PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. FROM: Julie Caporgno DEPARTMENT: Planning Advance Planning Manager

Transcription

1 PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: Julie Caporgno DEPARTMENT: Planning Advance Planning Manager AGENDA DATE: February 26, 2003 SUBJECT: Review and comment on the Revisions to the Proposed Stanford Open Space/Field Research Zoning District Text RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that the City Council support the revisions to the Open Space/Field Research (OS/F) Zoning District prepared by County staff and forward to the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors a recommendation that the Board approve the text as proposed. BACKGROUND At several meetings in 2002, the P&TC discussed the proposed Stanford Open Space/Field Research Zoning District (OS/F) that was prepared by the County of Santa Clara to implement the Stanford Community Plan adopted by the County Board of Supervisors in December of On both July 1 and December 2, 2002, the City Council unanimously supported the position endorsed by the P&TC as stated in letters sent to both the County Board of Supervisors and the County Planning Commission. These letters are included as Attachment A. In both letters forwarded to the County, the City recommended that the Open Space/Field Research (OS/F) Zoning District text further limit development allowed under the proposed zoning district by requiring specific findings for those projects that require Architectural and Site Approval (ASA). Specifically, the following zoning text changes were recommended: Incorporate a height restriction in conformance with the Community Plan limiting structures in general to below the 200-foot elevation. Identify specific measures to regulate site access. Regulate the extension of utilities on site to Stanford uses. City of Palo Alto Page 1

2 Limit height and design of fences to ensure migration of wildlife. Require an open space dedication for both non-clustered and clustered development and restrict the open space dedication to the OS/F district. Specifically identify applicable regulations for ASA review similar to the City s Open Space Zoning District regulations and Comprehensive Plan Open Space Development Criteria. Allow caretaker s residences only as non-conforming uses, prohibiting their expansion and allowing only for repair and maintenance, and not allowing for their relocation. The P&TC also recommended that the ordinance text incorporate the General Use Permit restrictions, standards and conditions since the use permit will expire within a ten-year timeframe or can change on application by the County. The P&TC supported an open space requirement for both clustered and non-clustered projects with the open space component not allowed transferred to the yet-to-be-established Special Conservation Area, which will prohibit development. The County Planning Commission was originally scheduled to make a recommendation on the zoning text in June; however, as a result of the numerous comments received related to the proposed zoning text, the County Planning Commission continued the item to December 5. At its December 5 th meeting, the County Planning Commission requested County staff to address several County Commission concerns regarding the proposed zoning text; the Commission continued the item to early February to allow staff adequate time to respond. In response to their Commission s issues, County staff conducted a viewshed analysis of the OS/FR zoning district and developed supplemental ASA findings for the restricted range of allowable uses within this zoning district. At its February 5 th meeting, the County Planning Commission continued the OS/F item for one month to allow adequate time for additional public review of the staff-recommended changes. DISCUSSION The following discussion identifies the issues raised by the PT&C at previous meetings and summarizes how the modified zoning text responds to each issue. Actual zoning text language and a more detailed analysis of the changes are included in Attachment B. Restrict development in the foothills to below 200 feet The P&TC supported limiting development in general to below the 200-foot elevation unless sufficient justification and reasonable findings can be made through a separate permit process. Based on County Planning Commission direction, the OS/FR text was revised by County staff to provide greater protection and analysis of potential impacts to visual resources by requiring findings that address areas of high visibility, including additional development standards requiring new siting considerations, and allowing development only in areas of lowest visibility unless there is compelling justification for placement in areas of higher visibility. City of Palo Alto Page 2

3 Regulate access to sites and limit paving or other impervious surfaces The P&TC recommended that access criteria should be established for ASA findings and that impervious surfaces be either limited or prohibited. The County Planning Commission requested that impacts associated with roads be addressed including road access and impervious cover. In response, County staff incorporated supplemental ASA findings that address road compatibility with the predominantly natural/rural setting of the zoning district and encourage minimizing impervious cover. Regulate the extension of utilities The P&TC recommended that the location, size, capacity and number of utilities should be regulated, that utilities on site should be limited to serving only Stanford uses and that commercial antennas should not be considered a permitted use. The County Planning Commission requested County staff to identify ways to minimize impacts associated with commercial antennas and utility infrastructure. In response, County staff developed supplemental ASA findings that address environmental impacts and recommended revisions to the zoning text to target areas of lower visibility for development of utility infrastructure. Provide development standards to limit discretion but allow some flexibility. P&TC considered the ASA process contingent upon the development of tight standards for review; therefore, the P&TC requested the inclusion of specific development standards addressing architecture, color, materials, siting and orientation to ensure environmental compatibility. The County staff revised the ordinance to include the application of ASA findings. Generally, the findings focus on the protection of environmental and visual resources. Color, design and paint reflectivity would also be addressed in the ASA findings. The County staff considers that the proposed ASA findings coupled with the viewshed analysis and zoning text revisions provide sufficiently stringent standards to ensure viewshed and environmental protection. Specifically identify the intensity of development, the range of uses, and type of development that could occur in the district. The P&TC recommended that the OS/F text incorporate the GUP restrictions, standards and conditions since the zoning should continue to dictate parameters for future entitlement and should not be dependent on new use permit restrictions. The County Planning Commission requested that the County staff explore an option for providing Planning Commission review of structures of 1000 square feet or more. County staff recommended restricting structures of 1000 feet or more to areas outside of medium-high to high visibility as determined by the County viewshed analysis unless specific circumstances allow an ASA waiver. At the request of the County Planning Commission, County staff did explore use of Palo Alto s Open Space District findings for the OS/F District and incorporated some standards related to impervious surface considerations and tree and habitat protection similar to those of Palo Alto. County staff considers that elements in the Palo Alto Open Space Zoning district are already included in other sections of the County Zoning Ordinance. The County s approach to developing the OS/F zoning district has been to avoid repeating all applicable City of Palo Alto Page 3

4 standards in each zoning district. Restrict caretaker s residences The P&TC also discussed Stanford s request for caretaker s residences and recommended allowing the existing use as non-conforming and allowing repair and maintenance if required but not permitting any relocation or expansion of the use. County staff has proposed that a cumulative total of five caretaker residences be allowed. Any legal structures that have been converted to caretaker use will then be considered an allowed use under the definition of caretaker residence. Any legal structures that have been converted to caretaker use will be considered legal, nonconforming uses and may be relocated, replaced or modified provided that there is no increase in overall square footage. Prohibit transfer of open space to other districts/require dedication for development At the direction of the County Planning Commission, County staff modified the draft ordinance to delete the allowance for open space dedication within Special Conservation Areas and restrict open space dedication to the OS/F district consistent with the position of the P&TC. Currently the ordinance requires the dedication of open space only when development is clustered; the P&TC supported dedication of open space for non-clustered as well as clustered development. Ensure fences do not impede migration of wildlife The proposed zoning text incorporates language that requires that fences be designed to minimize visual impacts to the natural setting, consistent with the existing County regulations for fences in rural districts. There is no specific provision in the ordinance that addresses migration of wildlife. In conclusion, staff considers the proposed zoning text overall implements the direction of the Community Plan and General Use Permit. COURTESY COPIES: Tim Heffington, Planner, County of Santa Clara Environmental Resources Agency, Planning Office, County Government Center, East Wing, 7 th Floor, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, CA Charles Carter, Planning Office, Stanford University, 655 Serra Street, Stanford, CA ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Letters from City Council to County, dated September 18 and December 3, Dec. 3 letter is available upon request. Attachment B: County of Santa Clara Planning Commission Staff Report - _0203.pdf City of Palo Alto Page 4

5 Prepared by: Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager Department/Division Head Approval: Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Page 5

6 ATTACHMENT A September 18, 2002 Board of Supervisors/Planning Commission County of Santa Clara County Government Center, East Wing, 7 th Floor 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, CA SUBJECT: City Council Review of proposed Stanford Open Space/Field Research Zoning District Text This letter is to forward to the Board of Supervisors/County Planning Commission the City of Palo Alto s comments on the proposed Stanford University Community Plan Open Space/Field Research (OS/R) Zoning District text that will be reviewed by the County Planning Commission at its October 3 rd meeting. The proposed text was placed on the Council s consent calendar of July 1 st. The Council unanimously supported the position endorsed by the Planning Commission after its careful review and deliberation. The Palo Alto Planning Commission discussed the proposed zoning district text at four separate meetings. At one of those meetings staff from the County Planning office provided an overview of the Stanford Community Plan and General Use Permit and the interrelationship of the proposed zoning district. As a result of the discussion, the Planning Commission forwarded a letter to the County Planning Commission on May 30, That letter is attached and forms the basis for the City Council comments to the County. In general, the allowed uses and development standards for the OS/R Zoning District are considered consistent with the implementation direction of the Stanford Community Plan; however, the city has some concerns related to the proposed zoning that are highlighted below. The ordinance needs more clarity; structure and definition for projects that exceed the standards allowed by right and require Architectural and Site Approval (ASA). The City recommends that specific findings are required for those projects similar to the process established in the County Hillside Zoning District for uses permitted subject to securing a special permit. Specifically the zoning district should include criteria for findings that address the following: Regulate access to sites City of Palo Alto Page 6

7 Regulate the location, size, capacity and number of utilities to ensure minimal environmental impacts Regulate trails and roads to either limit or prohibit paving or other impervious surfaces Provide development standards addressing architecture, color, materials, sitting and orientation sufficient to ensure environmental compatibility but allow flexibility in design review Identify the intensity and range of uses and type of development that could occur in the area Ensure that fences do not impede the migration of wildlife by limiting height and requiring an open design Prohibit development above the 200 foot elevation unless sufficient justification and reasonable findings can be made through a separate permit process involving an advertised public hearing The City recommends that the County use as a model the City s Open Space Zoning District for developing standards of review. The City developed these standards for land that is substantially similar to the Stanford OS/R area, which allow maximum development of two stories with 25-foot elevations. Attached to this letter are the pertinent sections related to the Open Space District from the City s Zoning Ordinance Chapter ( Special Regulations). These regulations address geological and soils investigation, landscaping, fencing, tree removal, access, grading, and soil erosion. The City also recommends that the ordinance text incorporate the General Use Permit restrictions, standards and conditions since the use permit will expire within a ten-year timeframe or can change on application by the County. When either of these occurs, the zoning should continue to dictate parameters for future entitlement and should not only be dependent on the new use permit restrictions. The City also recommends an open space requirement for non-clustered development and that for both clustered and non-clustered projects the open space component is not allowed to be transferred to the yet-to-be-established Special Conservation areas, which already prohibit development. The City of Palo Alto appreciates your consideration of its recommendations. The City also requests that any revisions to the proposed text be forwarded to both our Planning Commission and City Council Sincerely, Vic Ojakian Mayor Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto Page 7