AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 322 �small planting area designated alang the northern road entrance.This squar� footage was added back propc�rtionately to the individual lots to adjust for thi� amenity.This e�lains the differences in the numbers�they are not incnrrect,b�t adjusted in tne fashion explained to facilitate better comparison arnang properties. Respans�J-30 This response r�iterating that aesthetic impacts internal to the projee�need not be evaluated in the�IR because there are nat"existing"pub�ic uiews frarn th�se vantage points,sidesteps the question af what the n�w praject hrings to the overall aesthetic character of the neighbo•rhood. It is not apprnpriate to ignore this impact, as puhlic access wil�be avaflable within the praject ane��he project is cornpleted. Respomse J-32 The FEIR claims tl�at the homes on lot 7 and 8 have Fa�ade widths of appraxiraat�iy 40 feet and that this dimez�sia�is similar to E3�flse of the existing primary hoznes on the suhject site.If tY�ese refer tq A�,�0 and 50 �'inger,tlae FEIR fails to acknowlecfge that 88 Finger,with sitnilar fa�ade width,has only single stary massing and is set back an average of 35 ft frorn Finger Ave.(as opposed to 1 S'for the new hornes). 80 and 50 Fir�ger are set back 130 ft and 215 f�respecCively from �inger Ave.-their fa�ade irnpacts aren't ev�n comparahle to the lot 7 and 8 homes. If the F�IR is reterring to 5�4,40 and 36 Fin�er,those ho�es have fa�ade widths of between 24- 2$',considerably narrower thar.the propased hames. The data,when one loaks at a11 aspects af home placement and setting,clearly shows that the lot 7 and tot 8 homes are out of scale for any street-fronting horne in t�e neighbarhoor�.These distinctions are clsarly evidenced by t�e referenced visualizations discusset7 ahave.The subjecti�re apinians of the FEIR preparers in their analysis are not based on substantial evidence supported by a�jective facts, R�spo�s��-33 Camment J-33 refers to comparative lot densities.The re�panse ref�rences lot sizes, and conforrraance wfth R-1 standards,It is non-respansive to the conzment and does nnt address aestl�etic issues.Conf�rrr�ance wit�R-1 district standaarcfs does nat imply compatib�e aestF�etics-especially as ti�e project per se does not conform to R- 1 district standards-which is why a PD permit is being sought. The project is discretianary and must receive approva[ in part base�on its harmony with the existing neighborhood.The aesthetic impacts rnust lae evaluated,then,independent of zoning code standards in order to facili�ate that deterrnination. Re��o�s�s�-37,�-38 The FEIR considers aur com�nen�s re�ar�ing streetscape elements that do naf conform to the neighbarhovd and the arec�uireznent for additianat sign,age facing Fir�ger Ave,as nninar aesthetic concerns t}�at dan't canstitute a siganificant impact,On their own,that may�e true laoking at these issues independ�nCly,but like other aspects of the project's impacts on the overatl visua�aesthetics, these"minor" elements contribute to a develapnnent foYrri and characteristic that overall