Laserfiche WebLink
�.`Ww W . O M., <br />the Commission's approval because it ignores the fact that the Commission is allowing <br />a minimum of 2,000 square feet of livable, rather than buildable, square feet.) <br />The applicant's appeal in part raises a policy and design issue (i.e. what size should the <br />homes be) for the City Council to evaluate and determine. In addition, the appeal also <br />raises a technical argument that the smaller homes approved by the Planning <br />Commission would not be financially feasible to develop. The City has not retained a <br />consultant who has the expertise to independently evaluate this assertion. It is not the <br />purview of the Planning Commission to determine the economic feasibility of a project; <br />its role is to advise the City Council on appropriate land use. <br />The restriction on home sizes is also authorized under Section 46.1 and 46.6 of the <br />City's Zoning Code, which are included in Article 46 — the source of the City's authority <br />to issue Planned Development Permits. Specifically, Section 46.1 provides that one of <br />the purposes of the PD permit process is "to promote the most functional and aesthetic <br />relationships between building structures, signs, open space and parking areas in <br />residential, commercial, and industrial zoning districts" and section 46.6 broadly gives <br />the Planning Commission the authority to "approve, conditionally approve, or deny the <br />application as the Planning Commission finds appropriate to carry out the objectives of <br />this ordinance." By requiring substandard steeply sloped lots to obtain a PD, the City is <br />opening these lots up to the discretion the City has as part of the PD process. In the <br />present case, the Planning Commission found that the restriction on home sizes was <br />appropriate to ensure that the project would be consistent with the character defining <br />features in surrounding existing homes within the neighborhood. <br />The applicant asserts that those existing homes are older and that the cost of <br />developing homes to current standards requires larger homes to help bear the cost, <br />especially given geotechnical considerations. The applicant also asserts that the sizes <br />of the homes they request are similar to other newer homes in the area that have been <br />individually approved by the City. Staff does not believe these other projects are <br />precedent setting, as the intrinsic purpose of the PD process is to evaluate each project <br />on its merits and impacts. Staff is not aware of other areas of the neighborhood that <br />would have so many homes of the same, larger size clustered together. It was within <br />the Planning Commission's discretion to impose the limitation on home sizes to ensure <br />consistency with surrounding homes. <br />The Planning Commission concluded that a formula should be applied, as provided in <br />Condition 19 of the project resolution which considers both the lot size and percent of <br />slope. The factors help ensure that proposed homes are designed and constructed in <br />proportion with the existing conditions. The results of the formula would allow larger <br />homes on larger lots with gentler slopes. Smaller or steeply sloping lots would either <br />require smaller homes, or create an incentive to assemble lots into a larger property; <br />thereby creating the potential for fewer numbers of homes. Furthermore, as previously <br />mentioned the Planning Commission's decision included a minimum home size of 2,000 <br />square feet of livable space to help ensure a viable home. No maximum sizes has been <br />Page 6 of 12 <br />