City of Lafayette Staff Report
For:
City
Council
By:
Christine Sinnette, Senior Planner
Date Written:
June 1, 2009
Meeting Date:
June 8, 2009
Subject:
GPO2-08.
CITY OF LAFAYETTE (APPLICANT), ANNA MARIA
DETTMER TRUST, MICHAEL & SARA KIM, ZBIGNIEW
NAGLICKI LIVING TRUST, STATE OF CALIFORNIA (OWNERS):
Initiate
proceedings to amend General Plan Map I-i to reclassify four
properties (APN 232-140-004, 232-140-010, 232-140-016, and 232-150-021)
located on Deer Hill Road from Low Density Single Family Residential to
Rural Residential Single Family and one property (232-140-014) on Deer Hill
Road from Administrative/Professional/Office/Multifamily Residential to
Rural Residential Single Family.
The City may also consider initiating
proceedings to amend General Plan Map I-i to reclassify two properties (APN
232-150-027 and 232-150-028) located on Deer Hill and Pleasant Hill roads
from Administrative/Professional/Office/Multifamily
Residential to
Rural
Residential Single Family and/or Low Density Multifamily Residential.
RZO2-08.
CITY OF LAFAYETTE (APPLICANT), ANNA MARIA
DETTMER TRUST, MICHAEL & SARA KIM, ZBIGNIEW NAGLICKI
LIVING TRUST, STATE OF CALIFORNIA (OWNERS):
Initiate
proceedings to change the zoning designation for four properties (APN 232-
140-004, 232-140-010, 232-140-016, and 232-150-021) located on Deer Hill
Road from R-20 to L-R-10 and one property (232-140-014) on Deer Hill Road
from APO to L-R-l0. The City may also consider proceedings to initiate
rezoning two properties (APN 232-150-027 and 232-150-028) located on Deer
Hill and Pleasant Hill roads from APO to L-R-10 and/or MRP and/or MRT.
Background
On October 9, 2008, the City Council directed staff to initiate a change of zoning for parcels
232-140-004, 232-140-010, 232-140-014, 232-140-016, and 232-150-021 to LR-10 (with
corresponding General Plan designations) and to work with the property owner of parcels 232-
150-027 and 232-150-028 on the terms of a development agreement. See Attachment 1 - Parcels
and Ownership and Attachment 2- Current General Plan and Zoning Designations.
In October 2008, and January and February 2009, the City Attorney and staff met with the
property owner and/or her representatives to discuss a development agreement.
One of the
meetings included a development company interested in purchasing all four of the Dettmer
properties.
To date, no one has submitted information or a development proposal on which to
base a development agreement for her properties.
At their meeting of March 23, 2009, the
Council continued the public hearing on these applications to June 8 to allow the applicant to
provide such information or a preliminary development proposal' and directed staff to return
with a recommendation on the zoning and General Plan designations for parcels 27 and 28. See
Attachment 3 - City Council meeting minutes.
Purpose of Meeting
The purpose of this meeting is to provide the City Council with a status report, provide direction
to staff to initiate proceedings for the amendment of General Plan and zoning designations, and
to comply with Government Code section 66474.2(b), which allows the City to apply any
ordinances, policies or standards enacted or instituted as a result of these proceedings, which are
in effect on the date the City approves or disapproves a tentative map, rather than the date the
City determined the map application complete.
Project Description
The current project description for GPO2-08 and RZO2-08 is identified in Table 1.
Table 1
Proposed General Plan and Zoning Designations
Properties
Property
Current
Current
Proposed
Proposed
____________
Owner
General Plan
Zoning
General Plan
Zoning
232-140-004
Naglicki
Low Density
R-20
Rural Residential
LR-10
____________
_____________
Single Family Residential
____________
Single Family
Low Density
_________
232-140-010
Dettmer Trust
Single Family Residential
Split R-20
Rural Residential
LR-1O
and
& LR- 10
Single Family
_____________
______________
Rural_Residential_Single_Family
____________
232-140-014
Caltrans
Administrative/Professional'
APO
________________
Rural Residential
_________
LR-10
_____________
______________
Office/Multi-family
____________
Single Family
Low Density
__________
232-140-016
Dettmer Trust
Single Family Residential
Split R-20
Rural Residential
LR-10
and
& LR-10
Single Family
_____________ _____________
Rural_Residential_Single_Family
Low Density
____________
________________
__________
232-150-021
Kim
Single Family Residential
Split R-20
Rural Residential
LR- 10
and
& LR-10
Single Family
_____________
_____________
Rural_Residential_Single_Family
232-150-027
Dettmer Trust
Administrative/Professional!
____________
APO
________________
TBD
__________
TBD
_____________
______________
Office/Multi-family
232-150-028
Dettmer Trust
Administrative/Professional!
____________
APO
_________________
TBD
__________
TBD
_____________
______________
Office/Multi-family
____________
__________________
__________
A letter was sent to-Ms. Dettmer on April 7, 2009 stating the City Council had continued the hearing to June 8,
2009 to allow her to submit a development proposal for her properties.
When nothing was received by May 19,
as requested, an e-mail reminder was sent to her legal representatives. Neither the letter nor e-mail resulted in a
response to staff.
City Council StaffReport
Page 2 of 5
GPO2-08/RZO2-08
June 8, 2009
Discussion
Parcel
27 is a 22.26-acre lot physically divided by a drainage channel and topography into a
20.49± acre "upper" portion west of a northwest/southeast trending drainage channel and a 1.76±
acre "lower" portion adjacent to Pleasant Hill Road. The property is highly visible from many
off-site locations and about one-third of the upper portion is located within a Class I ridgeline
setback (see Attachment 4). If zoned residential it would be subject to Chapter 6-20 - Hillside
Development.
Chapter 6-20 would also apply if a residential project were proposed for the
property.
Parcel 28 is a 1.91-acre site located adjacent to Pleasant Hill Road. It is relatively level adjacent
to the roadway then slopes steeply to the west. Approximately .81 acres of the parcel contains
slopes of 30 percent or greater. If the property were zoned residential, it would be subject to
Chapter 6-20 - Hillside Development. Chapter 6-20 would also apply if a residential project
were proposed for the property. This parcel is entirely within a Class I ridgeline setback (see
Attachment
5).
Throughout the public hearings on the former GP and RZ applications, various zoning
classifications
were considered by the Planning Commission including LR-l0, LR-5, R-20,
MRP, and MRT. At the March 23'' meeting, a majority of the Councilmembers supported a
rezone to LR-10 for the upper portion of Parcel 27 and MRT for the lower portion of Parcel 27
and Parcel 28. LR-5 was also suggested for the upper portion of Parcel 27. There did not appear
to be any support for mixed office/residential zoning for either of the parcels.
Table 2
summarizes the LR-l0, LR-5, and MRT zoning designations. See Attachment 6 for more
information on these zoning designations.
Table 2
Summary of Zoning Districts
Zoning District
_______________
Purpose
____________________________
Typical Allowed Uses
.
(other than residential)
Allowed
Density
Building
Height
LR-10
Provide for areas of low-
Livestock keeping; small
1
dwelling
30 feet or 2
Y2
Low Density
density residential uses
farming.
unit per 10
stories
Residential -10
consistent with the GP and the
acres
whichever is
City's primary objective of
Use permit required for:
less.
preservation & enhancement of
church, school, farming,
its semi-rural residential
grazing, community
character,
recreation, horse riding
________________
_____________________________
school
LR-5
Provide for areas of low-
Livestock keeping; small
1 dwelling
30 feet or 2
'/2
Low Density
density residential uses
farming.
unit per
5
stories
Residential
-
5
consistent with the GP and the
acres
whichever is
City's primary objective of
Use permit required for:
less.
preservation & enhancement of
church, school, farming,
its semi-rural residential
grazing, community
character,
recreation, horse riding
_______________
____________________________
school
City Council StaffReport
Page 3 of 5
GPO2-08/RZO2-08
June 8, 2009
Zoning District
_______________
Purpose
____________________________
Typical Allowed Uses
(other than residential)
Allowed
Density
Building
Height
MRT
Provide a medium-density
Use permit required for:
up to 17
25
feet
Multiple-family
residential district for
eleemosynary
&
dwelling
Residential
townhouse2 development
philanthropic
units per
Townhouse
consistent with the City's
institutions, convalescent
acre
overall objective of the
& boarding homes
preservation & enhancement of
its semi-rural residential
character.
Any of these designations could be considered by the City Council based on previous Council
direction as all are identified as residential in the Zoning Ordinance and review of the goals and
policies for the Deer Hill area as identified in the General Plan (See Attachment 7 for an excerpt
from the General Plan identifying the goals and policies for the Deer Hill area.) Staff is therefore
recommending that the City Council include the zoning and General Plan designations identified
in Table 3 in the project description for GPO2-08 and RZO2-08.
Table 3
Recommended General Plan and Zoning Designations for Parcels
27
and 28
Parcel
Proposed
Proposed
General Plan
Zoning
27 upper portion
(west of drainage)
Rural Residential Single
Family:
Up to .1 du/acre
LR- 10
20.49±ac.
_______________________
27 lower portion
(east of drainage)
Low Density Multi-Family
__________
MRT
1.76± ac.
Residential:
Up to 17 dulacre
________________________
28
Low Density Multi-Family
__________
1.91 ac.
Residential:
Up to 17 du/acre
MRT
It is staff's opinion that these zoning and General Plan designations are appropriate because they
take into account regulatory and environmental constraints such as ridgeline setbacks and
riparian habitats and balance the City's desire to retain the semi-rural character of its hillside
lands with the needs of private property owners.
Once the project descriptions for GPO2-08 and RZO2-08 are chosen, the appropriate
environmental documents will be prepared. One or more public hearings on the environmental
documents and applications
will
take
place
before the Planning Commission for a
recommendation to the City Council for final consideration on GPO2-08 and RZO2-08.
2
The zoning ordinance defines "townhouse" as an attached or detached family unit with air space or air space and
yard space for each individual unit. Townhouse ownership may include ownership of common grounds or
facilities.
City Council Staff Report
Page 4 of 5
GPO2-08/RZO2-08
June 8, 2009
Public Notice
The March 23, 2009 public hearing was duly noticed. Since this meeting is a continuation of
that public hearing, no new public notice is required.
Staff Recommendation
Conduct the public hearing, consider the matter, and direct staff to initiate proceedings to amend
the General Plan and zoning designations and proceed with environmental review by motion.
Attachments
1
Eastern Deer Hill Road Parcels and Ownership
2.
Current General Plan and Zoning Designations
3.
Minutes from March 23, 2009 City Council Meeting
4.
Parcel 27 - Class 1 Ridgeline
5.
Parcel 28 -
Class 1 Ridgeline
6.
LR-10, LR-5, and MRT Zoning Districts
7.
Excerpt from Land Use Chapter of the Lafayette General Plan
City Council Staff Report
Page 5 of 5
GP0208/RZ0208
June 8, 2009
.Q
Naglicki
!Q
Dettmer
Caltrans
Dettmer
Lt
Kim
Dettrner
a
Dettmer
(232-140-004)
(232-140-010)
(232-140-014)
(232-140-016)
(232-150-021)
rone
cJiofll
28
-
/
\.!/J
\
(0
0
0
•')
'
0
\..-7/
iç?
EASTERN DEER HILL
ROAD
NO1 II
'
LOO
ATTACHMENT
I
Zoning
General Plan
LR
Rural Residential Single Family
R-20
Low Density Single Family
APO
Administrative/Professional
Office/Multi-family
r;an
rr
.-.-----.
:
-.
.
_.-.-.-,_
1
:APO
R-20
I
LR
I
7/
7
¶
0
H
Ncir
ii
&DO
04O0'
}iooj
-1
'\
c
ATTACHMENT 2
9.
STAFF REPORTS
A.
Ann Merideth, Community Development Director
Introduce Ordinance 582 regarding the SB 1045 amendment to the Lafayette
Redevelopment Plan on the effectiveness and time limit to receive tax increment
Recommendation: Introduce Ordinance 582 and continue to April 13, 2009 for second
reading and adoption.
Community Development Director Merideth said in 2003 the state legislature adopted SB 1045
which gave all redevelopment agencies an extra year to add on to the life of their projects. Staff
was not aware of it previously, but now has a consultant to amend the Redevelopment Plan on
some other items and they pointed this out to staff.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Federighi/Anderson) to introduce Ordinance 582 and continue to April 13,
2009 for second reading and adoption. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Tatzin, Andersson, Federighi,
Anderson; Noes: None; Absent: Anduri).
10.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.
Christine Sinnette, Senior Planner
Initiate Proceedings to Amend General Plan Map I-I to reclassify four properties (APN
232-140-004, 232-140-010, 232-140-016, and 232-150-021) located on Deer Hill Road
from Low Density Single Family Residential to Rural Residential Single Family and one
property (232-140-014) on Deer Hill Road from Adm inistrative/Professio nallOffice
/Multifamily Residential to Rural Residential Single Family. The City may also consider
initiating proceedings to amend General Plan Map I-i to reclassify two properties (APN
232-150-027 and 232-150-028) located on Deer Hill and Pleasant Hill roads from
AdrninistrativelProfessiona I/Office/Multifamily Residential to Rural Residential SIngle
Family and/or Low Density Multifamily Residential. GPO2-08, CITY OF LAFAYETTE
(APPLICANT), ANNA MARIA DETTMER TRUST, MICHAEL & SARA KIM, ZBIGNIEW
NAGLICKI LIVING TRUST, STATE OF CALIFORNIA (OWNERS)
Initiate Proceedings to change the zoning designation for four properties (APN 232-
140-004, 232-140-010, 232-140-016, and 232-150-021) located on Deer Hill Road from R -
20 to L-R-1O and one property on Deer Hill Road from APO to L-R-10. The City may
also consider initiating proceedIngs to rezone two properties (AP.N 232-150-027 and
232-150-028) located on Deer Hill and Pleasant Hill roads from APO to L-R-10 and/or
MRP and/or MRT.
RZO2-08, CITY OF LAFAYETTE (APPLICANT), ANNA MARIA DETTMER TRUST, MICHAEL
& SARA KIM, ZBIGNIEW NAGLICKI LIVING TRUS1I STATE OF CALIFORNIA (OWNERS)
Recommendation: Conduct the public hearing, consider the matter and direct staff to initiate
proceedings to amend the General Plan and zoning designations by motion.
City Attorney Mala Subramanian said the Council last met on October 13, 2008 jointly with the
Planning Commission at which time the Council directed staff to initiate a zoning change for five of
the parcels to LR-l0and to work with the property owner of the two parcels that are designated
APO on a development agreement and a specific plan and to return to the Council within 3
months and report on the status of discussions.
Since that time, staff has met with the property owner and her representatives three times.
We,
met in October after the Council meeting with Anna Maria Dettmer and her attorney to discuss a
development agreement and a specific plan. At that time, they wanted the development
City of Lafayette Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting
13
March 23, 2009
ATTACHMENT 3
agreement to be on all four of their properties if it was to be considered and negotiated between
parties and not just the two that are designated APO.
They again met in January with Ms. Dettmer's attorneys at which time they informed staff that
there is a potential new developer who is purchasing the property; Reynolds and Brown, who is
interested in acquiring the property from the Dettmer Trust and eventually developing it. They
wanted to meet with staff and the Mayor, at which time a third meeting was held in February. They
discussed potential development of the property and the possibility of an assisted living project on
the property. At that time, staff exceeded the three-month status update and staff is now able to
provide more details and asked how to further proceed.
Ms. Sinnette said prior to moving forward with the environmental review process for the five
properties previous initiated for designation to LR-1O for, staff needs to determine what to do with
two parcels on Pleasant Hill Road, which are Parcels 27 and 28. Parcel 27 is a 22 acre parcel on
the corner that is above the highway and Parcel 28 is a smaller parcel where there used to be a
former gas station.
During the previous General Plan hearings before the Council and Planning Commission, a
number of other options were considered for the two properties which included LR-1 0, LR-5, R-20
and MRP and MRT, which are described in the staff report. Any of the designations could be
considered by the Council based upon previous Council direction, as all are identified as
residential in the Zoning Ordinance and review of the goals and policies for the Deer Hill area as
identified in the General Plan.
Staff recommends the Council conduct a public hearing, consider the matter, and direct staff to
initiate proceedings to amend the General Plan and Zoning designation.
Mayor Tatzin said he was reading through the minutes included in the packet regarding the
October Council review. As he recalls, there were some suggestions that were inappropriate for
the Council to act at that time, particularly on Parcels 27 and 28 because the General Plan called
for a specific plan to be done for the area, but this did not preclude the Council from moving
ahead with a rezoning. City Attorney Subramanian confirmed this was the case.
Mayor Tatzin said Parcel 27 has a lot of elevation difference, some of which is in the ridgeline
setback. He questioned if it was possible to split the zoning on the parcel. Ms. Sinnette said the
City does permit this and in fact some of the parcels farther east actually have split zoning on
them now. Staff suggests that there be some demarcation or definition of where the line is drawn,
which could be the creek channel, the road, or a contour elevation.
Vice Mayor Andersson referred to Parcel 28 and said the map shows it to be almost completely
within the ridgeline setback and he questioned its implications. Ms. Sinnette said since the
property is totally encumbered by the Class I setback, the City would have to determine the
development potential in relationship to a taking, and therefore, there would need to be at least
one dwelling unit allowed on the property to avoid this situation. She said there are also specific
findings that need to be made.
Mayor Tatzin questioned and confirmed with Ms. Sinnette that residential use was not required
under Parcel 28's current zoning and the ridgeline ordinance had no role on the parcel's current
zoning. She said both parcels are not currently subject to the hillside regulations because they
are not residentially zoned, unless they subdivide or they build residential. She said they could
build commercial without complying.
City of Lafayette Regu'ar City CouncillRedevelopment Agency Meeting
14
March 23 2009
Councilmember Federighi said in the minutes of October
staff at that point had not confirmed
that the City could accommodate 361 units on RHNA allocations for 2013 within the downtown,
and Ms. Srivatsâ said this has been confirmed; the City can accommodate RHNA numbers within
the downtown.
Vice Mayor Anderssôn referred to page 3 of 5 of the staff report, Table 2, the third line down for
Parcel 27; the maximum allowed density under § 6-2043 shows 14.0 dwelling units, and later on it
shows, maximum allowed density for the upper portion is 17 dwelling units. He questioned if this
was a discrepancy and if so, what did they mean. Ms. Sinnette said there is no discrepancy; this
is something the Planning Commission had asked for. For some reason, if the City allowed a lot
split
where the upper portion was split from the lower portion, strictly based on the slope that
could be the density. But for practical purposes for the entire parcel, the City is looking at 14
dwelling units as potentially being allowed if the property were subject to the hillside ordinance.
The public hearing was opened.
MIKE KIM, referred to Parcel 21, shares the City's views of the town maintaining open space and
rural ness, said they purchased the ranch property and worked hard financially to keep it. He
noted his memorandum submitted focuses on 3 key points:
1)
high price tag of the property when
they purchased it last year and the underlying zone value. To downzone the property would be
damaging to them; 2) currently, refinancing is difficult; part of the calculation of refinancing is the
loan to value ratio which is an impediment to his ability to refinance to a more stable product; and
3) his intention is to never develop the property, but to keep and build upon what the previous
ownership has done. In his view, the zoning in place is commensurate and reflective of the value
of maintaining open space and low density development, and he did not see any incompatibility
as to what the current zoning is.
DAVID BOWIE, representing the Dettmer properties, said when he looked at this topic he was
somewhat surprised because at the last October meeting the direction was to work with the
applicant with respect to the Dettmer's towards a development agreement. During that time
period, they identified a developer with whom they are currently working, are in a position to begin
forming a project to bring before the Council in a concrete sense, and there is no reason to
consider any kind of down zoning or a general plan amendment and he would not favor this. In
part, they are trying to respond to the direction given but also setting aside the more general
consideration, which is simply that, in looking at the properties, he cannot think of any reason why
down zoning should even be initiated by the City at this particular time. The General Plan calls for
the existing zoning. The Housing Element of the General Plan allocates housing units to the
Dettmer's properties in part and there is no indicated over-riding state value or interest that
anybody has identified which would suggest there is a need for down-zoning at this time. In
addition, there is actually been no study whatsoever that has been undertaken to decide what the
real constraints of the property might be, what types of environmental consideration should be
undertaken and there has been no effort to comply with the State statute that would require the
event of a down zoning when units have been allocated to a particular property; that there be
findings specifically made that you can otherwise meet all of the unit allocation for affordable
housing purposes. There has been nothing of this sort undertaken whatsoever. Under these
circumstances, he thinks it would be inappropriate for there to be any kind of reduction in the
current zoning and suggest that it be left as is. He said obviously, down zoning has a material
economic impact upon his client and just as Mr. Kim noted previously, if the Council were to
downzone the two properties, he situation would affectively be an economic taking of virtually all
of the value of the property. He noted that in this area, we are not dealing with pristine hilltops but
City
of Lafayette Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting
15
March 23, 2009
areas already cut, graded, there are existing plateaus, this is not an area where there is a
ridgeline even that extends the way it was originally designed. There are no real types of features
that the CIty puts on its list of priority they are trying to protect. He therefore asked that the
Council not move forward with the process at this time because he is prepared to come in with a
concrete project and in that context, work out a development agreement, as well.
Councilmember Anderson questioned whether the potential development agreement would be for
Parcels 27 and 28. Mr. Bowie said he believes it makes sense to do a development agreement
that would involve all of the Dettmer properties. The discussions they have had involve a sale of
all of the properUes and a master plan of all properties so they can come up with the best uses for
these properties consistent with the General Plan and the City's goals.
Mayor Tatzin asked Mr. Bowie to characterize for the Council the nature of the proposed
development that was described at their meeting for Parcel 27. Mr. Bowie said Parcel 28 was not
specifically discussed and he could not imagine it as a single family residence, but they primarily
were interested in Parcel 27. The actual proposal would involve all of the parcels. The interest for
Parcel 27 is development of a senior citizens housing project; something that would not
necessarily be subsidized but more of a market rate project with an affordable element to it. It
would be designed to take care of the needs for people who have lived in Lafayette for many
years who would want to live in a smaller, more modern home and still stay in the community.
Mayor Tatzin questioned the part of the lot the project would be proposed to be located on. Mr.
Bowie said logically, most of it wOuld go into the area where the current graded plateau is located.
He said he drove the area to determine visibility and what could be seen. From lower elevations,
there is not much which can be seen because of angles. If an appropriate landscape screening
was done across the plateau area, there would be a situation where you could largely render the
building invisible. He said an example would be Orinda Woods where there are 8,000 to 12,000
square foot buildings which are screened by vegetation. Because of the site distance issues
looking up, when there is a flat plateau, it is much more obscure than a hillside would be and with
screening, landscaping, berming and/or excavation, one could end up with a project that would
essentially be invisible from all lower viewing elevations. He believe they could come up with an
attractive,
market driven, high quality, more dense project in that portion of the property that would
also serve the housing needs of the Housing Element.
Mayor Tatzin questioned what was proposed for the lower portion of Parcel 27. Mr. Bowie said he
believes they would try and do more of a clustered housing and they would be prepared to deed
substantial portions of the property into open space. They could address development of all
parcels together and as a trade-off for development density, create more open space. There was
some general thought that an administrative office building might be appropriate for the former
gas station site, which he felt would be an appropriate use for that site.
Councilmember Federighi referred to high quality senior residence and she questioned whether
this
would be assisted living or independent living.
Mr. Bowie said the contemplation of the
developer would not be assisted living, but an independent living project primarily directed toward
the empty nester Lafayette resident who no longer needs or wants a 3,000 or 4,000 square foot
single family residence.
MARTIN LYSONS, representing Ana Maria Dettmer and the Trust, said he sUbmitted a letter on
Friday regarding Ms. Dettmer's willingness to move forward with the development agreement. He
is in agreement, is of the position that the City is moving this down zoning in a vacuum and
supports the notion of a development agreement that will provide them with something specific to
City of Lafayette Regular City CouncilfRedevelopment Agency Meeting
16
March 23, 2009
move forward with. Currently, it is a City-initiated application. The City puts itself in this position to
be on the hook for the CEQA costs, consultant costs and the costs related to the down zoning in
general. Practically, he believed it was better for the City to let a developer come forward with a
reasonable development plan for the property, such as the one that is currently in a
developmental stage. The consultants can also have a clear direction as to what needs to be
studied, given their specific project. The Commission and Council will also have all of the
information needed to make an informed decision and they will not have to make a decision in a
vacuum. There has, been the proposal for the senior housing and again it is in its infant stages,
but this is one of the thousands of possible ideas put forth for the various properties. He said Mr.
Bowie mentioned clustering, office use for Parcel 28, but these parcels require creative thinking
and a blanket action against the wide range of options available would stifle that creativity. • He
asked the Council to consider not moving forward with any general down zoning unless and until
there is a specific proposal that could be brought forward.
Councilmember Anderson said Mr. Lysons indicates the Council is operating in a vacuum, but
there was a great deal of study done by the Planning Commission looking particularly at upgrades
on Parcel 27 and Parcel 28, and he asked if Mr. Lysons was familiar with those. Mr. Lysons said
he was familiar with them, he has been associated with the process for some time, and they did
have an opportunity and constraints analysis done for the property; however, it looked more like a
constraints analysis. It did not investigate in any detail the possibilities that could be done for the
current proposal, such as the clustering or split zoning potential.
GUY A1WOOD said the Spring Hill Board has discussed the property and does support staff
recommendation for the General Plan amendment. He believed there were false statements
made, said the Council had voted unanimously to change the zoning on the parcels, and
interesting to him is that the Council asks for a development plan and there has not been any
action on the property. Every plan that comes before the City for the last 10 years indicates it is
for senior nesters, and there have not been any senior nesters living in the projects done. The
owner wants to combine the properties and somehow achieve more density by combining the
properties and using trade-offs between some of the other parcels. He suggested the Council
move forward and if the maximum density is 14, the application will need to come in close to that,
given some flexibility for clustering; however, he felt the point is that this is all that could be done.
The constraints and opportunities analysis was very clear and there is not much which can be
done when applying the regulations of the City to the properties. He noted it was also the second
worse intersection in the City of Lafayette.
Mayor Tatzin said staff actually did not make a recommendation regarding the General Plan
designation for parcels 27 and 28 and asked that Council provide direction. He said Mr. Bowie
commented that they have not figured out how to take the housing for the RHNA process
elsewhere, and he questioned how many units were allocated to the parcels. Ms. Srivatsa said in
the current housing inventory or Housing Element, the properties are not included. She thought
Mr. Bowie was referring to the total General Plan build out. City Attorney Subramanian added that
therefore, the findings Mr. Bowie mentioned are not required.
DAVID BOWIE said he reviewed the Housing Element from the General Plan on Schedule 23,
which refers to the APO properties in terms of the potential allocation of units, which discusses an
allocation of 140 units.
Ms. Srivatsa said there is a difference between th.e inventory to show that
the City has capacity fOr their regional housing allocation, which is different from the Table Mr.
Bowie refers to, which allocates units for all parcels within the City by zoning district to calculate
the general build-out. Mr. Bowie said, however, the Housing Element currently calculates 140
City of Lafayette Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting
17
March 23, 2009
units allocated mostly to the Dettmer property or APO designation. The Government Code
requires there be specific findings made by the Council in the event there is a down-zoning.
Mayor Tatzin said if the Council were to proceed with making something other than APO and if
that were a requirement that would be part of the process and he believed there would need to be
an environmental review. City Attorney Subramanian said correct; this is initiating the
proceedings.
Councilmember Anderson believed that the Council wanted this to return to give the property
owner an opportunity to work with staff and arrive at something along the lines of the specific plan.
He was almost willing to delay the process a bit, but also inclined to move forward on a split
zoning on Parcel 27. He felt the city gave the opportunity for the property owners to look at the
opportunity to work out something and he has not seen anything yet.
Mayor Tatzin said he believed it had not been a normal period from October through March, and
one might argue that perhaps the property owners had not done enough to demonstrate that they
were trying to determine how to use the property. He said the last five months it has been harder
to get the attention of developers who might otherwise try to salvage projects that are rapidly
moving under water or losing their financing. Having said this, it has been years since the Council
adopted the hillside ordinance and General Plan and the Council has been split on how intense
the development of the parcels should be. He consistently advocated that with respect to the
plateau portion of Parcel 27, it is highly visible and difficult to conceal much of anything, and that
berming will not work. He is willing to consider more study for the lower portion of Parcel 27, he
believed Parcel 28 was very difficult, and with regards to Mr. Kim's property, there are some
portions that could be developed at a higher density without having visual impacts, but his
preference would be to find a way to address that without creating spot zoning, and he believed
parcels farther to the west tend to be more visible.
Vice Mayor Andersson discussed situations where reminder letters are sent and an example of
things happening at the. eleventh hour. The point made by Mayor Tatzin about the last 5-6 months
is
valid. His feeling is that the plateau area is not very visible and one could make it much less
visible with vegetation. As he looks at the 7 parcels, the Dettmer property is 4 of those parcels. If
the Dettmer property were developed as a comprehensive plan, the Kim property could be
developed more specifically.
He said he would actually be curious to see what kind of
development proposal came regarding the properties and would like to provide a little time for this
to be developed and hold onto the rezoning for awhile.
Councilmember Federighi said she believes the other Dettmer properties are 10 and 16. She said
she is less troubled about a proposal coming to the Council at this point. Discussions were
whether or not a development agreement could be feasible, and it sounds as if the property owner
wants to look at this. She has mixed feelings about including 10 and 16 with 27 and 28. To her,
27 is different from 10, 16 and 21 partly because of the flatter ground, Pleasant Hill road and the
large plateau area. Like Mayor Tatzin, she felt the top portion was quite visible. She remembers
seeing trucks parked up there and they could be seen from below; however, she would be willing
to look at a plan to see if a one-story development could be concealed from below. If well
concealed from below, she would be willing to look at it. Another thought would be to do split
zoning on Lot 27. She does not believe LR10 is appropriate for the upper portion, but rather LR-
5.
City of Lafayette Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting
18
March 23, 2009
Councilmember Anderson questioned if staff was recommending moving all at once, assuming
under one General Plan Amendment. Ms. Sinnette said yes. The City is going to use an outside
consultant to do the environmental review and it would be better to do it aD at once.
Councilmember Anderson said he would be willing to give a little more time to let the Dettmer's
and staff discuss the proposal prior to taking any action. Vice Mayor Andersson asked for a much
more firm proposal.
Mayor Tatzin said assuming there is more discussion, whether it is with the proposed buyer or
someone new, he asked at what point the City would be locked into reviewing an application
under the current zoning. City Attorney Subramanian said it would occur once the applicant
submits a complete application and the current zoning would apply.
Mayor Tatzin said a lot of things we spend time thinking about the hillside ordinance do not apply
particularly to Parcel 27 at all, and he questioned whether the Council would want to initiate a split
zoning of that parcel as a policy.
Ms. Subramanian said the ordinance would apply as a
residential use, but if it was an office or commercial use, it would not apply. Mayor Tatzin said to
the extent that this is in the upper part of Parcel 27 and in the hillside setback, he questioned how
it
would be applied. Ms. Sinnette said under the current APO, if the applicant came in with a
residential project of any form, the hillside regulation would apply. If they came in with something
other than residential but allowed with APO, the hillside regulations would not apply.
Councilmember Federighi said she does not want to see office on the parcel at all. She thinks the
Council has said all along that the area should be residential. She was not sure what to do with
Parcel 28, but if the Council were to say all properties were LR-1O or LR-5 or some other
designation, the disadvantage from the developer's point of view would be that they would have to
propose a General Plan Amendment to have a project that would be allowed under that
designation.
Ms. Sinriette said if staff completed the General Plan and rezoning process, this
would be the case. If staff started it tonight and the developer came in with a plan in-between,
staff could always bring this forward to the Council because environmental review will take at least
two months to conduct. Therefore, this is another possibility. She said the Council could also
provide a specific deadline to submit something on the Dettmer property.
Councilmember Federighi said the entire area has been very difficult for the Council for years. At
the time the General Plan was adopted, the Council said it would go ahead with the specific plan
which turned out to be much more expensive than what we were able to afford. But the Planning
Commission spent numerous meetings going over slope/density calculations and other
constraints and opportunities. Therefore, she would be willing to hold off longer and see what the
proposal comes in as, realizing this is a gateway area and a rural area in the town and any
proposal will be well scrutinized.
Mayor Tatzin suggested directing staff to return and set a meeting for planning purposes with a
specific proposal to rezone Lots 10 and 16 to LR-10, figure out how to address the unique portion
of Lot 21 to accommodate more density, and then potentially do a split zoning on Lot 27, and
whatever the Council believes is best for Lot 28. In the meantime, if a proposal comes in, the
Council can review it and decide whether to continue that process, but this clearly indicates a
direction.
Councilmember Anderson said the council could also begin the process in the next couple of
months and the City may see an application or not. Mayor Tatzin believed this was a lower cost
approach. Councilmember Federighi questioned what the lower approach was that Mayor Tatzin
City of Lafayette Regular City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting
19
Maroh 23, 2009
wanted for Lot 27. Mayor Tatzin said a lower approach is that something is clearly more visible
from Pleasant Hill Road but less visible from the gateway to the community or Highway 24. So, on
the upper portion of Lot 27, he would go for an LR zoning and then whether there is proposed
either moderate residential density or clustered residential housing on the lower portion might be
acceptable. In the meantime, it would stay as it is now.
Councilmember Federighi questioned how soon would the process start, and Mayor Tatzin
suggested it return to the Council in June for review and at that time, there might be interest from
a developer or property owner, which might cause the Council to abandon another approach. He
confirmed it would be for all of the 7 parcels.
Councilmernber Anderson preferred going with LR-1 0 on the split zone on the upper portion of Lot
27 and MRT for some institutional or convalescent homes on the lower section. Councilmember
Federighi said she would rather support LR-5 on the upper portion rather than LR-10.
Councilmember Anderson said LR-10 is the zoning on all other parcels in the area, but
Councilmember Federighi believed Lot 27 was different from the others. Mayor Tatzin said he
thought the upper portion was actually more visible. Councilmember Anderson said he would
prefer LR-10 on the upper portion.
Ms. Sinnette said on October gth, the Council directed her to rezone 5 of the parcels, and she
questioned if all would be continued to a June date. City Clerk Robbins noted that Councilmember
Anduri would not be available for either meeting in June. Ms. Sinnette said when staff returns, a
preliminary development proposal might be returned, but regardless of this, she confirmed that
the
Council
wanted a recommendation on zoning from staff on Parcels 27 and 28.
Councilmembers believed there was support for split zoning on Parcel 27, but there was
disagreement over LR-5 or LR-10 for the upper portion and MRT for the lower portion, and MRT
for Parcel 28, as well.
Ms. Sinnette noted the split zoning recommended was actually staff's
recommendation twice to the Planning Commission.
ACTION:
It
was M/S/C (Anderson/Andersson) to continue the public hearing and direct staff to
return on June 8th to initiate proceedings to amend the General Plan and zoning designations.
Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Tatzin, Andersson, Federighi, Anderson; Noes: None; Absent: Anduri).
11. CONSENT CALENDAR
ACTION:
It
was M/S/C (Anderson/Anderssori) to convene jointly as the Redevelopment Agency.
Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Tatzin, Andersson, Federighi, Anderson; Noes: None; Absent: Anduri).
ACTION:
It
was M/S/C (Anderson/Andersson) to. approve Consent Calendar items A, B, C, D., E,
F, G, H, I,
J,
K and L. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Tatzin, Andersson, Federighi, Anderson; Noes: None;
Absent: Anduri).
A. City Council Minutes
1. March 9, 2009
Recommendation: Approve.
2.
March 16,2009
Recommendation: Approve.
B.
Resolution 2009-16 Ordering the Preparation of a
Report
Proposing the Levy of
Assessments for 2009-2010 for the Core Area Landscaping and Lighting District
1979-1
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2009-1 6.
City of Lafayette Regular City CounciVRe1evelopment Agency Meeting
20
March 23, 2009
H
>
C)
I
m
z
H
\'
,
L'\
.i
'
*1
I
F
"\\
H'
i:\' r
\
'
--
I
.
1
H
II
1
•
-
r
-
I-
'-.•
-••-•
-
-
4
-
•
____
41
I
*
çr
I-
z
w
I
0
F-
F-
.
LAFAYETTE
LR
Low-Density Residential District
6-7161
General.
6-7162
Purposes.
6-7163
Uses permitted.
6-7 164
Uses requiring a permit.
6-7165
Lot area.
6-7166
Lot width.
6-7 167
Lot depth.
6-7 168
Height.
6-7169
Yards.
6-7 170
Parking space.
6-7171
Variances.
6-7 172
Design review criteria and approval.
Planning Services Division
3675 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 210
Lafayette, CA 94549-1968
Tel. (925) 284-1976
•
Fax (925) 284-1122
htt://www.ci.lafayette.ca.us
NOTE: The City has other regulations, which may affect individual properties, including, but not limited
to hillside development, structures over 17-ft. in height, development in excess of 6,000 sq. ft., tree
protection, grading, and public art. Please review the Project Checklist available on the City of Lafayette
web site at www.lovelafayette.org for an overview of regulations that might apply. You may consult
Planning Services Division staff to ascertain which rules and regulations apply to any given project.
Low-Density Residential District
6-7161
General.
All land in the low-density residential district (map symbol L-R) shall be used in accordance with
this article. (Ord, 410 § I (part), 1993)
6-7 162
Purposes.
The purposes of the low-density residential (L-R) district include the following:
(a)
Provide for areas of very low-density residential uses consistent with the general
plan and with the city's primary objective of preservation and enhancement of its
semirural residential character;
(b)
Promote the health, safety and welfare of the community by protecting the land
in the L-R district from uses which would disturb the natural environment and increase
geologic, pedologic, seismic, hydrologic or other inherent hazards;
(c)
Preserve and maintain the scenic, recreational, biotic, historic and other resources
of land in the L-R district.
(Ord. 410 § 1 (part), 1993)
6-7 163
Uses permitted.
In the L-R district, the following uses are permitted:
(a)
A detached single-family dwelling on each lot and the accessory structures and
uses normally auxiliary to it;
(b)
The keeping of livestock, consistent with recognized principles of range
management and in compliance with Sections
6-523
and 6-524;
(c)
Small farming, including the raising of poultry or rabbits or other grain-fed
rodents exclusively for home consumption in compliance with Section
6-524;
(d)
A home occupation.
(Ord. 410 § 1 (part), 1993)
6-7164
Uses requiring a permit.
The planning commission, after a public hearing and upon a showing by an applicant that such
use is consistent with the uses in the general area, may grant a land use permit for the following uses:
(a)
A residential business;
(b)
Publicly owned buildings and structures, except as provided in Section 6-516;
(c)
Crop and tree farming, horticulture, viticulture, grazing and other similar
agricultural uses;
(d)
Community building, club or activities of a quasi-public, social or fraternal
character, private recreational facility, such as a golf club, swimming pool and tennis
club, whether or not operated for profit;
(e)
Horse riding academy or horse riding school meeting the requirements of
Sections 6-523 and
6-524;
(8)
Multiple pet activity on a parcel of land 20,000 square feet in size or larger;
(g)
Kennel activity;
(h)
A second unit which complies with Sections
6-560-6-5 66;
(i)
Uses which the planning commission has found, after notice and hearing, to be
comparable to the uses enumerated in this section.
(Ord. 410 § 1 (part), 1993)
ATTACHMENT 6
6-7 165
Lot area.
The minimum lot area in the L-R district ia five acrea subject to the following qualification: If the
parcel has an average slope of 15 percent or more and is created aa a result of a land division of an L-R
parcel after July 28, 1993, the minimum lot area is five acres or that required by Section 6-3104
whichever is greater. (Ord. 410 § I (part), 1993)
6-7 166
Lot width.
No lot may be created in the L-R district that is less than 200 feet in average width. (Ord. 410 § 1
(part), 1993)
6-7 167
Lot depth.
No lot may be created in the L-R district that is less than 200 feet deep. (Ord. 410 § 1 (part),
1993)
6-7168
Height.
No single-family dwelling or other structure permitted in the L-R district shall exceed 30 feet in
height or two and one-half stories. (Ord. 410 § 1 (part), 1993)
6-7169
Yards.
All buildings erected in the L-R district, including accessory buildings, shall be a minimum of 50
feet from property lines or easement lines. (Ord. 410 § 1 (part), 1993)
6-7 170
Parking apace.
(a)
Residential Parking Space. Every dwelling unit permitted in the L-R district shall
have, on the same lot or parcel, space for at least four automobiles. Each parking space
shall be paved and shall have dimensions of at least ten feet by 20 feet, and shall not be
located within 50 feet of any property line.
(b)
Nonresidential Parking Space. Parking for a recreation building, club building or
other nonresidential use in the L-R district is govemed by Sections 6-601-6-661.
(Ord. 410 § 1 (part), 1993)
6-7171
Variances.
The planning commission may grant a variance to alter the requirements of Sections 6-7165-6-
7170 in accordance with the applicable provisions of Sections 6-201-6-238. (Ord. 410 § I (part), 1993)
6-7172
Design review criteria and approval.
(a)
The design review approval requirement applies to all L-R properties. However,
the primary purpose of design review is to regulate development on hillside or ridgeline
properties which (1) are susceptible to environmental damage due to geologic, pedologic,
seismic, hydrologic disturbances caused by nature and man or (2) are viewable from
lower elevations. The regulation shall be administered in a manner to meet the physical
and visual characteristics of each site.
-
(b)
On each hillside or ridgeline lot particular attention shall be given in the design
review process to prevent or reduce the adverse effects of grading and drainage.
(c)
Each dwelling unit shall be substantially concealed by vegetation or terrain or
both when viewed from lower elevations from publicly owned property (including
freeways, other public roadways, public open space and parks). It is the intent of this
requirement to protect views of the open and highly visible portions of the scenic
hillsides and ridgelinea so that they will appear essentially undeveloped as viewed from
below the dwelling. On file in the office of the planning director is a map entitled
"viewing evaluation," dated March 1, 1993 and prepared by the planning department
which is intended as a guide to establish locations from which views will be determined.
(d)
No building, structure or other facility, including a road, driveway, retaining wall
over three feet in height or graded slope over six feet in height maybe constructed,
established or altered in such a manner as to affect the existing physical condition or
exterior appearance, unless the design review commission first approves plans in
accordance with the procedure in Sections 6-270-6-28 1.
(e)
The planning director shall determine, through review of information provided
by the applicant and field inspection, whether a proposal subject to design review shall be
reviewed by the design review commission or by the planning director. The planning
director may retain approval authority if:
(1)
The proposed structure cannot be seen from areas indicated in
the viewing evaluation map that are lower in elevations than the proposal; and
(2)
The improvement proposed does not require a grading permit,
nor the removal of trees over four inches in diameter; and
(3)
The proposal is one story in height.
(Ord. 410 § I (part), 1993)
6-526
Height limitations in required yards.
(a)
Accessory buildings, as defined in Section 6-302 of this title, and structures, as
defined in Section 6-355 of this title, shall not exceed the following height limits, if
constructed in the required setback (front yard), side yard or rear yard which is applicable
to the main building or principal structure on the lot:
(1)
Accessory buildings, 12 feet;
(2)
Structures, six feet.
For example, if the rear yard for the principal structure is 15 feet, but the rear yard for an
accessory building is three feet, any accessory building within the 15-foot rear yard
required for the principal structure shall not exceed 12 feet in height.
(b)
For the purpose of this section, the height of a structure shall be determined by
measurement on its tallest side between natural grade and its highest part; and the height
of an accessory building shall be determined as provided in Section 6-313 of this title.
(c)
Variance permits to modii' the provisions of this section may be granted in
accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 6-1 of this title.
(Ord. 274 § 1, 1982: Ord. 243 § 2, 1981)
NOTE: These height provisions apply to accessory structures or buildings located in Residential Zoning
Districts.
6-271
Definitions-Applicability.
(a)
"Design review" means review of the aesthetic elements of a project. Reference
elsewhere in this title or in conditions of approval to design approval, site plan and
building elevations approval, or in the case of the environmental review commission,
means design review under this article.
(b)
"Gross floor area," under this article, means the total horizontal area in square
feet of each floor within the exterior walls of all buildings on a parcel, including garages
and carports as measured at the exterior face of the enclosing walls.
(c)
This article applies to:
(1)
New construction, exterior remodeling, or any change to a
structure or facility which affects the exterior appearance, and which occurs in a
multiple-family or commercial land use district (site plan and building elevations
applications);
(2)
A project or construction for which design review is required as
a condition of approval;
(3)
Any other projects for which design review is required; and
(4)
New single-family residential construction which exceeds 6,000
square feet in gross floor area or an addition to an existing residence which will
increase its
gross floor area to over 6,000 square feet and which occurs in a
single-family residential district.
(Ord. 386 § 2, 1991: Ord. 324 § I (part), 1984)
A
LAI1'AYETfE
LR-5
Low-Density Residential District
-5
Planning Services Division
3675 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 210
Lafayette, CA 94549-1968
Tel. (925) 284-1976
•
Fax (925) 284-1122
http://www.ci.lafayette.ca.us
6-7181
General.
6-7 182
Purposes.
6-7183
Uses permitted.
6-7184
Uses requiring a permit.
6-7185
Development requiring hillside development permit.
6-7 186
Lot area.
6-7187
Lot width.
6-7 188
Lot depth.
6-7 189
Height.
6-7190
Yards.
6-7191
Parking spaces.
6-7192
Variances.
iIQT:
The City has other regulations, which may affect individusl properties, including, but not
limited to hillside development, structures over 17-ft. in height, development in excess of 6,000 sq. ft.,
tree protection, grading, and public art. Please review the Project Checklist available on the City of
Lafayette web site at www.lovelafayette.org for an overview of regulations that might apply. You may
consult Planning Services Division staff to ascertain which rules and regulations apply to any given
project.
Low-Density Residential District - 5
6-7181 General.
All land in the low-density residential district -
5
(map symbol L-R-5) shall be used in accordance with
this article.
6-7 182 Pumoses.
The purposes of the low-density residential (L-R-5) district include the following:
A. Provide for areas of low-density residential uses consistent with the general plan and with the city's
primary objective of preservation and enhancement of its semi-rural residential character;
B. Promote the health, safety and welfare of the community by protecting the land in the L-R-5 district
from uses that would disturb the natural environment and increase geologic, pedologic, seismic,
hydrologic or other inherent hazards;
C.
Preserve and maintain the scenic, recreational, biotic, historic and other resources of land in the L-R-
5
district.
6-7183 Uses permitted.
In the
L-R-5
district, the following uses are allowed on a lot:
A.
A single-family residence and an accessory structure and use normally auxiliary to it;
B.
The keeping of livestock, consistent with recognized principles of range management and in
compliance with sections
6-523
and
6-524;
C.
Small farming, including the raising of poultry or rabbits or other grain-fed rodents exclusively for
home consumption in compliance with section 6-524;
D.
A home occupation.
6-7184 Uses requiring a permit.
The planning commission, after a public hearing and upon a showing by an applicant that such usc is
consistent with the uses in the general ares, may grant a land use permit for the following uses:
A. A residential business;
B.
Church, religious institution, parochial and private school, including nursery school;
C. Publicly owned buildings and structures, except as provided in section
6-5
16;
D.
Crop and tree farming, horticulture, viticulture, grazing and other similar agriculture uses;
E.
Community building, club or activities of a quasi-public, social or fratemal character, private
recreational facility, such as a golf club, swimming pool and tennis club, whether or not operated for
profit;
F.
Horse riding academy or horse riding school meeting the requirements of sections 6-523 and
6-524;
G. Kennel activity;
H.
Uses that the planning commission has found, after notice and hearing, to be comparable to the uses
enumerated in this section.
6-7185 Develooment requiring hillside development permit.
New development or the expansion of an existing use requires the issuance of a hillside development
permit pursuant to sections 6-2061 et seq.
6-7186 Lot area.
The minimum lot area in the L-R-5 district is five acres.
6-7 187 Lot width.
No lot shall be created in the
L-R-5
district that is less than 200 feet in average width.
6-7188 Lot depth.
No lot shall be created in the L-R-5 district that is less than 200 feet deep.
6-7 189 Height.
No single-family residence dwelling or other structure permitted in the L-R-5 district shall exceed 30 feet
in height or two and one-half stories, whichever is less.
6-7 190 Yards.
Each building erected in the L-R-5 district, including an accessory building, shall be a minimum of 50
feet from property lines or easement lines.
6-7191 Parking spaces.
A.
Residential parking apace. Each dwelling unit permitted in the L-R-5 district shall have, on the same
lot or parcel, space for at least four automobiles. Each parking space shall have dimensions of at least
10 feet by 20 feet, and shall not be located within 50 feet of any property line.
B.
Nonresidential parking space. Parking for a recreation building, club building, or nonresidential uses
in the L-R-5 district is govemed by sections 6-601 through 6-661.
6-7 192 Variances.
The planning comrmssion may grant a vanance to alter the requirements of 6-7187 through 6-7191 in
accordance with the applicable provisions of sections 6-201 through 6-238.
6-526
Height limitations in required yards.
(a)
Accessory buildings, as defined in Section 6-302 of this title, and structures, as
defined in Section
6-355
of this title, shall not exceed the following height limits, if
constructed in the required setback (front yard), side yard or rear yard which is
applicable to the main building or principal structure on the lot:
(1)
Accessory buildings, 12 feet;
(2)
Structures, six feet.
For example, if the rear yard for the principal structure is 15 feet, but the rear yard for an
accessory building is three feet, any accessory building within the 15-foot rear yard
required for the principal structure shall not exceed 12 feet in height.
(b)
For the purpose of this section, the height of a structure shall be determined by
measurement on its tallest side between natural grade and its highest part; and the height
of an accessory building shall be determined as provided in Section 6-3 13 of this title.
(c)
Variance permits to modify the provisions of this section may be granted in
accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 6-1 of this title.
(Ord. 274 § 1, 1982: Ord. 243 § 2, 1981)
NOTE: These height provisions apply to accessory structures or buildings located in Residential Zoning
Districts.
6-271
Definitions-Applicability.
(a)
"Design review" means review of the aesthetic elements of a project. Reference
elsewhere in this title or in conditions of approval to design approval, site plan and
building elevations approval, or in the case of the environmental review commission,
means design review under this article.
(b)
"Gross floor area," under this article, means the total horizontal area in square
feet of each floor within the exterior walls of all buildings on a parcel, including garages
and carports as measured at the exterior face of the enclosing walls.
(c)
This article applies to:
(I)
New construction, exterior remodeling, or any change to a
structure or facility which affects the exterior appearance, and which occurs in a
multiple-family or commercial land use district (site plan and building elevations
applications);
(2)
A project or construction for which design review is required as
a condition of approval;
(3)
Any other projects for which design review is required; and
(4)
New single-family residential construction which exceeds 6,000
square feet in gross floor area or an addition to an existing residence which will
increase its
gross floor area to over 6,000 square feet and which occurs in a
single-family residential district.
(Ord. 386 § 2, 1991: Ord. 324 § 1 (part), 1984)
L
.
Planning Services Division
Multiple-family Residential Townhouse District
3675
Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 210
6-881
General.
Lafayette, CA 94549-1968
All land in the multiple-family residential townhouse district (map symbol M-R-T) shall be used
LAFAYEI5TE
Tel. (925) 284-1976 • Fax (925) 284-1122
in accordance with the provisions of this article. (Ord. 129
§
2 (part), 1974)
http://www.ci.lafayette.ca.us
6-882
Purpose.
The purpose of this article is to provide a medium-density residential district for townhouse
development, which will be consistent with and further the city's overall planning objective of the
preservation and enhancement of its semirural residential character.
The regulations in this article are
intended to require carefully conceived plans at a physical scale compatible with nearby residential areas;
to preserve natural settings and open space; to ensure attractive and compatible architectural treatment of
MRT
structures; to achieve the optimum in quality development, preservation of the environment,
enhancement of the tax base, and beneficial use of available land; and to provide for development which
Multiple-family Residential Townhouse District
is consistent with the goals and policies and other provisions of the general plan. (Ord. 314
§
1 (part),
1984: Ord. 129
§
2 (part), 1974)
6-881
General.
6-882
Purpose.
6-883
Uses permitted.
6-883
Uses permitted.
The following uses are permitted in the M-R-T district:
6-884
Uses requiring a permit.
(a)
Townhouses;
6-885
Density.
(b)
Foster homes or family care homes operated by a public agency, or by a private
6-886
Height,
agency which has obtained state or local approval (license) for the proposed operation,
6-887
Property development standards,
where not more than six minors reside on the premises with not more than two
6-888
Open space.
supervisory persons;
6-8 89
Design review.
(c)
Residential care homes for the aged, operated by a public agency, or by a private
6-890
Parking,
agency which has obtained state or local approval (license) for the proposed operation,
6-891
Site plan and building elevation approval,
where not more than six aged persons reside on the premises with not more than two
6-892
Modifiable sections.
supervisory persons;
(d)
Home occupations.
(Ord. 129
§
2 (part), 1974)
NOTE: The City has other regulations, which may affect individual properties, including, but not
limited to hillside development, structures over 17-ft. in height, development in excess of 6,000 sq. ft.,
tree protection, grading, and public art. Please review the Project Checklist available on the City of
Lafayette web site at www.lovelafavette.org for an overview of regulations that might apply. You may
consult Planning Services Division staff to ascertain which rules and regulations apply to any given
project.
6-884
Uses requiring a permit.
In the M-R-T district, the following uses are permitted on the issuance of a land use permit:
(a)
Residential businesses;
(b)
Eleemosynary and philanthropic institutions, convalescent homes and boarding
homes;
(c)
Uses which the planning commission has found, after notice and hearing, to be
comparable to the above uses.
(Ord. 129
§
2 (part), 1974)
6-885
Density.
The maximum number of dwelling units permitted on any lot in the M-R-T district shall conform
to the general plan density range for that area. (Ord. 314
§
I
(part), 1984: Ord. 129
§
2 (part), 1974)
6-886
Height.
No building in the M-R-T district may exceed 25 feet in height. (Ord, 129
§
2 (part), 1974)
6-887
Property development standards.
There are no minimum standards for lot area, setback, side and rear yard, and lot coverage in the
M-R-T district. This is intended to allow flexibility in design. During the review process, the planning
commission may impose such conditions as it deems necessary to assure in any development proposal
provision of adequate privacy, general appearance and relationship to the natural and manmade elements
of the environment. (Ord. 314 § 1 (part), 1984: Ord. 129 § 2 (part), 1974)
6-888
Open space.
A minimum of 50 percent of the ground level of a lot in the M-R-T district shall not be occupied
by buildings, structures or pavement for automobiles, but shall be maintained as open space and devoted
to landscaping. Open space includes landscaped open space and ground-level private open space. (Ord.
314 § 1 (part), 1984: Ord. 129 § 2 (part), 1974)
6-889
Design review.
All new construction and all remodeling of a structure when the completed new work will be
visible from public property, or when the nature of the use will be changed, shall be subject to the design
review requirements and procedures set forth in Part 1 of this title. (Ord. 324 § 2(d) (part), 1984: Ord.
314 § I (part), 1984: Ord. 129 § 2 (part), 1974)
6-890
Parking.
(a)
In the M-R-T district off-street parking shall be provided on the same lot,
convenient to all dwelling units, in accordance with the following schedule:
(1)
One-bedroom units,
1.5
spaces per unit;
(2)
Two or more bedroom units, 2.0 spaces per unit.
(b)
In addition, one guest parking space shall be provided for each five dwelling
units. A minimum of one parking space per unit shall be covered.
(c)
The provisions of Chapter 6-6 of this title apply to the M-R-T district.
(Ord. 314 § I (part), 1984: Ord. 129 § 2 (part), 1974)
6-89 1
Site plan and building elevation approval.
(a)
In the M-R-T district no building shall be constructed or altered or painted a new
color in such a manner as to affect exterior appearance, unless plans for such proposal
have been approved pursuant to the site plan and building elevations requirements set
forth in Part I of this title.
(b)
Design review of townhouses shall include special emphasis to ensure that
building styles and forms, clustering arrangements, heights, materials, colors, street
alignments, grading approaches and introduced plantings are designed in a manner which
is harmonious and consistent with nearby residential units and which minimizes visual
impact from public property.
(Ord. 314 § 1 (part), 1984)
6-892
Modifiable sections.
Land use permits for the special uses enumerated in Section 6-834 and variance permits to
modity the provisions of Sections 6-886, 6-888, 6-889 and 6-890 maybe granted in accordance with the
applicable provisions of Chapter 6-2 of this title. (Ord. 314 § 1 (part), 1984)
Excerpt from Land Use Chapter of the Lafayette General Plan
Goal LU-13:
Ensure that the Eastern Deer Hifi Road area near the intersection of
Pleasant Hill Road is developed, where development is appropriate, in
a manner consistent with Lafayette's community identity.
Policy LU- 13.1
Preserve and enhance the semi-rural single-family residential character
north of Deer Hill Road where not adjacent to Pleasant Hill Road.
Policy LU-13.2
Consider options for development south of Deer Hill Road and north of
Deer Hill Road where adjacent to Pleasant Hill Road.
Program LU-13.2.2:
Prepare through a community planning process an
Eastern
Deer Hill Road Specific Plan that includes the following
requirements:
a)
Protect and enhance the rural character of the area north of Deer Hill
Road where not adjacent to Pleasant Hill Road.
b) Preserve prominent views.
c) Include development standards that maintain the semi-rural character
of the area and the community.
d)
Utilize the property south of Deer Hill Road to help communicate the
image of Lafayette as a semi-rural community.
Remainder of Deer Hill Road Corridor (from Elizabeth Street west to Happy Valley Road)
Due to the proximity to the Downtown and the BART station, this section of Deer Hill Road and
the single-family neighborhood that lies north of Deer Hill Road are constantly faced with
development pressures to utilize the infuil areas more intensively than currently planned or zoned
It is the specjIc intent of the community to restrict commercial and multifamily uses to the south
side of the freeway, which in this area is the terminus of the Downtown to the south, in order to
protect the single-family residential neighborhoods that lie north of the freeway.
Goal LU-14:
Protect the single-family residential neighborhoods north of
Hwy 24
from commercial and multi family development.
Policy LU-14.l
Continue to maintain the freeway as the dividing line separating the
Downtown from the semi-rural, single-family residential areas to the
north.
Program LU-l4.l.l
Consistent
with the community's identity, allow
only those uses on Deer Hill Road that are permitted by right, or with a
use permit, in the single-family residential zoning districts.
ATTACHMENT 7
