|
8.A. - Page 333
<br /> �lB�F��k� �� g:�
<br /> __ _ _.
<br /> �
<br /> From: Danief Ponki apa�tifamily[a�gmaii.camy
<br /> �ent: Tuesday, June 1S,20�2 S:�tQ PM
<br /> Ta: GRP-planning Comrnissianers
<br /> Cc: Richard Izmirian;Dean Cnflins; Ferris l.ewald
<br /> SubJ�c4: F�nger Ave. �roject
<br /> Tear Ms, Borgens and Mernbers of t�te Pianning Commission
<br /> In reviewing the agenda package for tonight's meering I'm struck wit,�how�t frequez��ly refexences the fact that
<br /> the Finger Ave.project is consistent wit$the G�enera] Plan—building out to pnly 5,3 dwcl�ing units per acre
<br /> w�en 7 dwelling units per acare are allawed under the Gcneral Plan Land Use Category for Low I3ensity
<br /> Residential.
<br /> S.3 vs 7 dta/acre sounds pretty accornmodating doesn't it?If you study the Vesting Tentative Map, howaver,
<br /> mast people, and I hope that yot� as we�l,will note that for a standard-style residential subdivision,t}}ings are
<br /> pretty tight. The raadway is significantly narrower than typical,wxth no sepaxate sidewal�, and in fact does not
<br /> meet the City's standard for a privat�road, �et alone a public street. Setbacks are rninimal, and n�erous
<br /> setback exceptions are raquired, Many af the existing�arge trees—those that are retained, are mere feet away
<br /> from the home footprints. Why is this the case if the project fatls�ell below the maximum density alIowed?
<br /> VVhat seems to have been fargott�n, or at least pushe�ci uncier t1Ye rug in this repork, is tha#the governing district
<br /> for�e project site is tlie R-1 zonang clistrict; #hat is what directly contrvls dsve2apmant an tbe sit�,nat the Iand
<br /> use category. Given tl3e cuxrent property layout, Mr. NicGowan has an entitlez�nent to devalop faur single-famil�
<br /> homes on the site. He aan b�.ild mare,given the property°s size,but that is anly pursuant to a Planned
<br /> Development permit, which is aiscretianary; suc�permats are to be approved p�arsuant to the objeatives nf a PD
<br /> permit, o�'wl�ich I'm sure that you are all familiar. He daes not l�ave az�entitlement to a PD permit. PD pennits
<br /> are subject to#he governzng lan�use and density of t�e District witl�in wl�ich the PD is located, and mnst
<br /> cnnfarm to that district's density,requirement. In the R-1 district,t�ere is a reqiairement#hat there be a minimurn
<br /> of 5,00�sq ft of"building site area",per single family l�ome,For a 9-lot project as proposed there must be a
<br /> total of 54,00�sq ft availabi�to buiId�n. Othe�wise,this�p wvuld viala.te code.
<br /> Building aite area is not the sam.e as lot size,when the�-e are things lik�watercourses or roads present on a site,
<br /> Those features must be excluded when determining minimwn building site area,beca�use they cannot be be�i�t
<br /> upon. Loo�ing at Table 2 on page 5 ofthe staf�report, yo�wil�see a column for net lat size,which excludes
<br /> Cordilleras Creek and the pnvate roadway. If you totai th�e net areas far the]ots, the project's tatal build�ing si�e
<br /> area is SS, 273 sq ft, This anly is 1273 sq. ft, or slightly mare than 2 00 sq. ft per lot above the nainimeun
<br /> required fnr these homes. Of course,this is with a one-way roa�l on ths aite with a 2�' right-of-way,whereas a
<br /> �C`ity-standard private road has a.3�' reqwired right-of-way(2S'pavemez�t pItrs sidewaIk). The five-hozne
<br /> planned development on Qalcdale,two blocks away,has such a private road. The argument given i�z the staff
<br /> r�►ort that the ne�w road is appropriately_size�l for the nurnber of h.omes it serves would suggest that the OakaaIe
<br /> PD's private road is a veritable expressway. Go Iook at ttxe Oakdale PD and decide for yourself if it Fooks too
<br /> �ig. $y the way,Finger Avenue's right-of-way, which is a substandard residential street as it is,is SQ'.
<br /> Mr. MeGowaz�has been extremeiy resistant to any change in the roadway d�sign, and you can understand from
<br /> th�abave why that�is sa. A.ny change in roadway width wi111ilcely require a reduction in tha number of�o�s he
<br /> can devela�, H15 tITSt�1XO�Q5A��'lBC�3 Zd' wide road and 5' sidewalk. When he was tald that a 22'pavement
<br /> design was r�yui�ed for emergency ve�icle access,he propos�al a 22'-wide roadvvay with na walkway.
<br /> Fallowing the first Planning Commission hearing on #he project in Fa�a.ry,2009,in,response to criricism for
<br /> 1
<br />
|