01 - Laserfiche WebLink

The next issue for the Council to consider is how to define and measure a ridgeline. While the current code does define a ridgeline, which is listed as Option 1, staff feels it is insufficient in providing direction on where to start and stop measuring the setback from the ridge. Staff studied several alternatives and found it made the most sense to define the end of the ridgeline as the point at which it starts to only decrease in elevation and to measure the setback from this point. The Council is also being asked to make a determination on whether streets and roads are considered "structures" in this context. While not the most common use of the term, even sensitive construction of streets or roadways on a hillside require improvements that scar the landscape in a way that is not dissimilar to residential development. Staff has identified several options for the Council's consideration, the first two of which is extreme and identifies streets and roadways as either exempt from or subject to the same limitations that any other development would be under PP. Staff was not particularly satisfied with either option, as they could recall several preexisting Specific Plans that anticipated a particular road that would be prohibited under these conditions or could envision specific areas of town where it would be unavoidable to access public resources without crossing a 25% slope. Staff therefore supports Option 3, which determines streets and/or roads are a structure and therefore, covered by PP unless the street or road is intended to provide access to a public park, trail, or similar facility and/or is covered by a previous Specific Plan, PUD Development Plan, or Development Agreement. The final issue for the Council's consideration is that of manufactured slopes. While not common, some potential development sites contain slopes 25% or greater that has been created by prior grading and/or construction rather than appearing naturally in the landscape and staff does not believe their preservation to be consistent with the purposes of PP. Therefore, staff recommends that manufactured slopes of 25% or greater not be covered by PP if the original and natural slope was less than 25% based on topographic and/or visual analysis of the property's grades. Councilmember Sullivan asked if there were any way that development would be allowable, under this ordinance, on a lot that was predominately sloped at 25% or more but contained a very small portion with a 24% slope. Mr. Dolan said that specific issue has not been addressed but, without any further guidance, the developer could be allowed to build if the portion sloped at 24% were sizable enough for a residential building pad and met the setback requirements. This would not however be allowed if the lesser-sloped portion were situated such that driveway access to the home would have to cross the 25% slope as driveways are considered part of the residential development rather than a street or road. Councilmember Sullivan attempted to clarify his question, asking if it would be possible to apply both Options 1 and 2 for determining slope to avoid any sort of loophole in this circumstance. He said he posed the question to the City Manager several times already and has not yet heard a good answer. Mr. Dolan explained that anything meeting the requirements of the more conservative Option 1, which staff is recommending, would inherently meet the requirements under Option 2. Councilmember Sullivan said he supported the staff recommendation regarding manufactured slopes. He asked if the same exemption would apply to preexisting building pads constructed on slopes exceeding 25%, even if never approved by the City. Mr. Dolan said yes, provided the site could achieve driveway access that did not cross a 25% slope. Councilmember Sullivan asked and staff confirmed that the Council is being asked to provide staff with direction which staff will then bring to the next Council in the form of a draft ordinance. Mr. Dolan added 2