AgdaPkt 2009-06-01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A The proposed project data (Attachment 5), identifies proposed setbacks, heights andPage 3 open space for each unit within the development and includes parcels that have reduced setbacks, per Article 46.7(4) of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to modifications allowed in Planned Developments. The reduced setbacks are also consistent with those of other PDs within the immediate area (Attachment 6). . Inadequate on-site parking The project includes 24 residential units with a total of 48 on-site parking spaces and six additional guest parking spaces. A total of 54 parking stalls are proposed. At least one covered stall per unit is provided. Section 30.2.1.E of the Zoning Ordinance addresses Off-Street Parking and Loading requirements for multi-family development and requires 54 spaces for the Kentfield's project's 24 units (48 spaces are required for the residential units and six spaces for guest parking). Originally the developer requested an exception to the guest parking provision; in this case the request was for elimination of all six guest spaces. Such an exception for this project is potentially allowed pursuant to Section 30.2.1.E.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which lists three findings upon which reduction or elimination of guest parking provisions should be based. The Planning Commission did not make any of the findings and, did not approve an exception to the guest parking provisions. The Commissfon approved the project with no reduction in the guest parking provisions based on the whole of the record which included public comment and concern about the projecfs parking supply. As revised, the plans conform to the City's parking requirements. . Increased off-site parking (i.e. street) Street parking is available on a first come, first serve basis, however the project is not expected to impact the neighborhood because the on-site parking provisions, per the revised plans, conform to code requirements. . Retaining walls around properly blocking natural flow of water onto property, therefore forcing drainage onto other lots By law, any new development cannot drain water onto adjoining private properties. All run-off must be collected within the subject site and then drained into the City's storm drain system. The project plans have been reviewed by Engineering Services and conform to applicable standards. Other project design issues have been expressed as well. The appellants suggest that "Variances" are being sought and granted for setbacks, height, parking and reduction of driveway width. There are no "Variances" being requested. The PO Permit allows a reduction in setbacks, and building heights. In correspondence with the appellant since the appeal was filed, staff has cause to believe that there is also concern about the City's open space requirements. Although not a stated topic of the appeal, an explanation of the City's open space requirements and how open space was calculated for this project is provided in Attachment 7. In summary, the appellants have clearly stated that "the primary cause for most, if not all, of the issues stated is unit density. The lot density of Kentfield project greatly exceeds that allowed by applicable zoning ordinances." The appeal letter includes the following other topics of concern: . "CEQA #1" The appellants state that public comments that were received with regard to the IS/MND were not included in the staff report to the Planning Commission. The