3A Public Hearing 2007 0116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ATTACHMENT 0 I I /JraJf Minutes Excerpt - Joint Board/Planning COli/mission Work Session Octoher 19, JU06 -J l Large Homes ~. --,- .~--- - _. For large homes, the Zoning Code amcndments adopted in 200 I instituted the Site Plan Review process, whereby review is in place for new homes and additions that result in homes exceeding 4,000 square feet. The current code also calls for notification to adjacent properties fl1r homes of this size in RO and RS districts, to properties within a 500-foot radius in the RS- VP (Bay-O- Vista), and if thc home is two stories, the decision-maker is the I3ZA at a public hearing. Ms. Pollali noted two distinct types of review. A "minor" review with view preservation applies to single-story additions up to 250 square feet in the RS- VP District. Single story additions and new single-story construction of homes in RO, RS and RS-40 Districts docs not trigger site plan review (unless the work would result in a home exceeding 4,000 square feet). The minor review may be approved administratively by the Zoning Enforcement 011icial, with appropriate noticing. A "major" site plan review process, on the other hand, requires noticing, and review by the ZEO at a public hearing. The ZEO also has thc option of bumping any application up for further review to the Site Development Sub-Commission. Ms. Pollart rererenced the General Plan policies that apply to residential development, all or which were covered in the staff report. Issues to address include: . COlnpatibility with the neighborhood . Issues of privacy to minimize impact on neighbors in terms of blocking sun, creating shadows and interfering with views . OfT-street parking; the requirement is currently two parking spaces regardless of the size o I' the home General Plan policies regarding infilI and underutilized parcels speak to the l'act that the City encourages innll, and thcre are few greenfields len in the City. The General Plan also favors a mixture of residential housing stock, fl:om rllulti-family dwellings all the way up to executive homes. To get a sense of what other communities are doing with regard to standards IClJ' large homes, the Planning Department staf]" went online to chcck municipal codes of jurisdictions ranging from I3everly Hills and Pasadena - which have regulated large homes for years - to Palo Alto, Albany and Sunnyvalc. They examined the lot coverage, the maximum noor area and maximum height, parking requirements, step-back requirements on second stories, and each community's discretionary review process. Among the findings: San Leandro standards are pretty much in line with regard to lot coverage (5(YYr) in RS and 331;;% in RO in San Leandro)as well as maximum heights and minimum parking requirements. As for second stories, Ms. Pollart indicated that the ZEO uses a guideline in which the second 1100r covers from 30-75% of the first floor, but this guideline is not codified. At this time, she added, San Leandro docs not regulate the maximum 1loor area. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the total livable area dividcd by the lot square footage. The livable area excludes attics, basements, garages and so forth. She provided Commissioncrs with a table showing how r AR standards in the different communities would have affected the possible square footage of a dozen different homes from about 2,500 square feet and up in the RS, RO and RS- VP districts. While San Leandro lacks spccific regulations regarding second-story coverage and floor area, the Planning Department's analysis suggests that San Leandro's review process is much more rigorous than most of the cities reviewed, particularly in tenns of neighborhood notification and public input. Among the specific areas in which the Planning Depaliment sought input from the 8ZA and the PC: