11 ATTACHMENT 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

there is adequate room to install additional trees, particularly if a 6:1 ratio is used for the 18 or 20 trees to be removed. Therefore, at the prior hearings, staff had recommended that the applicant pay the appraised value of the trees to be removed into the City's Urban Forestry Fund. Staff recommended that the value of tree no. 62 ($16,000) should not be included since the City's Landscape Architect already approved the removal of this tree. The value of the trees to be removed is $49,050 if tree no. 62 is excluded and is $40,850 if tree nos. 65 and 76 are saved. The applicant has indicated that he may install landscaping for all yard areas around the homes. Should the applicant decide to install landscaping for all yard areas, staff would recommend the applicant receive credit for the cost of the trees installed in the rear and side yard areas beyond that currently shown on the development plan. Discussion Points • Does the Commission support the proposed tree removal and mitigation? Housing Type, Sizes, Height, '.ietbaclks, FARs, and Design The applicant is proposing the same housing type, sizes, height, and designs as previously proposed: Spanish-style single-family homes ranging from 1,599 square feet to 1,920 square feet in area and 26 ft. 1 in. to 27 ft. 9 in. in height. Floor area ratios (FARs) remain the same and would range from 48-67% using the net lot area (net area excludes the access easement area generally containing the private street and guest parking areas) and would range from 32-62% using the gross lot area. Setbactis also remain the same as with the previously reviewed site plan and would vary from lot to let. D iscussion Points • Does the Commission wish to make any suggestions regarding the housing type, sizes, height, setbacks, FARs, or d?sign? Sunlight Impacts The removal of the house from former Lot 12 would reduce some of the shadows cast on the 4151 Stanley Boulevard neighbor's 1W panels, particularly at 4:00 p.m. Discussion Points • If the location of the open space parcel remains as currently proposed, should the location and species of the new trees and tall-growing shrubs planted in the open space parcel be selected to prevent shading ,'mpacts on the neighbor's PV panels? • Should the applicant further modify the project to reduce shading impacts on the neighbor's PV panels? PUD-82 Work Session Page 11 - February 9, 2011