Laserfiche WebLink
7.2.B. - Page 17 <br /> established, which furthers the potential for lot aggregation should someone wish to <br /> build a larger residence. <br /> Given the Planning Commission's approach to allow for context sensitive home sizes, <br /> staff recommends denial of the Applicant's appeal, but recognizes it is within the <br /> Council's discretion to consider alternatives. Should the City Council wish to allow an <br /> alternative approach to calculate home sizes (i.e. a different formula) additional <br /> discussion has been provided below in Appendix A. <br /> ALTERNATIVES <br /> 1. The Council could grant the appeal of the applicant, the Laurel Way Joint <br /> Venture, and reject the Planning Commission's modifications to Condition 19, thereby <br /> allowing the applicant to construct larger homes consistent with the sizes requested in <br /> the application and analyzed in the RFEIR. This action would still entail certification of <br /> the RFEIR by Resolution (Attachment 1), and approval of the master Planned <br /> Development Permit by Resolution, but Condition 19 would have to be revised. <br /> 2. The Council could grant the appeal of the project opponents, a community group <br /> identified as Save Laurel Way ("SLW"), and reject the Planning Commission's <br /> certification of the RFEIR and/or its approval of the Project on the merits. If the Council <br /> agrees with SLW that the RFEIR is not adequate, it should direct City staff to revise <br /> and/or recirculate the RFEIR to address any such inadequacy. If the Council agrees <br /> with SLW that the Project should not be approved on the merits, it should provide City <br /> staff and the applicant with appropriate direction. <br /> 3. The Council could deny both appeals and, by Resolution (Attachment 1), certify <br /> the Revised Final EIR and, further modify Condition 19 of the master Planned <br /> Development Permit to allow for alternative home sizes, based on a different <br /> methodology than provided by the Planning Commission. <br /> FISCAL IMPACT <br /> Review of the proposed project is subject to the City's Cost Recovery System; <br /> therefore, the applicant is required to cover the costs associated with the review of this <br /> project and no impact will occur as a result. Should the project move forward, the <br /> applicant is required to fund all physical improvements for the private roadway and <br /> utilities, which must be complete under the first phase of the project before any <br /> individual home may be built. <br /> Upon completion of the project, individual home may require some City services such <br /> as water supply, policing, and/or fire protection. Services such as these are provided <br /> throughout the community, the cost of which is covered by development impact fees, <br /> surface charges, property taxes, etc. It is not anticipated that this project would result in <br /> any fiscal impact to the City. <br /> Page 7 of 12 <br />