Laserfiche WebLink
16 <br /> <br />A. Eight (8) lot alternative that minimizes creek setback encroachments and <br />reduces number of PD development standard modifications. <br /> <br />This alternative would require the removal of one lot, likely Lot 9, and <br />increasing the size of the remaining lots on the outer edge of the private <br />roadway. Lots 1-4 would become wider, allowing for the proposed homes to <br />have a wider, less deep footprint. Larger lots would reduce the number of PD <br />modifications necessary for the project, however, could also result in larger <br />homes due to the 40% lot coverage allowance in R-1. A Use Permit would <br />still be required for fencing within the 25’ creek protection setback. <br /> <br /> <br />B. Nine (9) lot alternative with reduced building footprints that minimizes creek <br />setback encroachments and reduces number of PD development standard <br />modifications. <br /> <br />This alternative could either: <br /> <br />1) Reduce the square footage of the homes on Lots 1-4 to minimize creek <br />setback encroachments and reduce the number of PD modifications <br />requested for these lots, or <br />2) Reduce the square footage of all homes to minimize creek setback <br />encroachments, reduce the number of PD modifications project-wide <br />and provide a more open, spacious feel for the development. <br /> <br />A Use Permit would still be required for fencing within the 25’ creek protection <br />setback. <br /> <br />2. Recommend denial of the Planned Development Permit, Use Permit and Vesting <br />Tentative Map. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Karen Vaughn <br />Principal Planner <br /> Steven Turner <br />Planning Commission Liaison <br /> <br />8.B. - Page 109