Laserfiche WebLink
Council Member Bain asked why 15% slope was chosen as the minimum. Mr. Aknin <br /> described briefly how the breaking point was chosen, which was based on staff's <br /> experience reviewing homes in this area, and the number of homes this will impact. He <br /> noted that the Council could choose a different breaking point. <br /> Council Member Seybert noted that the application of setbacks on the buildable area of <br /> a sloped lot essentially functions like an FAR would by limiting the size of the home and <br /> also utilizing the residential lot coverage ratio. Mr. Aknin noted that all cities with FAR <br /> requirements still have discretionary review because a small home could still be built <br /> incorrectly. <br /> Council Member Howard asked for clarification on why Staff chose to measure based <br /> on slope percentage. Mr. Aknin stated that it is typical to use percentages for a slope <br /> formula. Council Member Howard noted the comment that this ordinance treats a 15% <br /> slope the same as a 29°/a slope. She noted that these lots still require the appropriate <br /> reports to ensure safety. <br /> Mayor Gee asked how many communities on the peninsula do not have a hillside <br /> ordinance. Mr. Aknin stated that all cities somehow distinguish hillside development <br /> from flatland development, in a variety of ways. Mayor Gee asked how this hillside <br /> ordinance proposal changes the Laurel Way group that are under litigation. Ms. <br /> Thompson stated that they will be required to comply with new regulations if they are <br /> set. <br /> Mayor Gee noted the public comments about constantly changing regulations and <br /> codes. He noted that he does not recall the City changing its municipal code regarding <br /> RH-1. Mr. Aknin stated that there have been no recent changes on this matter. Mayor <br /> Gee noted the comment about Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and asked how this will <br /> affect that. Mr. Aknin replied that this will not affect ADU rules and regulations. He <br /> noted the concern about lots that were essentially flat but had a drop-off to the creek. <br /> Mr. Aknin stated that there was an additional finding, related to the creek, that will <br /> protect that area, and those lot owners will still have to follow this process. <br /> Mayor Gee asked Mr. Aknin about the assertion that most homes in the hillsides will be <br /> nonconforming. Mr. Aknin replied that since there is no cap on Floor Area Ratio, there <br /> will not be nonconforming homes. Council Member Seybert noted that he wished there <br /> was some kind of ctarification 15 years ago. He spoke about his experience developing <br /> property on a slope and his thoughts on some comments he has been hearing about <br /> this ordinance. He noted that the County has had much stricter ordinances than this. <br /> This ordinance makes sense for safety and increasing objectivity on hillside <br /> development. He asked for a delay of 6 months to put this ordinance into effect after <br /> adoption. <br /> Council Member Howard agreed with the 6-month delay. She stated that the standards <br /> in the ordinance are clear. She noted that in the future if the Council feels this is not <br /> strict enough, it could be revisited. Council Member Bain thanked staff for the work on <br /> this project. He stated that his main concern is the 15% break point and the unintended <br /> JOINT CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD/ April 13, 2015 <br /> PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES PAGE 14 <br /> MINUTE BOOK NO. 65 <br /> Page No. 371 <br />