3A Public Hearing 2007 0116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Residential Development Standards Amendments to Articles 5, 17 and 24 4 January 16,2007 Policy 2JJ8 - Privacy and Views: Encourage residential alterations, additions, ([nd new homes to he designed in a manner that respects the privacy of nearhy homes and preserves access to sunlight and views. JYherever feasible, ne\v or altered structures should avoid the disruption ofFanorall/ic or scenic views. Poli(l' 2.09 - qlrStreet Parking: Ensure that adequate off-street parking is providedfor nC1\/ residential uscs. Parking should he convcnient~v located but its visual prominence should he minimized. As proposed, the new development regulations would provide additional guidance for the property owners, and would allow more specific standards for analysis hy the decision-making body and stal1~ all of which would help to ensure that new development/additions arc compatible with the neighborhood; respect the privacy or nearby homes; and provide adequate off-street parking. Permits and/or Variances Granted Not applicable. Environmental Review The proposed ordinance for the adoption of Zoning Code amendments related to residential development standards is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065. This is based on the finding that this Ordinance is not a "project" within the meaning of Section 15378 of the Statc CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. This Ordinance does not, in itself, allow the construction of any residential units and therefore, has no potential for resulting in physical changes in the environment, directly or ultimately. Code Compliance Review Not applicable. Board/Commission Findin2:s At the joint Board of Zoning Adjustments/Planning Commission work session of October 19, there was consensus from the Board and Commission on all of the proposed amendments, with the exception of the proposed parking standards. One Commissioner was concemed about additional paving on the property and the aesthetic impacts oflarger garage facades; while one Boardmember was concemed that one additional parking space may not be enough for larger homes. The Board of Zoning Adjustments reviewed the matter at its December 7 meeting, recommending that the Planning Commission make a favorable motion to the City Council. The Planning Commission reviewed a summary of the proposed ordinance and held a public hearing at its December 14, 2006 meeting. Minutes I' Tom the Board of Zoning Adjustmcnts and Planning Commission meetings are included as attachments. The Planning Commission J<.xwarded a recommendation of approval orthe proposed ordinance to City Council.