06 - Laserfiche WebLink

As shown in the figure, portions of the proposed building envelopes would be located outside of but proximate to the mustard-colored area identified in the VACSP Land Use Plan for the home sites. Staff believes that the proposed building envelopes, while not completely within the general area designated for home sites in the VACSP, meet the intent of applicable policies in the VACSP, which promote the clustering of residential units to preserve significant natural features of the site, such as ridgelines, hilltops, oak woodland, creeks, and steep slopes. This approach to evaluating the clustering of building envelopes in the context of policies in the VACSP is consistent with past practice, as described below. . Three other hillside residential developments have been approved in the VACSP: Lot 22 (PUD-84/Berlogar), Lot 25 (PUD-54/Reznick), and Lot 27 (PUD-32/Sarich). During PUD development plan reviews of these projects, there was discussion regarding the "blob" (i.e., home site) locations. The October 3, 2005 memo to the Planning Commission prepared for PUD-32 stated: The dots show the number of planned residential units with an asterisk for an existing home. Where more than one unit is planned, the dots take on an irregular shape presumably signifying the general location for the units. These"dots"or"blobs,"as the case may be,do not appear to be randomly placed. However,Figure IV-2 does not have the precision of topographic contours or other descriptive features that would specify an exact location. Again,as noted on page 23 of the Specific Plan,there was some flexibility built into the Specific Plan to allow specific site development standards to be looked at through the City's PUD process and varied"for unusual site conditions as long as any new standards are consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan." In a follow-up memo to the Planning Commission concerning PUD-32, staff stated that "typically these types of dots shown on specific plans are somewhat general in terms of location, and that specific plans allow for some degree of flexibility as to the precise building or road locations shown on specific plan land use maps." Ultimately, for all three residential projects, the Planning Commission and the City Council approved house locations which varied from the locations represented by the "blobs" on the VACSP Land Use map by finding that the new locations "would result in an environmentally superior plan." The Planning Commission reached consensus that there could be flexibility considered in the siting of future lots; that future homes did not need to be located precisely in the "blob" shown on the land use map; and that the location of the lots was consistent with the intent of the VACSP. In addition, no direction was provided to amend the VACSP. The City Council concurred with the Commission's decision. Both memos prepared for the Planning Commission regarding PUD- 32 are attached as Exhibit C. The VACSP indicates the following setbacks for HR lots as measured from property lines: Front: 35 feet Side: 20 feet Rear: 40 feet Case No. PUD-116, 88 Silver Oaks Court Planning Commission Page 7 of 16