AgdaPkt 2014-01-13 Interview, Closed and Regular

Browse Search

7.2.B. - Page 10 • 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 for planned development permits and the authority contained therein to regulate the scale of development without the need for additional zoning or a development agreement, the limitations set forth in Alternative B will best ensure that the Project will maintain and promote the most physical 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. However, consistent with the Planning Commission's action, this approval is without prejudice to the right of any owner or owners of adjacent lots within the Project area to apply to merge their individual lots so as to allow the development of one larger home on the merged lot (consistent with the Alternative B formula) in lieu of two or more smaller homes. In other words, a reduction in the overall density of development (fewer homes) would be an acceptable alternative means of complying with Section 46.1's standard of achieving functional and aesthetic consistency with surrounding existing development. ATTY /RESO.2935 /RESO DENYING THE APPEAL OF LAUREL WAY REV: 12 -12 -13 PT Page 5 of 7