AgdaPkt 2013-11-18 Special - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. _ Page 14 ric Resource Preservation Map (DTPP, page 30), the Project is "directly adjacenY' to a historic resource located across Bradford Street at 605 Middlefield (Resource KK). It is not "adjacenY' to those properties located at 620 Jefferson or 611 Middlefield as the Appellant asserts (Appeal, Item I.J), nor do the three properties located within that block constitute a "cluster of historic resources" or a "strong cluster" (Appeal, Items I.J, I.X). The resource at 605 Middlefield is categorized as a "Historic Resource which may be Altered, Relocated, or Removed". Per Section 2.1 .3 KK, there are "no historic resource preservation standards for 605 Middlefield". Since the Project is "directly adjacenY' to a historic resource, the City conducted a HRAC review per DTPP, Section 2.1 .4D — Mitigation of Impacts of Development on Properties Adjacent to Historic Resources. As discussed in this Staff Report, Section I, the HRAC recommendation, consistent with the recommendation of Richard Brandi, Architectural Historian, was that the Planning Commission find that the Project would not have an adverse impact on the historic resource located at 605 Middlefield Road. The Appellant refers to DTPP Section 2.1 .4.0 — Mitigation of Impacts on Historic Districts, as an applicable regulation to this Project this is incorrect (Appeal, Items I.K, I.L), since this Project is not within and/or adjacent to a Historic District. Finally, the Appellant mistakenly construes language in the DTPP, Section 2.02, to mean that "historic resources be placed first in consideration of any developmenY' (Appeal, Item I.G.1). The intent of Section 2.0.2 — Overview of Development Regulations — was to explain that the City placed the Historic Resources Section "first among the development regulations in the Precise Plan" because of the importance of the historic resources to the future growth and vision of the City. b. DTPP - Section 2.4 - Public Frontaqe Requlations -Utilizing the Public Frontage Regulations Map on page 58 of the DTPP, the project site is bounded by Middlefield, Jefferson and Bradford Streets, which are all designated as "City Streets". Applicable regulations for this corridor type to create "public frontages" that implement the intent of the vision in the DTPP are found on page 63, 2.4.3C. This corridor type requires a minimum of a 12 foot sidewalk and specific street tree planting regulations. Staff worked with the Applicant to ensure that the minimum sidewalk widths were achieved as well as a street tree treatment that was consistent with neighboring City streets and the DTPP. The Appellant makes several references to the violation of the "complete streets" goals outlined in the DTPP and/or that there were so called "waivers" given for "potential adverse changes" (Appeal, II.B). He also states that a 12 foot sidewalk is "inadequate", where in fact, the Project meets all the City's requirements regarding publicfrontages. (Referto Appeal, Items I.F, I.F.2, I.G.2, III.B). c. DTPP - Section 2.5 — Buildinq Placement and Landscapinq Requlations — Since the Project is bounded by streets that are designated as "City Streets"; the Project adheres to the setback requirements on page 69, in the "Building Placement and Landscaping Regulations Chart". This chart states a front setback of "0 ft/10 ft" and a side setback of "0 ft/20 ft". The Project has no setbacks from the street right-of-ways in order to comply with the regulations contained in the DTPP. The Appellant generally refers to the need for a 10 foot building setback, where in fact, the Project is not required to include a building setback (Appeal, Item I.N). d. DTPP - Section 2.7 — Buildinq Heiqht and Disposition Requlations — Using the Height Regulations Map on page 86 and the associated Building Height and Page 14