MORAGA HILLSIDES AND RIDGELINES PROJECT

Similar documents
-MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES- DIVISION II OF TITLE 20--COASTAL ZONING CODE

Glenborough at Easton Land Use Master Plan

City of San Ramon. Zoning Ordinance. Adopted: October 27, Latest Revisions Effective: March 28, 2018

File No (Continued)

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS

City of Lafayette Study Session Staff Report Design Review Commission

APPENDIX C: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (prev. Ordinance #2008-1)

Protecting Scenic Views

ORDINANCE WHEREAS, this Ordinance is consistent with the City of Winter Garden Comprehensive Plan; and

Infill Residential Design Guidelines

CHAPTER 22 Rural Open Space Community Developments

Zoning Ordinance Chapter 10

Town of Washington Master Plan & Regulatory Audit: Interim Results

CITY OF SCANDIA ORDINANCE NO. 174

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT APRIL 7, 2016

A. General Plan: Land Use, Growth Management and the Built Environment Element. d. Use visually unobtrusive building materials.

APPENDIX A 6 CONCEPTUAL PRELIMINARY PLAN GUIDE AND CHECKLIST FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS CARRBORO DEVELOPMENT GUIDE APPENDIX A

I. STAFF POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS. The following RMP policy strategies are proposed by staff in support of a Scenic Resource Protection Program:

OCEAN BOULEVARD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD-5)

Town of Portola Valley General Plan. Nathhorst Triangle Area Plan

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN BAUTISTA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

City of Lafayette Study Session Staff Report Design Review Commission

Exhibit A. 8:9 Scuffletown Rural Conservation District

Chapter Master Planned Communities (MPC) District

PARK CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE 15 LAND MANAGEMENT CODE - CHAPTER 2.21

Planning Commission Staff Report June 5, 2008

Baseline Hillside Project Kick-Off Meetings. February 2009

ORDINANCE NO N.S.

PC RESOLUTION NO

Procedures IV. V. Rural Road Design Option

Conservation Development

City of Lafayette Staff Report

Sheridan Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Adopted 2017

Essential Skills: Reading and Interpreting Maps and Plans

Planned Development Review Revisions (Project No. PLNPCM )

ORDINANCE NO WHEREAS, the City of Kalama has many areas of timberland and open areas inside its City limits adjacent to residential areas;

Example Codes. City of Brentwood, Tennessee Brentwood Hillside Protection Overlay District Summary

CHAPTER 4 - LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS

PART 1: PROJECT SUMMARY. The application is Attachment A. The site plan is Attachment B.

ZONING AMENDMENT, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT & SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT Date: March 20, 2008

APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS

City of Lafayette Study Session Project Data

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 1-1

SECTION 5 - SCENIC HIGHWAYS

CITY OF CYPRESS 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, California (714) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PERMIT PROCESS

City of Lafayette Staff Report

MASTER PLAN. 201 Planning Concepts. Chapter 2

COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES MANUAL

Asbury Chapel Subdivision Sketch Plan

IV.B. VISUAL RESOURCES

LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES. Countryside & Coastal Countryside Environments. Landscape, Natural Character & Amenity Values Guide

ROLL CALL Member Anthony, Member Avdoulos, Member Greco, Member Lynch, Member Maday, Chair Pehrson

SUBDIVISION, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING APPROVAL, REZONING & SIDEWALK WAIVER STAFF REPORT Date: February 7, 2013

Town of Liberty, NY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING UPDATES

Port Marigny TND Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop September 1, 2015 Preliminary Observations - David Bailey, AIA, AICP

ARTICLE VI AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION DISTRICT

SENSITIVE LANDS OVERLAY

Chapter 5: Natural Resources and Environment

Narcoossee Roadway Corridor

#8) T-1409 CENTENNIAL & LAMB TENTATIVE MAP

Innovative Land Use Techniques

PART 1: PROJECT SUMMARY. Proposed Land Use: 120 single-family lots. The application is Attachment A. The site plan is Attachment B.

O l so n M e morial Highway, S t e , G o l d e n V a l l e y, MN Delano Laketown Homes Concept Plan

Policies and Code Intent Sections Related to Town Center

ZONING AMENDMENT & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Date: April 4, 2013

Draft Gaviota Coast Plan Chapter 7: Visual Resources

LAND USE ELEMENT. Purpose. General Goals & Policies

Attachment 4. TRPA Environmental Documentation, IEC/MFONSE

Site Design (Table 2) Fact Sheet & Focus Questions:

RECEIVED MAY TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION

LU Encourage schools, institutions, and other community facilities that serve rural residents to locate in neighboring cities and towns.

LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND APPENDICES

CHUGIAK-EAGLE RIVER SITE-SPECIFIC LAND USE PLAN

DISCUSSION ON VACAVILLE S2 INVESTORS PROPERTY IN URBAN RESERVE

APPENDIX C. Architectural and Environmental Design Standards. Environmentally sensitive areas should be protected.

The broad range of permitted and special uses allowed in the district remain, but some descriptions have been clarified.

Planning Academy MARCH 8, 2015

TEN MILE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA January 10, :30 p.m. Buffalo Mountain Meeting Room, County Commons 0037 Peak One Dr., SCR 1005, Frisco, CO

CITY OF ZEELAND PLANNING COMMISSION

Watertown City Council

SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2040 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SEPTEMBER 1, 2016

3.10 LAND USE SETTING PROJECT SITE EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING. General Plan Land Use Designations.

2.0 AREA PLANS. Lakeside Business District. Lakeside Business District Land Use Categories:

IV. Development in the Rural Overlay District

36.1. PURPOSE APPLICABILITY DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES

Environmental Protection Ordinances (Performance Zoning) Bedminster Township, Bucks County

VIRGINIA DRIVE SPECIAL PLAN

4.1 LAND USE AND HOUSING

ARTICLE 6: Special and Planned Development Districts

OFFICE CONSOLIDATION SECONDARY PLAN AREA 22 THE BRAMALEA SOUTH INDUSTRIAL SECONDARY PLAN

2 STATUTORY PUBLIC MEETING AND INFORMATION REPORT FOR PUBLIC MEETING ON AMENDMENT NO. 62 TO THE YORK REGION OFFICIAL PLAN

FORMER STECK PHILBIN LANDFILL Old Northport Rd, Kings Park, NY 11754

Chapter PEDESTRIAN COMMERCIAL (PC) ZONING DISTRICT

ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE TO ADD A NEW SECTION 4.N. IN THE ZONING CODE FOR THE TOWN OF MIDDLETOWN, RELATING TO MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT NOVEMBER 15, 2012

SECTION E. Realizing the Plan

Authority of the General Plan

Location and Field Inspection: History: Master Plan Recommendation:

CHAPTER FIVE COMMUNITY DESIGN

Transcription:

MORAGA HILLSIDES AND RIDGELINES PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING, JUNE 29, 2016

Project Overview The Hillsides and Ridgelines project will amend existing Town hillside regulations to increase certainty, clarify requirements, and better achieve desired outcomes Existing Regulatory Framework: General Plan MOSO Ballot Initiative MOSO Guidelines Town Design Guidelines Grading Ordinance Zoning Code

Key Project Issues 1. MOSO Open Space Map 2. MOSO Ridgeline Map 3. High Risk Areas Map 4. Definition of Development 5. Hillside Development Permits 6. Ridgeline Definition and Mapping 7. Protecting Ridgelines and Viewsheds 8. Steep Slope Limitations in MOSO Open Space 9. Remediation of High Risk Areas 10. Building Size on Large Lots

1. MOSO Open Space Map Issue Description MOSO Open Space boundaries are shown differently on Moraga s Zoning Map and General Plan Land Use Map The Town needs to clarify the boundaries of MOSO Open Space areas and make these maps consistent with one another

1. MOSO Open Space Map Zoning Map: MOSO Open Space General Plan Land Use Map: Study

1. MOSO Open Space Map Amendments Amended General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and MOSO Guidelines Exhibit A Map All maps shows MOSO boundaries consistently Revisions reflect established property lines and development patterns Staff recommends assigning to Planning Commission detailed review of maps

General Plan Land Use Map

MOSO Guidelines Exhibit A MOSO Lands

Insert Zoning Map Here Zoning Map

2. MOSO RIDGELINE MAP Issue Description The Town s MOSO ridgeline maps are inconsistent MOSO Guidelines Exhibit B shows the furthest northwest extent of Indian Ridge as a Minor Ridgeline Maps prepared using the Town s GIS data shows the full the full extent of Indian Ridge within Town limits as a Major Ridgeline

MOSO RIDGELINE MAP Minor Ridgeline Major Ridgeline MOSO Guidelines Exhibit B MOSO Ridgelines Town GIS Data

2. MOSO RIDGELINE MAP Amendments Revised MOSO Guidelines Exhibit B MOSO Ridgeline Map New General Plan Designated Ridgeline Map

MOSO Guidelines Exhibit B MOSO Ridgelines

Figure CD-1 Designated Ridgelines

3. High Risk Area Map Issue Description: High risk areas in MOSO Open Space are limited to a maximum density of 1 unit per 20 acres. MOSO Guidelines Exhibit D (Development Capability Map), adopted in 1989, establishes a preliminary determination of high risk areas.

3. High Risk Area Map Issue Description: Project applicants request a final determination of high risk status on a property based on a site-specific geologic study. The findings of geologic studies frequently differ from the Development Capability Map. Discrepancies also were found between the Development Capability Map and landslide hazard mapping prepared for the Hillside and Ridgelines project.

3. High Risk Area Map Amendments: Updated Preliminary High Risk Determination Map (MOSO Guidelines Exhibit D) New Development Constraints Map (MOSO Guidelines Exhibit E) New Methodology Description for both maps (MOSO Guidelines Exhibit F)

Area of Analysis Both maps prepared only for areas included in Cotton Shires 2015 landslide hazard analysis High Risk Area map shows only MOSO areas Constraints Analysis map includes MOSO and Non-MOSO areas

MOSO Guidelines Exhibit D Preliminary High Risk Determination

MOSO Guidelines Exhibit E Development Constraints

4. Definition of Development Issue Description There are minor differences in the definition of Development in the MOSO Guidelines, General Plan, and Municipal Code This definition is important because development is prohibited or restricted in certain hillside and ridgeline areas

4. Definition of Development Amendments: General Plan, MOSO Guidelines, Zoning Ordinance contain the same definition of development Development means the placement, discharge or disposal of any material, the grading or removal of any material, the change in the density or intensity of use of the land, the subdivision of land, or the construction or erection of a structure. New General Plan policies OS1.7 and MOSO Guideline Section III.A.1.b address exceptions where development is allowed when otherwise prohibited: public health and safety, fire trails, ridgeline crossing New General Plan policy OS1.8 identifies more precisely when the Town may approve a road that crosses a ridgeline and what a road and crossing a ridge means in the context of this policy

5. Hillside Development Permit Issue Description: A Hillside Development Permit (HDP) is required to clear, construct upon, or alter land with a slope of 20 percent or greater. HDP chapter in Zoning Ordinance pre-dates more recent Town regulations including the MOSO Initiative, Design Review/Design Guidelines, and the Grading Ordinance Purpose of HDP requirement is unclear relative to these other regulations

5. Hillside Development Permit Amendments: New Chapter 8.136 (Hillside Development) in Zoning Ordinance replaces the existing Chapter 8.136 (Slope Density) Defines approval process for more significant hillside development projects: Hillside Development Permit for projects that don t require any other discretionary permit, and Special hillside development findings for projects that require other discretionary permits such as use permits and tentative maps

6. Non-MOSO Ridgeline Definition and Map Issue Description The General Plan does not contain a general ridgeline definition that applies town-wide. Do Town policies to protect ridgelines apply only to MOSO ridgelines, or apply to non-moso ridgelines in different ways? The Town needs to clarify what constitutes a ridgeline and the location of these ridgelines.

6. Non-MOSO Ridgeline Definition and Map Amendments: New definitions for non-moso ridgelines in General Plan and Zoning Ordinance: A Significant Non-MOSO Ridgeline means the ridgelines shown as a Significant Non-MOSO Ridgeline in General Plan Figure CD-1. An Other Non-MOSO Ridgeline means the ridgelines shown as an Other Non-MOSO Ridgeline in General Plan Figure CD-1. New General Plan Figure CD-1 shows all MOSO Ridgelines, Significant Non- MOSO Ridgelines, and Other Non-MOSO Ridgelines Significant Non-MOSO Ridgelines mapped as the centerline or crest of a ridge located outside of the MOSO Open Space designation where the crest is 800 feet or more above mean sea level, or is the continuation of a crest 800 feet or more above sea level, and constitutes a prominent landscape feature visible from public places within the surrounding area. Other Non-MOSO Ridgelines mapped as ridgelines outside of MOSO Open Space that meet these same elevation requirements and are designated as a Significant Non-MOSO Ridgeline.

Figure CD-1 Designated Ridgelines

Rheem Ridge

Sanders Ridge

Bollinger Property Add bolinger map

7. Protecting Ridgelines and Viewsheds Issue Description: General Plan Policy CD1.5 calls for the Town to protect ridgelines from development. It is unclear how this policy applies to ridgelines outside of MOSO Open Space, if at all. Should development be allowed on or near ridgelines outside of MOSO Open Space? If so, how should this development be designed so that it complies with Town goals and policies?

7. Protecting Ridgelines and Viewsheds Issue Description (cont.): Moraga s General Plan and Zoning Code identify several roadways in Moraga as scenic corridors. General Plan Policy CD1.3 calls for the Town to protect viewsheds along these scenic corridors. It is unclear what protect means in the context of proposed projects located in visually prominent hillside areas as viewed from scenic corridors.

7. Protecting Ridgelines and Viewsheds Amendments: New General Plan Goal CD8 and related policies replace existing policy CD1.5 New Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.128 (Ridgeline Protection) establishes standards for Significant Non-MOSO Ridgelines: 200-foot Buffer 35 percent visible hillside above structure and below ridgeline Exception provision if 35-percent requirement denies reasonable economic use of property Studies of different ridgeline protection standards found a strict numerical standard applied to all locations may preclude any reasonable development and/or fail to achieve the intent of maintaining an adequate visual separation between the top of homes and the ridgeline behind New standards and guidelines in Design Guidelines

7. Protecting Ridgelines and Viewsheds

7. Protecting Ridgelines and Viewsheds Amendments: Design Standards and Guidelines Replaces existing guidelines in Protect Ridgelines and Hillside Areas (RH) section of Design Guidelines Applies to hillside areas, defined as: A parcel or site with an average slope of twenty (20) percent or greater; or The area of disturbance of a proposed development project with an average predevelopment slope of twenty (20) percent or greater. Some standards and guidelines apply only to new homes and subdivisions, others also apply to additions that add an upper story to an existing home and/or increase the floor area of an existing home by 35 percent or more.

7. Protecting Ridgelines and Viewsheds Amendments: Design Standards and Guidelines Contains both standards and guidelines Standards: Mandatory requirements that apply to all projects. These requirements are measurable and quantitative standards similar to height, setback, and other development standards in the Zoning Code. Projects may deviate from standards only with Planning Commission approval of a Variance. Guidelines: Provide direction on the more qualitative aspects of a project and may be interpreted with some flexibility. A guideline establishes a design objective and allows for alternative approaches to achieve this objective. The Town may grant an exception to a guideline in accordance with the process described on page 7 of the Design Guidelines. Majority of new design standards and guidelines are guidelines (Discussion item)

7. Protecting Ridgelines and Viewsheds Example Standards RH4.1: Building Height Maximum building height: 25 feet Maximum aggregate building height: 35 feet Roof allowance: 45 feet RH4.2: Stepbacks Maximum height of down sloping vertical plane : 20 feet Step back for vertical walls above 20-foot limit: 10 feet

7. Protecting Ridgelines and Viewsheds Example Guidelines RH4.4: Building Mass. Building design should incorporate techniques to effectively reduce the appearance of mass, bulk and volume where visible from a public place or neighboring property. RH4.5: Roofs. Roofs should be designed to minimize the visual prominence of buildings and complement the surrounding landscape. DO THIS DON T DO THIS

7. Protecting Ridgelines and Viewsheds Amendments: New scenic corridor development guideline added to Section 8.132.050 (Scenic Corridors) Buildings must be located and designed to maintain views of distant hillsides while allowing for an appropriate intensity of development consistent with the intent of the applicable zoning district and General Plan designation.

8. Steep Slope Limitations in MOSO Open Space Issue Description: In MOSO Open Space, development is prohibited in areas with an existing slope of 20 percent or more. MOSO Guidelines require a development "Cell" to be defined with an average grade of less than 20 percent Some applicants have calculated average slope for a very large or irregularly shaped area (a contorted cell ). Also, is development allowed in particularly high-slope areas in a cell if the average slope is less than 20 percent? Contorted Cells

8. Steep Slope Limitations in MOSO Open Space Amendments: In MOSO Guidelines addresses, new development envelope definition replaces the cell definition (Section II.A, page 2) and rules applying the new development envelope concept (Section II.C, page 5). Size of a development envelope limited to 10,000 square feet Each home within subdivision would have to have its own development envelope, with each required to meet the 20% slope limitation standard Streets are not included in development envelope calculation. A street is allowed if the area of disturbance to accommodate the street does not exceed an average slope of 20 percent, with no limitation on maximum size of this area.

9. Remediation of High Risk Areas Issue Description: Geologic hazards, such as landslides, on a hillside site can often be remediated through earthmoving, excavation, and the installation of engineering structures. MOSO Guidelines allow for reclassification of high risk areas as a result of remediation. Reclassification allows for increased residential density (up to either 1 unit per 10 acres or 1 unit per 5 acres). Should this practice of allowing increased density as a result of remediation continue?

9. Remediation of High Risk Areas Amendments: Amended MOSO Guidelines Section II.D.2 and General Plan policies LU1.6 and LU1.7 state that density increases are not allowed as a result of remediation Allows all types of grading in high risk areas, but not to increase density Clarifies rules for calculating permitted density for sites containing both high risk and non-high risk areas

10. Building Size on Large Lots Issue Description: Floor area ratio (FAR) is a measurement of the size of a building relative to its lot size. Design Guidelines establish a maximum FAR for single-family homes up to a maximum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft. Design Guidelines do not address maximum FAR for lots greater than 20,000 sq. ft.

10. Building Size on Large Lots Amendments: Design Guidelines Appendix D revised to specify a maximum floor area for lots greater than 20,000 square feet, allowing up to 5,500 square feet homes on a 1-acre lot. FAR and building size numbers prepared with assistance by Planning Commissioner Kovac New limits apply only to homes in a hillside area visible from a public place No quantified maximum FAR or building size standard for lots greater than 1 acre. Commissioner Kovac prepared alternative numbers producing a more natural curve allowing maximum home size of 5,100 square feet on a 1-acre lot

10. Building Size on Large Lots Maximum FAR and Home Size Limitations 5,500 square feet maximum home size at 1-acre lot size

Alternative Maximum FAR and Home Size Graph (Natural Progression to 5,100 Square Feet)

MORAGA HILLSIDES AND RIDGELINES PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING, JUNE 29, 2016