PC-95-21 - Laserfiche WebLink

construction of a detached or attached second unit outside of the building envelope on this lot in this POD, staff foresees that prohibiting them in other similar PODs could become problematic. Staff views the construction of any structure outside of a designated building envelope as contrary to the mitigating effects of designating building envelopes on a lot-by- lot basis to off-set the impacts of development on visually or otherwise sensitive sites. IV. CONCLUSION Although State law indicates that local jurisdictions cannot prevent the construction of second units in residential zones outright, it does provide a list of criteria to which all second units must adhere before they can be approved for construction. The law clearly states that the construction of a second unit must conform to the zoning requirements of the residential district in which the property is located. In situations where PODs govern the development of the property, the development plan, conditions of approval, mitigation measures, etc. of the POD are the zoning requirements of the property, in addition to any other applicable zoning requirements. These POD requirements, therefore, must be met by any proposed second unit on any portion of an area governed by the POD. In Mr. Raber's case, the second unit must be constructed within the building envelope, since the POD states that "No structure shall be constructed outside of the area shown on the development plan, Exhibit A, as building envelo.,pe with the exception of open type fencing approved by the Planning Division. " Staff cannot concur with Mr. Raber that the building envelope on his property is unduly restrictive and arbitrary. The size of the building envelope on his lot is almost triple the size of the building envelope on the smaller, flatter lots nearer Foothill Road. In fact, the area of the building envelope on his lot is substantially greater than the typical 6,500 square foot lot common to medium-density residential subdivisions. (Since four second units recently have been approved and constructed successfully [without variances] on lots within the R-I-6,500 zoning district, it should be possible to construct a second unit within a large building envelope.) Staff feels that the location of building envelopes in this POD are not arbitrary. Building envelopes were located as much as possible to avoid the need for extensive grading and vegetation removal to accommodate home construction and to reduce the visual impacts of the development from off-site. In addition, building envelopes are located in areas which can be accessed from the street by fire and emergency personnel. Also, building envelopes generally are positioned in areas of less steep topography to avoid the risks of erosion and landslides inherent with development of steep hillsides. Staff feels that permitting Mr. Raber to construct a second unit outside of the indicated building envelope will set a precedent within the numerous other PODs which utilize building envelopes, rather than setbacks, to identify building sites. Staff feels that permitting construction outside of the building envelope would violate the intent of the POD and the measures included to mitigate the effects of development. -7-