AgdaPkt 2013-11-04 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

7.2.B. - Page 9 3. In further support of City Council's action on this Project and the modifications to Condition 19 to reduce home sizes consistent with the limitations set forth in Alternative B of the Revised Final EIR, the City Council makes the following additional findings: • Each of the lots in the Project area are non-conforming lots which do not comply with the current minimum lot size requirements set forth in the City's Zoning Ordinance for such steeply sloped lots, most of which have slopes of 30% or more. • Had the Applicant proposed a new subdivision map for the Project area, the City's current code would not have allowed the creation of more than 4 or 5 lots on the subject property. However, the lots have already been created by a 1926 subdivision map (the same map which created hundreds of the surrounding neighboring lots which have already been developed) and have since been individually sold to numerous different individuals. • No credible evidence has been presented to demonstrate that these lots are unlawful. Under Section 33.2 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the owners are entitled to develop the lots so long as they comply with all other code requirements. Those requirements include Section 32.2's requirement of a planned development permit for lots having a slope greater than 30%. • Alternative B presents the best compromise between the owners' rights to develop their individual lots and the neighbors' concerns regarding the overall density and intensity of the development as originally proposed by the Applicant. As shown in Appendix C of the Revised Final EIR, existing homes in the vicinity of the Project (most of which, unlike within the Project, are on lots with slopes much less than 30%) range from 1,160 square feet to over 4,000 square feet, averaging at 2,643 square feet, but with many homes under 2,000 square feet, and the majority of the homes under 3,000 square feet. • Consistent with Section 46.1, the limitations set forth in Alternative B will best ensure that the Project will maintain and promote the most functional and aesthetic relationship with existing homes in the neighborhood. • While the City has recently approved development of individual homes in the immediate neighborhood larger than what would be allowed under the slope formula set forth in Appendix B, the approval of a concentration of 16 such large homes as proposed by the Applicant in such a relatively small area characterized by such steep slopes would be aesthetically out of character with existing development in the surrounding neighborhood. ATTY/RES0.2911/LAUREL WAY JV-COUNCIL RESO DENYING APPEALS FOR LWJV REV: 10-24-13 PT Page 5 of 6