Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPJTWS Minutes 1991-07-17SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (Special Joint Workshop) 7/17/91 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1991 AT 8:00 P.M. Special SRCC/Planning Commission Workshop Meeting: Present Councilmembers Dorothy L. Breiner, Vice -Mayor Albert J. Boro, Councilmember (Arr. 8:45) Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent - Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor Present Commissioners John Starkweather, Chairman Suzanne M. Scott, Vice -Chairman Linda Bellatorre, Commissioner Paul M. Cohen, Commissioner (Arr. 9:55) Barbara Heller, Commissioner Richard P. O'Brien, Commissioner Joyce B. Rifkind, Commissioner Absent - None Also Present: Suzanne Golt, Assistant City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk Robert J. Pendoley, Planning Director Sheila Delimont, Principal Planner Daniel Hillmer, Consultant RE: SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOP BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE PROPOSED HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES AND THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THE GUIDELINES - File 10-2 x 9-2-6 Vice -Mayor Breiner explained that Mayor Mulryan is attending a workshop with one of the neighborhood associations this evening. She then called on Planning Director Pendoley for an introduction to the workshop. Mr. Pendoley reported that Planning Commissioner Cohen has an unavoidable business commitment, but will be here as soon as possible. He then stated that the purpose of this evening's workshop is to give the City Council and Planning Commission an in-depth introduction to the Hillside Design Guidelines, as well as the implementing ordinances which are proposed to go with them. He noted that tonight's meeting is not a public hearing, but that there will be a series of public hearings before both the City Council and the Planning Commission, since it will be very important to get a maximum amount of input from members of the public. He stated that the primary purpose tonight is a technical introduction to this project, and to facilitate a dialogue between Councilmembers and Commissioners. He stated it is also important to hear from the Advisory Committee members who put in a tremendous number of hours which were required to put this draft together. Mr. Pendoley stated he appreciates the work of the Committee, and also the consultant who did a very fine job. He stated he particularly appreciated Principal Planner Delimont's work on the project. Ms. Delimont stated that though the City Council and Commission are familiar with the background on this issue, she will give a brief description for the members of the audience. The General Plan 2000 required the preparation of Hillside Design Standards to address residential design policies, and this was listed as a Priority I in the General Plan. As an interim measure, the City adopted a Slope Ordinance amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance in 1989, and this expired last May. She added that in September of last year the Council approved a work program for the preparation of the hillside site design standards, and also approved the establishment of an Advisory Committee to provide technical and public input with representation from the City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review Board, from architectural, landscaping and engineering firms, and from neighborhood associations. She then acknowledged all members of the Committee for their efforts. The City Council approved Dan Hillmer as the consultant and many meetings were held and the major undeveloped areas in the City were visited. Ms. Delimont indicated the map which indicates the major sites which are still undeveloped in the hillside areas. She stated the intent was to develop design guidelines so that when future projects come in for those areas staff would have criteria in effect. She added they also looked at design guidelines for individual homes on existing lots in the City. SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (Special Joint Workshop) 7/17/91 Page 1 SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (Special Joint Workshop) 7/17/91 Page 2 Ms. Delimont reported that the Administrative Draft of the Guidelines Manual was circulated through City staff and the Design Review Board (DRB) who held two meetings on it. There was also a public meeting in May. Ms. Delimont particularly commended Peter Wray, a member of the Committee, who developed the Plant Selection Guide with input from the DRB. She then introduced consultant Dan Hillmer. Mr. Hillmer first showed slides to summarize some of the issues which are discussed in detail in the Manual, first pointing out some of the major hillside sites which have a potential for future development. He pointed out areas on the Southern Heights ridge including Bret Harte; West End; Gerstle Park; the area behind the Elks Lodge; areas visible from the 101 corridor as well as from the downtown; Gold Hill Grade, and the Scettrini property near the Civic Center. He noted some areas already have development proposals, and these standards will be followed. Mr. Hillmer briefed the various sections of the Manual, commencing with the Environmental and Design Review Process. He then discussed the Design Objectives for Hillside Residential Development, and Recommendations for Hillside Residential Development Standards. Mr. Hillmer noted grading should be minimized, and that buildings should be kept low to the hill and compliment the hill form. He also addressed the fact that views from private property and public streets are very important, and in the Guidelines they encourage that new structures be respectful of existing properties, especially with regard to roof forms. Another important issue is building bulk, and it is recognized that in the past many buildings have maximized their bulk. He stressed the necessity for recognizing the collective impact. Large retaining walls which are highly visible are to be avoided. Mr. Hillmer then discussed transitional planting as a buffer between the building and the existing planting. He then discussed the ridgeline standards, and keeping the building below the silhouette of the ridgeline. Other issues were geologic hazards, using geology and hydrology review procedures when indicated; recognizing poor access (illustrated with a slide); and the most important issue, density. He stated this was addressed in the General Plan under Land Use Guidelines. He noted that larger houses can be sculpted in such a way as to reduce the apparent mass. Mr. Hillmer also noted that stepbacks are an effective means of reducing mass. Mr. Hillmer then discussed floor area provisions, stating that in all areas with the Hillside Residential or Hillside Residential Resource designations, and on lots combined with the Hillside Residential Overlay District, the permitted floor area of a structure, including garages and accessory structures over 120 square feet, would be limited to 2,500 square feet + 10% of lot area. He stated this formula will cut down on large houses being built on smaller properties. Mr. Hillmer reported that they had added a Natural State requirement, with "natural state" defined as all land and water which remains undeveloped and undisturbed. He explained that this means that grading, excavating, filling and/or the construction of roadways, driveways, parking areas and structures are prohibited. He added that incidental minor grading for hiking trails, bicycle paths, equestrian trails, picnic areas and planting and landscaping which is in addition to and enhances the natural environment are permitted. Commissioner Scott inquired, if an individual had an existing 1,800 square foot home with an attached garage on a , acre lot, would they be able to add a total of 75% or another 3,000 square feet total. Mr. Hillmer replied they could not, because in addition they would have to comply with the Natural State requirement which would prohibit anyone on that size lot from expanding that much on a steeply sloping site. He added that any addition over 500 square feet would be subject to the Design Guidelines. He noted there is also maximum height, with the building envelope limitations, which will cut down on the allowed building bulk. Ms. Delimont added that every lot is entitled to 2,500 square feet of building so, for instance, on a 10,000 square foot lot they could get an additional 1,000 square feet, and the maximum they could ever build on that lot would be 3,500 square feet. She noted that all structures on the site are counted. Ms. Scott then stated that would mean they would be able to go to 3,500 square feet, counting a 600 square foot garage, and noted this would be a 75% addition to the house itself. Mr. Hillmer noted that they are trying to strike a balance between things which are not overly proscriptive in terms of the zoning, and what they feel are comprehensive design guidelines to which people will be subject. SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (Special Joint Workshop) 7/17/91 Page 2 SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (Special Joint Workshop) 7/17/91 Page 3 With regard to Natural State, Mr. Hillmer explained that this requirement would be described, on a sloping site, to be a minimum of 25%, plus the average percentage figure of slope as calculated in the current Zoning Ordinance. He gave as an example, a parcel with an average slope of 20% would require 25%, plus the slope, for a total Natural State requirement of 45%. He noted that a minimum 25%, plus a 65% slope would add up to 90%. He stated they have an 85% maximum, allowing 15% of the site to be developed. For some of the highly visible properties, the preservation is being emphasized. He noted the description mentioned previously, with restrictions on what can be developed in a Natural State. Mr. Hillmer then mentioned that the current existing zoning standards for single family homes, duplexes, multi -family residential, a Combined District such as the Elks' property, and in addition, those hillside properties over 25% slope will be subject to additional standards. He explained the new method of measuring height, which is from the existing grade, as opposed to the often complicated averaging which occurs in the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that the height follows the slope. Mr. Hillmer then discussed floor areas, and what is to be included in the calculations. Commissioner Rifkind verified that garage area is counted in the floor area calculations, and also a detached carport. Mr. Hillmer said that is so, and the carport is measured to the posts or columns. Mr. Hillmer then described stepbacks, for uphill and downhill conditions. Councilmember Boro noted that on page 4 of the Manual it mentions specific things the DRB is going to do. He stated that possibly we will come up with more structure for the DRB. Mr. Pendoley responded that this will give structure, in that during the conducting of the review of an application at a Board meeting they will essentially have a checklist they are going through. He noted this will not require reorganization of the Board. Mr. Boro then referred to page 9 of the staff report, under Design Review Board Review. It states that the Board considered the use of a scorecard process to determine density, and that they believe that would be unworkable, and that every project should be of high quality design and conform to these guidelines. It further states that the Board felt that density can best be determined through design. Mr. Boro questioned if design would be a matter of judgment, when there are these specific standards. He also mentioned that if there is an appeal process through the Commission to the Council, will there be standards for exception to a variance which this will be tested against. Ms. Delimont stated that there are two different issues: One was the density determi- nation issue, and the other was the flexibility of design. She added that there are two different levels of review, the standards which are then incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance, and they become basically absolutes. They have to be adhered to. The rest of the Guidelines are just that - they are guidelines. They are recommen- dations for reviewing projects which come forward. They have to be conformed to, but do not have the same status as the Zoning Ordinance. The DRB will use these guidelines when reviewing a project, but a variance will not be required if the project does not meet every aspect of the guidelines. She noted the DRB wanted that flexibility, but they made it very clear that they wanted the Guidelines to be used. Mr. Pendoley added that the density will be set by the Zoning Ordinance, and it will not be a matter of interpretation. He stated there are strict formulas which are actually more comprehensive than the old Slope Ordinance. The architecture of buildings, landscape and site development will be interpretive, based on these Guidelines and the DRB will essentially have to treat them as a checklist. Ms. Delimont stated that density discussion took a lot of the Committee's time and the DRB's time, because the General Plan had a very wide range within the various designations. She added that the densities given are the maximum, and developers usually want the maximum while the neighborhoods assume it should be the minimum. She stated that was how the scoreboard approach was developed, where the developer was mandated to come in with the minimum density and through project review if he was complying 90% or 100%, the densities could be re-evaluated. The DRB said they were trying to get quality design and they would like to have flexibility if the design was excellent. Mr. Boro stated he understands that the density is absolute, but on page 4 of the staff report it states that the DRB will be instructed by staff on the application SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (Special Joint Workshop) 7/17/91 Page 3 SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (Special Joint WorKshop) 7/17/91 Page 4 of the Guidelines, and on page 6 it says that the applicable approval authority also evaluates the project for conformance to this manual, considers the DRB's recommen- dation, and renders a decision, which may be appealed in accordance with the City's procedures. He inquired if there will be design criteria to which the design will be tested, to which the applicant will have to prove something to more or less like a variance. He asked how it will be played out. Ms. Delimont responded that staff will take the guidelines and convert them to a checklist so it will be evaluated at the staff level for conformity with the Guidelines, and if staff feels it is not acceptable they will request the applicant to redesign to meet the Guidelines. If staff feels it is close to the Guidelines they will take it to the DRB and they will evaluate it for design, using the Guidelines for criteria as well, and using the checklist which has been prepared by staff. They will then use their professional expertise in evaluating the overall design, and make their recommendations. Mr. Boro stated that it appears that the checklist will be involved in the appeal process and the staff's interpretation of how the applicant has met the Guidelines, versus the applicant's interpretation. He stated this could be a Council issue at sometime in the future. Mr. Hillmer stated it is felt that the notes both from staff and from the DRB can be very specific, and point to the exact page and guideline which is in question. He added that is why they organized the guidelines the way they did. He stated they hope this will clarify issues for people coming with projects and those leaving after review; they will know exactly what they need to do. Mr. Pendoley stated that on appeal the Commission and Council will be looking at interpretation of the standards, but they have so much depth, including pictures, they provide something very specific against which the Council could decide; it will not be personal judgment. Mr. Hillmer then, in the interests of time, gave an overview of the other aspects of the Manual, including drainage, site analysis, reducing bulk on hillsides, quality of site design, tree preservation methods, grading, street layouts, selection of materials, roof forms, multi -building projects, planting design including transition areas and indigenous vegetation, special guidelines for subdivisions and cluster housing, common outdoor space for multi -building projects, limitation of development near ridgelines; treatment of swales and habitat areas with regard to setbacks, and the plant matrix. Mr. Hillmer described the plant matrix, which lists the recommended planting in various categories which indicate their appropriate use under varied circumstances. Ms. Delimont stated that in addition to the checklist and density issues, they had looked at the Slope Ordinance. The DRB felt strongly that density should be determined by design, but that the scorecard was unworkable, and if we went to a slope table approach they would like to see slope bands rather than the existing table which goes down the full range. For that reason, in developing the slope tables staff developed slope ranges, and tied the slope into the density ranges which had been established. Therefore, for the low density ranges there would be much smaller lots, and within the General Plan you are allowed to do that. Ms. Delimont added that the Hillside Residential land use designation, which is .5 to 2 units per gross acre, becomes more restrictive when you get to the over 40% slope which is quite steep. She stated they are trying to create flexibility and address the DRB's concern about design flexibility, and that they want to make sure that people are not putting too many buildings on steep lots. She noted that applicants can no longer come in with extremely sloping lots with high density, and that is the primary change in the Slope Ordinance. Ms. Delimont noted that one of the major changes is that more information is being required when a person applies for development of a subdivision. A drainage report will be required, as well as a biologist's survey, report on fire hazards, and arborist/ forester's report and building envelopes for each lot. There will be staking require- ments for the building envelope and the house. Harry Winters, spokesperson for the Advisory Committee, stated the Committee was a diverse group, and there was much discussion on the different points of view. He stated he had the same concerns as Councilmember Boro regarding the scope of the DRB recommendations. Mr. Winters stated the Committee had been concerned about applicants coming in with the highest density allowed for their proposed project, and that the previous slope Ordinance was not adequate. Mr. Winters reported that the Committee had received the draft Ordinances and have recommended a few changes to Ms. Delimont. Vice -Mayor Breiner stated that she appreci- ates all of the time the Committee members spent on this study. SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (Special Joint Workshop) 7/17/91 Page 4 SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (Special Joint WorKshop) 7/17/91 Page 5 Councilmember Shippey inquired about building on effluvia, as had been discussed during the Loch Lomond 10 proposal, and what was done to change that process. Ms. Delimont responded that there are additional requirements regarding looking at debris flows, and for detailed hydrology studies. She stated that language was added that certain types of geological mitigation measures cannot be used, if they will affect the vegetation. Councilmember Thayer expressed appreciation to Ms. Delimont and Mr. Hillmer and to her fellow committee members who gave long hours and dedication to a controversial subject. She stated that San Rafael in the past did not have any cohesive hillside standards. She stated she likes the 100 -foot provision for buildings on ridgelines, and also the setbacks and limiting density and close watch to prevent excessive grading. Commissioner Scott stated that in connection with an addition to a house, it allows the possibility for a number of singles to share housing and create a parking problem. She stated it may be beyond the scope of this project, but her concern is with the parking, noting there will not be a problem if people in an R-1 District live in an R-1 style. She mentioned the parking being hidden, and guest parking in bays as being a very good approach. (Commissioner Cohen arrived at meeting.) Mr. Pendoley explained that is the reason staff is doing a survey now, in connection with the rewriting of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Scott said she appreciated the comments on the Committee reaching a consensus on the issues, and noted that all of the Commissioners have been liaison to the DRB and because of the quality of the Board members, she feels sure of their judgment and recommendations regarding the Guidelines. Mr. Winters stated his concern is that we do not know who is going to be on the Board five years from now, and that the judgment of the present Board is not in question. Commissioner Bellatorre, who was also a member of the Committee, thanked the Committee, and especially Ms. Delimont and Mr. Hillmer for their fine work. Councilmember Boro referred to page 8 of the staff report, on Ridgeline Development, and amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, which states that the current language could result in significant reductions in densities on the remaining undeveloped hillside parcels with Medium and High Density Residential land use designations. He inquired whether it be ridgeline or any of these parcels, should he assume that any of the parcels which will have their densities lowered will result in the owners being notified. Ms. Delimont responded that because of the scope of this project, they were required by law to put a display ad in the newspaper, which was done. All of the homeowners' associations were also notified, and all of the professional associations, Builders Exchange, environmental groups, and all of the properties which are marked on the map which are the Hillside Resource and Hillside Residential. Ms. Delimont stated that it turned out some were multi -family developments which are affected by these policies were not individually notified. She stated her primary concern regarding ridgeline development is with the low density, medium density and high density desig- nations. She stated there are a few undeveloped parcels in that category: One project which has been in the pipeline a couple of years is a nine -unit project at the top of Channing Way and the entire parcel is visible, with no way there could be development off the ridgeline. She stated the Delgatti property could also be affected. She stated that Northview and Oakridge would not be affected by the ridgeline policies because they can be pulled down, so it will not affect their density. It could, as currently drafted, depending on the interpretation of economic value left on the property, mean that one or two units would be allowed on the Channing Way property. Ms. Delimont stated she will call the property owner and inform them of the effect of the Guidelines on their property. She noted that a representative of the Delgatti property is present. Mr. Boro inquired if there are any other specific property owners who should be notified. Ms. Delimont stated she will check and make sure. Mr. Boro recalled that when the General Plan was revised they went parcel by parcel on the zoning changes, especially the down -zoning, and made sure the property owners were aware. He stated he feels that as a matter of practice, this should be done. Mr. Boro stated he is pleased to see the results of the work of the Advisory Committee, and added that he is always amazed at the interest shown by the people of San Rafael and their willingness to work on projects such as this and the Downtown Plan, and neighborhood plans. SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (Special Joint Workshop) 7/17/91 Page 5 SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (Special Joint Workshop) 7/17/91 Page 6 Vice -Mayor Breiner inquired of staff about the tandem parking, and the parking in general. She stated she thought each single family residence was required to have four spaces. Ms. Delimont responded that the current Zoning Ordinance requires two parking spaces on site. The previous hillside Slope Ordinance required the driveway terminating at a parking area sufficient to accommodate no less than four automobiles. She stated that this document originally required two guest parking spaces be provided, except for condominium projects which shall meet condominium parking standards. She stated the new provision would be for two parking spaces for the unit itself, and an additional parking space, and noted that the driveway would be available also. Commissioner Rifkind addressed concern about the second units, and wondered if there would be more applications for just over the 500 square feet. She asked how was the 500 number arrived at. Ms. Delimont stated that the 500 square feet was for a substantial addition, and that they did not want to put minor additions into this arduous process. She noted that the Committee had requested a modification requiring an Environmental and Design Review Permit for any addition which increases the height of the roofline. She noted that any second unit applied for would have to meet all of the requirements. Mr. Pendoley noted that in any event such a proposal would have to go through the hearing process. Ms. Bellatorre noted a letter from R.E. Nolan regarding his concern on the architecture having to conform to the standards. She inquired if new developments would have to conform to these standards, and Ms. Delimont stated that they would. Chairman Starkweather referred to the section on tree removal and replacement, and stated he read it to indicate that when tree replacement occurs it would be from the list. He asked if he was correct in assuming we are emphasizing native trees. Ms. Delimont stated that is correct. Mr. Starkweather remarked that this is a very good list. Councilmember Shippey noted that there is much research on fast-growing plants, and asked if that issue had been considered. Mr. Hillmer responded that plants which grow quickly are included on the list, and that many native species are also fast-growing. Mr. Starkweather recommended a column indicating if the plants are native. Landscape Architect Pete Wray stated that this is a guideline which comprises a good deal of native, drought-resistent, fire and deer resistant and such. Mr. Starkweather asked that the chart indicate which are native plants. Mr. Wray indicated they could do that. Vice -Mayor Breiner agreed that would be an improvement. Ms. Delimont announced that the next step will be a public hearing before the Planning Commission at 7:30 P.M. next Tuesday, July 23, 1991. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M. JEANNE �L.EONCAI, City lerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1991 VICE -MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (Special Joint Workshop) 7/17/91 Page 6