17 - Laserfiche WebLink

The building pad was originally proposed to be constructed approximately two feet above the existing grade. The unit is proposed in the rear yard area adjacent to a swimming pool that was approved for construction and is complete but for the patio paving. The completion of the swimming pool has been stopped at this time pending City Council action. The scope of the project was modified based on discussions with neighbors and the architectural committee of the Vineyard Hill Homeowners Association resulting in the following modifications to the proposed project: ^ a reduction in habitable area to 700 square feet ^ a reduction in height to 13 feet (to the ridge) Additional discussion between the Bawas and the neighbors and the HOA resulted in further modification of the project. The HOA provided a letter of support of the project reflecting a revised project, including: ^ 700 square feet of habitable area ^ height reduced to 12 feet, 3 inches(to the ridge) ^ 250 square feet of covered porch area ^ reduction of the building pad grade by one foot ^ floor area ratio (FAR) equal to 17.2 percent (20 percent is the maximum allowed for this PUD) The Bawas also submitted a Planned Unit Development modification request to allow additional grading to provide more useable area in the rear yard for both the primary and second unit. The proposed grading and retaining wall construction would allow the second unit as shown in the proposed location. The additional grading would allow the construction of two- to four-foot high retaining walls and the relocation of existing trees required by the approved development plan. The PUD modification was considered a minor modification and was processed concurrently with the administrative design review for the second residential unit. The request for the PUD modification is not dependent upon the second unit approval and would create more usable yard area with or without the second unit. The location of the second unit is dependent on the PUD modification as to the currently proposed siting of the unit; however, the second unit could be sited elsewhere, not requiring the changes to the PUD. The Zoning Administrator concurrently processed and approved both project proposals later appealed to the Planning Commission. The proposed PUD modification was appealed to the Planning Commission although there was no statement indicating what concerns the appellants may have had. The minor modification, therefore, was considered to be a major modification requiring a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council for action. Page 3 of 12