10). than eighty(80) feet in width shall be as provided
-or Lots with a net site area not exceeding in subsection(E)(2)of this section.Fora garage or
eleven thousand (11,000) square feet, the maxi- carport facing an exterior side yard, the minimum
mum floor area shall be thirty-five (35) percent of setback to the face of the structure shall be twenty
the net lot area. (20) feet.
B. For lots with a net site area exceeding eleven 2. The minimum width of all other side yards
thousand(11,000)square feet,the maximum floor on narrow lots shall be ten (10) percent of the
area shall be three thousand eight hundred fifty average lot width but in no case less than five feet,
(3,850) square feet plus ten (10) percent times the whichever is greater,for any portion of a structure
net lot area minus eleven thousand(11,000)square which is one story in height, with seven and one-
feet. (Ord. 04-267 § 2(part)) half feet added for any portion of a structure
which is two stories in height, except the addi-
14.06.08 ' Setbacks(R1-10). tional second story setback may be reduced to five
A. Except as noted below, the minimum set- feet if a thirty-five (35) foot front yard setback is
backs shall be as follows: provided.
377 Supp.N .20
I
14.06.080
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section flag lots the height of structures shall be limited to
14.66.220 of this title, projections into the side one story and twenty (20) feet in height. Base-
yards of narrow lots shall not be permitted, with ments shall not be considered a story.When the lot
the exception of chimneys.which shall not extend coverage exceeds or is proposed to exceed thirty
more than two feet into the required side yard (30) percent, the maximum height of structures
setback, and roof eaves, which shall not extend shall be twenty(20) feet. (Ord. 04-267§ 2 (part))
more than eighteen (18) inches into the required
side yard setback. 14.06.100 Daylight plane(R1-10).
F. On a lot less than one hundred(100)feet in No structure shall extend above or beyond a
depth, the rear yard shall be twenty-five (25) per- daylight plane as follows:
cent of the depth of the site or twenty (20) feet, A. For lots seventy (70) feet or greater in
whichever is greater. width, the daylight plane starts at a height of
G. When a structure legally constructed ac- eleven(11)feet at each side property line and at an
cording to existing yard and setback regulations at angle of twenty-five(25)degrees from the horizon-
the time of construction encroaches upon cur- tal;
rently required setbacks, the city planner may ap- B. On a lot, which is less seventy (70) feet in
prove one encroaching setback to be extended by width for its entire length, the plane starts at a
no more than twenty(20)feet or fifty(50)percent, height of nineteen (19) feet at each second story
whichever is less, along its existing building line setback line and proceeds inward at an angle of
without a variance, subject to the following provi- twenty-five(25) degrees;
sions: C. On a site where the grade slopes greater
1. The extension may only be applied to the than ten (10) percent from side property line to
first story; side property line, the daylight plane at the lower
2. Only one such administrative extension may side property line shall be measured from a point
be permitted for the life of the building. Other equal to the average elevation of the site and pro-
extensions may be considered,subject to the filing ceed inward at an angle of twenty-five (25) de-
of a variance application; grees;
3. Extensions are only permitted for the main D. An extension of an existing gable roof
structure and cannot result in a further encroach- may project over or beyond the daylight plane
ment into any required setback area. when it is determined by the city planner that such
H. With the exception of the provisions of projection is necessary to maintain the architec-
Section 14.66.080 of this title, when a structure Lural integrity of the structure;
has an existing nonconforming setback and fifty E. Television and radio antennas, chimneys,
(50) percent or more of the floor area of that and other similar appurtenances may project above
structure is voluntarily being eliminated or re- the daylight plane as provided for in Section
placed, the entire structure shall be brought into 14.66.250. (Ord. 07-312§5 (part); Ord. 04-267§2
conformance with current setback requirements. (part))
(Amended during 2/06 supplement; Ord. 05-285
§ 2 (part); Ord. 05-278 § 1 (part): Ord. 04-267 § 2 14.06.110 Basements(RI-10).
(part)) Basements shall be regulated as follows:
(Ord.No. 2012-375,§4. 1-24-20I2) A. Basements shall not extend beyond the
footprint of the main or accessory structure above;
14.06.090 Height of structures (R1-10). B. Light wells, ingress and egress wells, patio
No structure shall exceed two stories or twenty- wells, and other similar elements shall not be per-
seven(27)feet in height from the natural grade.On milted within a required front or exterior side yard
Stipp.No.20 378
14.06.120
setback. These elements may be permitted within iii. Seven and one-half feet when the struc-
an interior side or rear yard setback, but in no ture is between ten (10) and twelve (12) feet in
event closer than five feet to a property line; height; and
C. Light wells, ingress and egress wells, patio iv. Two and one-half feet when the rear prop-
wells, and other similar elements shall utilize ver- erty line abuts an alley.
tical retaining walls.Contour graded slopes,which 2. No portion of any accessory structure shall
expose the basement as a story, are prohibited. project above a daylight plane, beginning at a
(Ord. 04-267§2 (part)) height of six feet at the side property line and
(Ord. No. 10-348, §3, 4-13-2010) increasing at a slope of four feet for each ten (10)
feet of distance from the side property line to a
14.06.120 Accessory structures, outdoor distance of ten (10) feet from the side property
barbeques and swimming pools line.
(It1-10). 3. The maximum allowable height for acces-
sory structures shall be twelve (12) feet.
A. Accessory structures that are no more than 4. The maximum allowable size for each ac
six feet in height may be located in interior and cessory structure located in the required rear yard
exterior side and rear yard setbacks subject to the setback area shall be eight hundred (800) square
following provisions: feet of gross floor area.
1. The maximum width of the accessory struc- 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section
ture shall be five feet. 14.66.220 of this title, no portion of an accessory
2. The maximum length of the accessory struc- structure, including but not limited to roof eaves,
ture shall be sixteen (16) feet. chimneys and vents, shall project into any re-
3. The accessory structure shall be screened quired setback or daylight plane as outlined in this
from off-site view with solid fencing which is not subsection B.
lower in height than the accessory structure and 6. The architectural and site review commit-
which is constructed in conformance with the pro- tee may approve an accessory structure located
visions of Chapter 14.72 of this title. entirely within the main structure's building enve-
4. In no case shall there be less than a five- lope to extend up to eighteen (18) feet in height if
foot clearance between either the accessory struc-
ture
the committee finds and determines that the addi
ture and the main structure or the accessory struc tional height is necessary in order to establish
tore and the property line. architectu al compatibility with the main struc-
ture.
B. Accessory structures that are more than C. Outdoor barbeques, fireplaces, sinks and
six feet in height may be located in the required
similar structures located within the required rear
rear yard setback area or in the main structure's yard setback shall be set back a minimum of five
building envelope, subject to the following provi-
feet from any property line. Said structures shall
sions:
not be located in the required front or side yard
1. Accessory structures shall have a mini- setback areas.
mum setback of two and one-half feet from the D. Swimming pools, hot tubs, and spas to
side property line and a minimum setback from
cated within the required rear yard setback shall
the rear property line as follows: be set back a minimum of five feet from any
i. Two and one-half feet when the structure is property line. Said structures shall not be located
under eight feet in height: in the required front or side yard setback area.
ii. Five feet when the structure is between E. Accessory structures containing swimming
eight and ten (10) feet in height; pool motors and equipment shall not be located in
379 son,N .20
14.06.120
a required interior side yard setback area. (Ord.
08-329 § 2 (part): Ord. 05-285 § 3 (part): Ord.
04-267§2 (part))
(Ord. No. 10-348, § 2, 4-13-2010; Ord. No. 2012-
375, §3, 1-24-2012)
14.06.130 Design control (R1-10).
As provided in Chapter 14.76 of this title.
(Ord. 04-267§2 (part))
14.06.140 Off-street parking(R1-10).
As provided in Chapter 14.74 of this title.
(Ord. 04-267 §2 (part))
14.06.150 Signs(R1-10).
As provided in Chapter 11.04 of this code.
(Ord. 04-267 §2 (part))
14.06.160 Fences(R1-10).
As provided in Chapter 14.72 of this title.
(Ord. 04-267§2 (part))
14.06.170 Nonconforming use regulations
(R1-10).
As provided in Chapter 14.66 of this title.
(Ord. 04-267 §2 (part))
Supp.No.20 380