AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 91 Planr�ed Development and Tentative Ma� The Planning Commissian also unanimously recommended the "Project Alternative with 25 Foot Creek Setback" in order ta implement the City's Stormwater Treatment Creek Setback Ordinance that the City approved in 2006 (Zoning Ordinance Articfe 32, Section 32.12) and to address strong neighborhood oppvsition to the Project's proposed encroachment inta the 25 faot sfarmwater treafinent creek setback area. The Project Alfernative is simifar to the Project as proposed by the applicant except that the residences on Lots 1-4 would be setback 25 feet from the top of creek bank and reduced in sizelmass�ng by 187 square feet far Lot 1, 348 square feet for Lot 2, 95 square feet for Lot 3 and 87 square feet for Lot 4 (for a total buifding reductiar� of 72Q square feet). The Project Alternative would also eliminate the �eed for an exceptior� to the City's lot co�erage standard (per Zoning 4rdina�ce Article 5, Section 5.8) for the resid�nce on Lot 3 tha# wauld have (under the applicant's praposal) exceeded lot coverage by 0.9% (55 sq. ft.}, The Project Alternative would thus only require modifications to building setbacks, !ot sizes for sloping iots,' and an exception ta the Gity's private roadway engineering standard,� a!I as further described in the June 19, 2012 Planning Commission staff repart (Attachment 4). Planned Develapment and Vesting Tentative Map appravals as revised would be based on the findings and subject to #he Conditions of Appro�al, as set forth in the attached Resolutions. (Attachments 2 and 3} ALTERNATIVES • Deny the Planned Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Ma� approvals for the E!R Project Alternative entitled "Praject Alt�rnative with 25 Foot Creek Setback" (as described in the Draft EIR pages 161-163). 1 Zoning Ordinance Article 32, Section 32.2 requires larger lot sizes wMen lots have an a�erage slope that is greater than 5%. It has been staff's practice to apply this standard only ta i�illside proper#ies and properties zone "RFi" (Residential Hillside-minimum 10,OOd square foot lat size) in order to minimize the impacts of cut and fill grading and ko retain contours and natural features of hillside praperties. Staff has not traditionally applied #his standard tv praperties like the Finger Project that are atherwise flat except where they abut sloping creek topography. Staff believes this standard is more appropriately appfied to sloping hillside properties because its intended purposa is ta help minimize the irr�pacts of cuk and fill grading and ko retain contours and natura! feat�res of hillside properties As such, the City Attorney's office has recammended that the City Council consider excluding the creek's slope in determining whether Lots 1-4 are sfoped sites subject Section 32.2. �Jonetheless, ta the extent that the slppe standard may be construed to rec�uire a modification unc�er Zaning Article 46, Attachment 2 co�tains findings to allow such modification. z The City's Pri�ate Roadway Engineering S#andard, requiring a 25-foot wide, two-way roadway and 5� faot s+dewalk, is not part of or required by Chapter 30 (Subdivisions) of #he City's Municipal Cade, and therefore, the City Council's determination to �nadify the Pri�ate i�oadway Engineering Standard for the Praject does not constitute an Exceptian to the requirements of Chapter 30, as provided by 5�ction 30.69 of the Code. Nonetheless, to the extent that the modificatian of the Private Roadway Engineering Standard may be construec! to require an Exception under Section 30.69, Attachment 3 contains findings to allow such exce�tion.