AgdaPkt 2009-08-03 spc, clsd and jnt

Browse Search

7A should not impose any loads on the creek bank. Page 7 3. Creek V11a#er Quality: Water quaEity was reasonabfy assured as determined from engineering analysis of the applicant's proposed storm water detenfiion system which incfudes filtration through the use of ground Fil#erra units and subsurface piping prior to controlled discharge of storm water back into �he creek. NOTE: The applicant has revised their plans and continues to utilize a detention and filtrafiion system, however, it is no longer designed #a have a direct ou�fail infio Cordilleras Creek from the subject property. Ra�her it is proposed to be installed in Finger A�enue connec�ing fio existing Ci#y facilities at EI Camino Real. Planning staff also notes#hat although aes#hetics and space between structures was not a consideration in the drafting of the existing creek setback ordinance,the project's rear property line is within the creek channei. Tnerefiore, part of the creek is essentially part of the backyard and actually yieids about 35 feet of rear set back to the abutting properfy to the rear. Typical R-1 development requires a 20 foo� rear set back. Although staff recommended approval of the PD and VTM as indicated in the May 19t" sfiaff repor#, fhe Pianning Commission acted in its best judgment and foilowed proper procedures in denying the PD and VTM. After considering all the evidence in the record, a majority of the Planning Cammissioners determined that the project shouid meet the 25 ft. creek setback and the pro�ect as proposed is not in f�armony with the surrounding neighborhood$. The Planning Commission's decision was based on the weighing of public testimony, facts and the record. A�so ifi is important to note that the VTi M goes hand in hand with the PD permit because the VTM illustrates the subdivision details tsi#e area, building footprin#, setbacks, etc)as described in the PD. Therefvre by denying the PD fihe Planning Commission had no choice bu#to deny the VTM in order to make the acfions consistent. ALTERNATIVES • Do not al�ow the Finger A�enue Pride Committee appeai �o be heard � Uphold the Finger Avenue Pride Commitfee appeal and thereby require that an EIR be prepared • Uphold the appiicant's appeal and approve the Planned Development Permifi and Tentative Map. This action would essentially approve the project as revised and outlined in the May 19, 2009 staff report FtSCAL�MPACT • None a Note: there was also a requirement of the PD that t�e Architectural Permit Committee woutd have to review the design of the homes.