AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 321 evaluate the aesthetics of the internal (publiciy accessed) partion of the project as a means of de�ermining if the new nezgh�orhood aesthetac carraplements ar degrades the pveraJl visua!character nf the neighbarhood. One can see from Figures 3 (viewed from Finger Avenue) and 7-14,the narraw roadway and setbacks of the lot 7 and 6 t�omes situates the bui7dings tess than 5a ft apart across the roadvvay,as opposed ta approxfrnately 90 ft ar rrtor�for homes across Finger,This canfiguration,conpled with the two-stary massing of all of the project hornes,presents a"canyon-]ike"feel within the project itself--m�ch different than alnng FingerAvenue ar anywhere else in the nearby neighborhood, The FEIR also ciaims that the Iot 7 and]nC 8 hames do not create an aesthetic impact because ti�ey eonforr�x to R-Z District standards and relate apprnpriate2y to S4,4Q, and 3b Finger Ave. First off,homes on lots 7 and$do not cor�fnr�n to R-1 standards as side and rear yard exceptions are ret�uested far these lots under the PD perrnit application.Secnnaly,this analysis is subjective and ignares any objective facts,The r�part fails Co note that the side facades of lots 7 and$are quite lang (�60�t} and visibie,in additian to�44'wide front Facades an Pinger,and both have twa-story massing.Front facades ot 40,54,and 3b Finger are I�axedy mure 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 significant�y sharter than the new homes,40 Finger also has singte-story massing and all�hree exist�ng street front h€�mes have cansiderably lower lot coverages than proposed for Lots 7 and 8;40 and 54 Finger are set�ack 8-�.0'farther from the street as wel1. Also in response to 1-Z6,the Ciky takes issue writh the retevance of the summary statistics prc�vided,The response fails to acknovvledge that we atso provided,in Attachment C,the corr�plete information for individual properties,so varia�ions in building mass and scale can be evaluated in t�at conrext as well,We also provided plats showing haw individual houses eannpare to those in the proposed�roject.The data clearly shaw that th�McGawan Develapment,when cansidered in the cantext of the existing con�itions represents a devela�rnent form that is sa antithetic to the bulk of the neighborhood that its presence will anly serve tn degrade the current character nf the neighborhaod. Finally,the J-25 response questions the accuracy af statistics provid�d by pointing aut that project lot sizes are listed incorrectly.The F�IR preparers obviously did nvt read the faotnvte in Attachment C where these statistics are preser�ted,explazning that lot sizes within PDs and for creek si�e lots were adjusted to allow for apprapriate cornparison of creek-side and PD Iors to non�creetcside and canven#ional lots,As expIained in the foatnote,lot areas were adjusted to remave the portions of creelrside lots that are cantained within the Creek,as this is nut buildfng site area{for non-creel�.sid�1ots,building si�e area and gross lot area are eyuivalent).In addition,PD's have some camman open-space areas that should be accauz�ted far to establish eyuivalence in cornparing lot caverage and lot siz�with non-P�lots that don't enjoy tnis amenity.The MeGowan deve�opment proposal has