CCMIN121289 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Butler inquired how Lots 4, 6 and 8 meet the 23-foot setback requirement. Mr. Swift explained that these are cul-de-sac lots with a 23-foot area around the end of the street. Mr. Butler commented that the real issue at hand is the fact that the houses are too large for the lots they are built on. However, there is also the issue of fairness in dealing with the property owner regarding the two lots. He recommended that Lot 3 have a larger rear setback without impacting the size of the house by moving the house westward. He stated that he agreed with Mr. Brandes that the most appropriate solution is to have a design review when the applicant is ready to build. Mr. Mercer stated that the City did not envision at the time the PUD was approved that the project would allow what has occurred. He pointed out that the development impacts on Mr. Emery's privacy and suggested that the builder be required to put in a particular type of window shielding device which blocks the view but allows light to come through. Dr. Connolly has an approved PUD and has complied with City requirements; what has happened is beyond his control, and it would not be fair to impose other conditions on him at this time. He concurred with Mr. Brandes and Mr. Butler regarding having a design review for the houses on the two remaining lots and added that the affected neighbors be notified of the hearing date. He thanked Ms. Sandberg for the Palo Alto report and stated that if the City should decide to come up with an ordinance addressing the same concerns, he would want the citizens to participate through public hearings. Mr. Tarver indicated that when this project first came up, there was a big discussion regarding the zoning and the number of units as well as one-story versus two-story houses. He pointed out that the development is not consistent with the neighborhood and would put more houses in an area that already has too many houses. He stated that the project has gone beyond what is right for the neighborhood, and the PUD modification now presents an opportunity to do something for the neighborhood. Ms. Mohr pointed out that there would be inequity if the Council referred the project to the Design Review Board when the Council already knows the limit of what it would approve. She indicated that she would prefer to establish some broad criteria which would determine what the Council would approve when the plans for the units come up. She mentioned that a request from either the City or a developer for major modification resulting from an oversight or deficiency should be appropriate. She expressed support for the staff recommendation. -9- 12-12-89