AgdaPkt 2004-05-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Î.A-+ g. Reservation of landscaping areas for the purposes of separating or screening service and storage areas from the street and adjoining building sites, breaking up large expanses of paved areas, separating or screening parking lots from the street and adjoining building sites, and separating building areas from paved areas to provide access from buildings to open space areas. It was1etermined by the Zoning Administrator that, where applicable, the p.'.,posed rear balcony addition complied with the architectural standards; however, somt. additional conditions of approval were incorporated to ensure a high quality of design and overall design compatibility. Because the proposed project complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; the purpose of the Planned Development Permit was upheld; and the Architectural Standards were maintained, the amendment to the Planned Development Permit (Architectural Permit) was granted. Historical Records At the conclusion of the March 22, 2004 City Council meeting, Staff was directed to conduct additional research in an effort to locate the original records for the Valota Place Planned Development Permit. The following records were found: 1. Planning Commission, January 1996: 9-Unit proposed development - Staff Report, Environmental Assessment (Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration), Planned Development Permit Application, Tentative Map, and Planning Commission Minutes. The Planning Commission adopted the Environmental Assessment, but denied the nine (9) unit Planned Development Permit and the Tentative Map. 2. City Council, March 1996: Appeal of 9-Unit proposed development - Minutes. The City Council denied the appeal and upheld the decision of the Planning Commission. 3. Planning Commission, June 1997: 8-Unit proposed development - Staff Report, Planned Development Permit Application, Tentative Map, and Planning Commission Minutes. A revised eight (8) unit Planned Development Permit application and Tentative Map was submitted by a new developer for Planning Commission review and approval. The revised plan substantially changed the layout of the original proposal and incorporated a "T" shaped cul-de-sac instead of the linear street design that was previously denied. Furthermore, the revised project incorporated additional landscaping and increased setbacks to address privacy concerns. The Planning Commission felt that the proposed project was consistent with the purpose of the Planned Development Permit and gave approval for the revised project. (Copies of the Planning Commission packets and meeting notes along with the City Council minutes are available for viewing at the City Clerk's office ). Summary The following items in the historic documentation that relate to this appeal, specifically 4