PC 051403 - Laserfiche WebLink

rear yard required for detached accessory structures in the City for a comparably sized property_ He noted that for a detached accessory structure, the maximum height is limited to 15 feet, or one story. The detached granny units would exceed the normal maximum allowed height of the R-165/R-175 zoning di stricts_ Mr_ Pavan noted that under the Second Unit Ordinance for a R-1-6,500 property, the minimum rear setback for a second unit is 1 O feet_ This proposal would not conform to the present requirements of the Municipal Code for detached second units_ However, because it would come to staff as a PUD, the setbacks could be changed. Dean Martinez, 8015 Canyon Creek Circle, expressed concern about the urban growth boundary line and the plan behind it. He cited the staff report on page 7. "Lower densities should be encouraged along the inside edge of the UGB to provide a transition buffer for preventing potential conflicts with uses immediately beyond the boundary such as agriculture and wildlands_" He did not believe that this proposal met those goals, and asked the Commission to consider that issue_ Commissioner Maas inquired whether that was a correct statement, she understood that the density for Canyon Creek was at 4.44 du/aq and this proposal was. at 2.95 du/acre. Mr. Pavan noted that 2.95 was the stated density for one of the concepts, based on the 6.1 -acre site_ However, as staff looked into determining what is gross land area, which is what remains after the creek area and the other land area deemed feasible for development is extracted, the actual density would be higher. Commissioner Maas noted that information was not included in the staff report_ Mr_ Pavan replied that, unlike the Canyon Creek situation, they did not know what the creek area is at this point. Mr_ Hines thanked the public and the Commission for their comments, and noted that they made every effort to listen carefully to their concerns_ He acknowledged that the issues with the Canyon Creek neighbors were important, and had suggested that perhaps they should match those existing setbacks_ He noted that the neighbors would be able to put a secondary unit in their back yard if they so desired_ He noted that they did not intend to channelize the creek, although they did want to make it safe. He noted that part of the creek had been channelized by CalTrans. Mr. Hines noted that he would speak with the School District if the project moved forward, and added that the District would be able to resolve the question of the number of schoolchildren_ He was very aware of the traffic, noise, and park issues, and ensured that they would be addressed. Mr_ Hines noted that he used the 25-foot setback to the creek because that was where the existing barns, driveways, and accessory structures extended_ He noted that the closest lots to the creek would be elevated at a 3 c 1 slope, and emphasized that they did not want to have any problems with the creek. He noted that they would study that element closely, and looked forward to returning to the Commission with their PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 14, 2003 Page 1 O