PC 061307 - Laserfiche WebLink

to look up the ordinances which would define then which lots had which requirements. She noted that if staff provided a FAR that was reasonable and based upon the size of the developed area and lots, the FAR would increase as the lot became significantly larger. She noted that in the larger lots, that would not necessarily mean a 16,000-square-foot home; that would include all the accessory structures as well and subject to review by staff and the architectural committee. She emphasized that was not a blanket approval to build that large of a home. Staff was confident that they would be reluctant to support a modification to go larger in these lots. She added that any potential buyer would know they had a maximum 20-percent FAR. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Narum regarding whether the owner could still add another 800 square feet of garage, Ms. Decker confirmed that was correct and considered as exempted area in the FAR calculation. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether the FAR for the project approved on Cameron Avenue and Trenery Drive was 15 percent, Mr. Pavan replied that he did not have that data available but believed that the FAR was larger, closer to approximately 25-30 percent. Chairperson Fox requested a recess to confirm that figure. Mr. Pavan noted that the lots for the development varied in size, from 15,000-8,000 square feet to about 25,000-27,000 square feet. He recalled that the FAR was approximately 25 percent with a maximum cap placed on it. He would double-check those figures. Chairperson Fox inquired whether the water tank was inside or outside the urban growth boundary and whether it would potentially induce further adjustments to the urban growth boundary if the tank site and staging areas were developed. She inquired further, if the water tank and the staging area were outside urban growth boundary, whether this project should go to a public vote because of any adjustment that might impact future development. Ms. Decker noted that the lines for the urban growth boundary were thick lines drawn on paper or on a GIS map and were not necessarily located with regard to parcel lines. Their discussion addressed the fact that the urban growth boundary existed, but the water tank would be placed inside of that approximate location. Staff did not anticipate changing that boundary line in any way. She noted that the GIS map on page 14 of the staff report showed that the urban growth boundary was not necessarily on property lines; it skimmed along the easterly edge of the boundary and curves along it. It was the City’s goal to have all the infrastructure within the urban growth boundary, with some distance to spare and that staff would evaluate the mapping at that time. She noted that when the tentative maps and the survey information were available, staff would examine the boundary and identify it more closely than the large-scale mapping shown to the Planning Commission at this time. Commissioner O’Connor believed the original design guidelines discussed the maximum square footage of the main residence as being 8,000 square feet, with up to 2,000 square feet of accessory structures and an 800-square-foot garage. He noted that the original PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 13, 2007 Page 13 of 29