AgdaPkt 2012-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 233 evaluate the aesthetics of the internal [pubticly accessed) portion of the praject as a means of determining if the new neighbprhood aesthetic complements or degrades the overall visual character of the neighborhood. Orte can see from Figures 3 [viewed from Finger Avenue) and 7-14,the narrow roadway anc� setbacks of the lot 7 and b homes situates the buildings less than 50 ft apart across the roadway,as apgosed to approximately 90 ft or rnore far homes across Finger.This eon€iguration,coupled with the two-sta�ry massing of all of the project homes,presents a"canyon-like"feel within the project itself-much different tnan along Finger Avenue or ar�ywhere else in the nearby neighborhood. The FEIR also ciaims that the lot 7 and lot$homes ao not create an aesthetic impact because they conform ta R-1 District standards and relate appropriately to 54,40, and 36 Finger Ave. First off,homes on lots 7 and 8 do not conform tfl R-J. standards as side and rear yard exceptions are re�uested for these lots under the PD permit application.Secondly,this analysis is su�jective and ignores any ohjective facts.The report fai�s to note that the side facades of lots 7 and $ are quite lang (�60 ft) and visible,in addition to �40'wide front facades on Finger,and both have two-stary massing.Front facades of 40, 54,and 3b Finger are�iare�y more than half as long as that of the proposed homes and side facades of 40 and 54 Finger (viewable in part from the 50 Finger driveway) are significantly shorter than the new homes. 40 Finger also has single-story massing and a�l three existing street front homes have considerably lower lot coverages than proposed for Lots 7 and $; 40 and 54 Finger are set back 5-10'farther from the street as well. Also in response to J-2b,the City takes issue with the retevance of the summary statistics provided. The response fails to acknawledge that we also providec�,in Attachment C,the complete informatian for individual properties,so variations in building mass and scale can be evaluated in that context as well. We aIso provided plats showing haw individual houses compare to those in the praposed project.The data clearly show that the McGowan Development,when consit�ered in the cantext of the existing conditions represents a development form that is so antithetic to the bulk of the neighborhood that its presence will only serve to degrade the current character of the neighborhood. Fina�ly,the J-26 response questions the accuracy of statistics provided�y painting out that praject lot sizes are listec�incorrectly.The FEIR preparers obviously did not read the footnote in Attachment C where these statistics are presented,explaining that lot sizes within PDs and for creel�siae lots were adjusted to allow for appropriate comparison of creek-side and PD lots to non-creekside and conventianal lots.As explained in the footnote,lot areas were adjusted to remove the portians of creekside lots that are cantained within the creek,as this is nat building site area (far non-creekside lots,building site area and gross lot area are equivalent). In addition,PD's have some common open-space areas that should 6e accounted for to establish equivalence in comparing lot coverage an�iot size with non-PD lots that don't enjoy this amenity.The McGowan development proposal has