4.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission August 3,2006 Page 2 of 3 square feet of floor area. An incremental setback based on floor area presents two problems in implementation: 1. Existing homes with proposed additions that will bring the floor area total over the "Estate home" minimum may not meet the new setback requirements. ■ Existing homes that were originally built legally may become non-conforming through future additions. The ordinance would subject these structures to Article 4 of the Zoning Code (Nonconforming Uses and Structures). Legal non-conforming structures are limited with regard to future additions, remodeling, and maintenance. 2. The proposed incremental setback formula is complicated and difficult to apply. Currently, the Zoning Code Section 10-1.505e empowers the Planning Commission and the City Council to require additional setbacks where site specific constraints dictate further limitations. Because all estate home applications would be reviewed by the Planning Commission,this setback provision could be applied case-by-case. Proposed: Estate homes do not qualify for the Fast Track process and must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission did not discuss any changes to this requirement. Proposed: Similar to the existing process for Conditional Development Permits, the Planning Commission must make specific findings before approving an estate home. The Planning Commission did not discuss any changes to this requirement. CONCLUSION Staff requests that the Planning Commission provide clarification on the following topics: • Should the "Estate homes" definition be for homes 10,000 square feet and larger or 12,000 square feet and larger? • Should "Estate homes" be subject to greater setbacks restrictions than the existing standards in Section 10-1.504? CEQA Status: Categorical Exemption per Section 15308 - Actions of Regulatory Agencies for the Protection of the Environment.