AgdaPkt 2012-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

CD-Bfake L on 8.A. - Page 245 From: Daniel Ponti�pontifamily@gmaiLcom> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:40 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners Cc: Richard lzmirian; Dean Collins; Ferris Lewald Subject: Finger Ave. Project Dear Ms. Bargens and Members of the Planning Commission In reviewing the agenda package for tonight's meeting 1'm struck with how it freque�n�ly refexences the fact that the Finger Ave. project is consistent wit1�the General Plan—buiIding Qut to only 5.3 dweIling units per acre when 7 dwelling units per acre are allowed under the General Plan Land Use Category for Low Density Residential. 5.3 vs 7 du/acre sounds pretty accommodating doesn't it? If you study the Vesting Tentative Map, however, rnost people, and I hape that you as welZ, wilI note that for a standard-style residential subdivision, t}ungs are prefty tight. The roadway is significantly narrow�r than typical, with no separate sidewalk, and in fact does not meet the City's standard for a private raad, Zet alone a public street. Setbacks are minimal, and numerous setback exceptions are required. Many of the existing large trees—those that are retained, are mere feet away fram the home footprints. Why is this the case if the project falls well belaw the rnaxi�um density alIowed? What seeans to have been forgotten, or at least pushed under tl�e rug in this report, is that�he governing district for�e project site is the R-1 zoning district; that is what directly controls deveZopment on the site, nat the land use category. Given the current property layout, Mr. McGovvan has an entitlement to develop four single-family homes on the site. He can buila more, given the praperty's size, but that is only pursuant to a Planned Development permit, which is discretionaxy; st�ch permits are to be approved pursuant to the abjectives of a PD permit, of which I'm sure that yau are all familiar. He does not have an entitlement to a PD permit. PD permits are subject to the gaverning la.rad use and density of the District within which the PD is ?ocated, and must conform to that district's density requirement. In the R-1 district, there is a requirement that there be a minimum of 6,000 sq ft of "building sate area", per singIe family home. For a 9-lot project as proposed there must be a total af 54,000 sq ft available to buiId on. Otherwise, this PD would viola.�e code. Building site area is not the same as lo�size, when there are things like watercaurses or roads present on a site, Those features must be excluded when determYning miniznum building site area, because they cannot be bzailt upon. Looking at Table 2 on page 5 of the staff report, you will see a column for net lot size, which excludes Cordilleras Creek and the private roadway. If you totai the net areas for the lots, the project's total building site area is 55, 273 sq ft. This o�nly is 1273 sq. ft, or slightly more than 100 sq. ft per lot above the minimum required for these homes. Of course, tYtis is with a one-way road on the site with a 22' right-of-way, whereas a City-standard private road has a 31' required right-of-way(25' pavement plus sidewalk). The five-home planz�ed developrnent on Oakdale, two blocks away, has such a private road. The argument given in the staff report that the new road is appropriately-sized for the number of homes it serves would suggest that the Oakdale PD's private road is a veritable expressway. Go Iook at the Oakdale PD and decide for yourself if it �ooks too big. By the way,Finger Avenue's right-of-way, which is a substandard residential street as it is, is 50'. Mr. McGowan has been extremely resistant to any change in tlie roadway design, and you can understand from the above why that�is so. Any change in roadway width wi111ikely require a reduction in t�-ie number of lots he can develop. His �rsf proposal had a 20' wide road and 5' sidewalk. When he was told that a 22' pavement design was required for emergency vehicle access, he proposed a 22'-wide roadway with no walkway. Following the first Planning Commission hearing on the proj�ct in February, 2009, in response to criticism for i