CCMIN061990 - Laserfiche WebLink

283 Mr. Mercer stated that Mr. Brandes had a valid point. He added that, on the other hand, developers may no longer want to develop under the City's strict development guidelines, even with the incentive of granting them sewer services. Mr. Tarver stated that the Design Guidelines do not go far enough to preserve the highly sensitive, aesthetic and rural nature of Foothill Road. He suggested that the provision that Santos Ranch Road would be used in lieu of Foothill Road to access developable areas be deleted from IV.D. Sensitive areas. Potential Mitiqation Measures, and that in the provision under I.D.. Building Desiqn, on the use of bright colors on all exterior surfaces, the word "discourage" be replaced by "prohibit." On the proposed document, he recommended that the word "main" be deleted from Section 18.78.070. Regulations for lots adjoining Foothill Road. D. Main Structure Height to indicate that no structure shall be over 30 feet high. He added that he would like to see a discussion on Floor Area Ratio (FAR), on the reduction of the visual impact of development on the floor ridge, and on lots fitting the land rather than the land fitting the lots by grading. He concluded that Rural Density would be a more appropriate zoning than Low Density and that he did not agree that lots of record should be exempted. Mr. Brandes agreed with Mr. Tarver's recommendations regarding the use of Santos Ranch Road, height limitations, and the use of bright colors. With regard to the establishment of FAR limits, he stated that he would like to put a note that this ordinance could be amended at a later date and that a separate hearing would be held to include the details of the FAR limits in the overlay district guidelines or apply them in other types of City property beyond the Foothill Road corridor. Mr. Swift stated that the FAR issue has been central to the review of the last several projects along Foothill Road and other hillside sites. He added that the Planning Commission Subcommittee had decided that it would be better to establish a FAR limitation as part of the zoning requirements and in conjunction with individual projects rather than as part of the overlay district. He explained that FAR requirements could vary, depending on whether the property is on a flat land adjacent to the road or on a slope. He indicated that special FAR limitations have been placed on both the Garms and Presley projects. Mr. Brandes commented that he would prefer to have an overall policy with certain ranges rather than deal with it on the basis of individual projects. Ms. Mohr inquired if Mr. Inderbitzen's concern would be addressed by the suggestion made by Mr. Wallace. Mr. Roush replied that the ordinance would not provide the kind of flexibility requested by Mr. Inderbitzen without the addition of the specific language Mr. Inderbitzen suggested. - 7 - 6-19-90