Laserfiche WebLink
<br />B. Bunding Envelopes <br /> <br />i.. Definition and PuqKlse <br /> <br />Building envelopes, rather than general setbacks, frequently are used as part of a POD to <br />identify the best place for a structure on each particular lot in consideration of the unique <br />characteristics and features (topography, vegetation, visibility, viewsheds, etc.) of each lot. <br />The building envelope format has been used in this City most often in conjunction with <br />custom-lot, hillside PODs to help protect the more natural characteristics of the hillside sites <br />and to ensure that the potentially significant aesthetic, vegetative and grading impacts <br />identified during the review process are mitigated continually as each lot is developed. The <br />building envelope concept helps to prevent future property-owners from performing excessive <br />grading of those lots which may include fairly steep slopes, whereas standard setbacks <br />applied equally to each lot could not accommodate or protect the unique features of each lot. <br />Building envelopes restrict development in areas which have been deemed sensitive during <br />the environmental review process. <br /> <br />Mr. Raber notes in his letter that the building envelopes shown for the lots in the Deer Oaks <br />subdivision are of unequal size in that the building envelopes for lots with less steep <br />topography are larger and encompass most of the lot, while the building envelope for his lot <br />covers only a small portion of his lot (please refer to Exhibit C, Development Plan and <br />Tract Map for POD-82-13). Staff partially concurs with his observation, noting that the area <br />of the lots with less steep topography are much smaller than his 2+-acre site. In some <br />cases, the building envelopes on these lots are about 6,000 square feet, compared to the <br />building envelope on Mr. Raber's site which is close to 17,000 square feet. <br /> <br />However, rather than being "unduly restrictive and legally indefensible" and arbitrary as Mr. <br />Raber states, the location and size of the building envelope corresponds logically to the <br />unique features of each lot. The impacts of development on the flatter sites is much less <br />and, therefore, the building envelopes extend over a proportionately larger area of the lot. <br />The building envelope on Mr. Raber's lot has been positioned to prevent development in <br />areas with sloped topography, riparian habitat, and steep grade differences from the adjacent <br />street and to avoid the necessary grading and tree removal which would occur with <br />development of those portions of his lot outside of the designated building envelope. <br />Certainly, the size of his building envelope, in comparison to the size of building envelopes <br />on other lots, is not unduly restrictive, nor is the location of the building envelope, as Mr. <br />Raber contends, arbitrary. <br /> <br />iii... Policy and A,p,plication <br /> <br />PODs are adopted by ordinance because approval of a POD is a rezoning. So, the <br />development plan, conditions of approval, and all development standards legally become a <br />part of the local ordinance -- the Municipal Code. The City always has applied POD <br />development standards and conditions of approval in the same way that any portion of the <br /> <br />-5- <br />