File No (Continued)
|
|
- Francis Dennis
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 (Continued) Request for: (1) a Site Plan Review; (2) a Variance (to build on a significant ridgeline); (3) an Oak Tree Permit (to encroach into the protected zone of 25 oak trees and for potential thinning of scrub oak as necessary for fuel modification); and (4) a Scenic Corridor Permit (for development within a designated scenic corridor) to allow for construction of a 7,633 sq. ft. single-family residence with an attached 661 sq. ft. garage, 1,320 sq. ft. basement, and appurtenant accessory structures on a previously graded pad on an existing legal 5-acre lot located at 3121 Old Topanga Canyon Road (APN ) within the Hillside Mountainous (HM) zoning district and Scenic Corridor (SC) overlay zone.
2 Background On January 15, 2015, held a public hearing for this project. At the conclusion of this public hearing, the Commission voted to continue the public hearing and asked staff to return with answers to several questions posed by the Commissioners during discussion of the item. This presentation, in conjunction with the staff report, summarizes Staff s responses to questions posed by Commissioners as well as clarifications regarding other concerns voiced during the public hearing. 2
3 Presentation Outline 1. Hillside & Ridgeline Development Policies and Standards 2. Grading Impacts 3. Habitat Impacts 4. CEQA Thresholds for Aesthetic Impacts 5. Landscape Buffer for Alternative #1 6. Variance for Alternative #1 7. Compatibility Analysis 8. Certification of the Graded Building Pad 9. Other Concerns: Trail, Fire Department Approvals, Cumulative Impacts 10. Updated Findings 11. Staff Recommendation 3
4 Hillside & Ridgeline Development The objective of the Hillside Management section of the Open Space Element is to: Maintain and/or restore significant natural systems and resources associated with hillside environments, including but not limited to, primary ridgelines, sensitive vegetation and wildlife habitats, special geologic features, natural drainage swales and canyons, and steep slopes exceeding 20%. [Emphasis added] This over-arching objective statement does not emphasize ridgelines over other important natural features. Accordingly, the policies in the Hillside Management section of the General Plan seek to protect natural hillsides, canyons, knolls, woodlands, and rock outcroppings, as well as ridgelines. 4
5 Hillside & Ridgeline Development (cont d) As evidenced by the following open space preservation policies, the goal of the General Plan is to protect ALL significant topographical features while minimizing the alteration of existing landforms: III-11. Maintain the existing visual character of hillsides, recognizing both the visual importance of hillsides from public view areas and the importance of providing panoramic views from hillsides. III-12. Minimize the alteration of existing landforms and maintain the natural topographic characteristics of hillside areas, allowing only the minimal disruption required to recognize basic property rights. III-14. Preserve all significant ridgelines and other significant topographic features such as canyons, knolls, rock outcroppings, and riparian woodlands. These policies shall be applied objectively to the analysis of each individual project and the proposed project alternatives to determine placement of a proposed structure that best accomplishes most, if not all, of these goals. 5
6 Hillside & Ridgeline Development (cont d) The following provisions of the Development Code protect existing hillsides and directly apply to this project: Section (B)(1), clearly states, Projects within hillside areas shall be designed to protect important natural features and to minimize the amount of grading. Section (B)(1)(d) states that on slopes between 30 and 50 percent (such as the location of Alternative 1), development and limited grading can occur, but only if it can be clearly demonstrated that safety hazards, environmental degradation, and aesthetic impacts will be avoided. Section (B)(3) states, Overall project design and layout shall adapt to the natural hillside topography and maximize view opportunities to and from a development. A development should preserve the hillside rather than alter it to fit the development. Section (B)(6)(c) states, Preserve natural hillside and ridgeline views from the public right-of-way. 6
7 Hillside & Ridgeline Development (cont d) Staff confirmed that the original elevation of this particular segment of the ridge (prior to the graded pad) was at 1627 feet a.m.s.l. County documents associated with the original tract map and project indicate that the ridgeline was graded down approximately 22 feet to its current pad elevation of 1605 feet a.m.s.l., with 16,710 cubic yards of material having been removed. To build on the Alternative #1 site would require an additional 14,800 cubic yards of cut and grading into the natural hillside, resulting in further alteration of the intact, natural portions of the hillside, together with substantially greater environmental degradation and without any improvement to the existing disturbed ridgeline top. With 6 times as much grading (compared to the project itself) and the substantially greater environmental impacts, as documented in the EIR, staff has concluded that Alternate #1 fails to comply with the aforementioned policies and standards. 7
8 Hillside & Ridgeline Development (cont d) CMC Section (C) is the portion of the hillside and ridgeline protection ordinance that includes provisions for placement/location of proposed structures. Aims to have structures placed on the most accessible, least visually prominent, and most geologically stable portions of the site. CMC Section (C)(2) provides that the highest point of any structure that requires a permit shall be located at least 50 vertical ft and 50 horizontal ft from a significant ridgeline, excluding chimneys, rooftop antennas, and amateur radio antennas. This means that any structure requiring a permit (this includes new homes, room additions, retaining walls and perimeter walls, swimming pools, patio covers, etc.) proposed on or within 50-ft of a ridgeline must conform to the standard. 8
9 Hillside & Ridgeline Development (cont d) CMC Section (C)(3) provides that a variance from the ridgeline setback requirements may be obtained, if the findings can be made. The City Council built the requirement to obtain a variance from the ridgeline provision into this section of the Code because there are so many developed properties, and a handful of undeveloped properties, for which development off the ridgeline is either impossible or would be more harmful than not. The option to obtain a variance is included specifically to prevent situations where grading and construction outside of the 50-ft ridgeline protection setback would cause more harm than good, with a particular focus on physical infeasibility and substantial habitat damage of the non-ridgeline alternative sites, as is the case with the proposed project. 9
10 Hillside & Ridgeline Development (cont d) More than 80% of this site was, and still is, made up of slopes greater than 25% (shown in green and yellow). Original PM called for the pad to be located in the triangular area outlined in black with significant grading all the way up to the ridgeline. This image reflects the grading of the pad and construction of the driveway. The result was a significant increase in an area characterized by lesser slope (e.g., relatively flat areas), affecting much less of the escarpment. 10
11 Grading Grading is quantified in terms of cubic yards of material. One cubic yard equals 3,240 pounds (on average) of soil/earth. A standard dump truck (see photo) carries 10 cubic yards of material per load. 11
12 Grading The proposed project requires 2,480 cubic yards of grading to accommodate the house and accessory structures (mostly for pool & basement areas). Grading of the Alternative #1 building site would require the movement of approximately 14,800 cubic yards of material to create the first level building pad and to terrace the home into the hill via a retaining walls system with 5 tiers of retaining walls. 12
13 Grading - How many trucks? Project Alternate #1 (248 truck loads) (1,480 truck loads) 13
14 Habitat Impacts Proposed project (shown in orange): Located on the graded, barren pad and would be accessed using the existing driveway to minimize landform alteration. The dark black outline signifies the portion of required fuel mod. that overlaps the existing, disturbed fuel modification area for the homes in Calabasas Highlands. The net result is that only 79,236 s.f. of habitat would be impacted anew. Alt #1 (shown in purple): Located on previously undisturbed land and would not benefit from overlap of any currently disturbed fuel modification areas. Would impact 128,153 s.f. of habitat. 14
15 Habitat Impacts (Resulting from Grading & Fuel Mod) The proposed project will impact 79,236 s.f. of undisturbed habitat area. Alternative #1 will impact 128,153 s.f. of undisturbed habitat area. Habitat impacts for Alternative #1 are 62% greater (substantially worse) than the project. 15
16 CEQA Thresholds for Aesthetic Impacts In Section of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water minerals, flora, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. Any project that implements a physical change will result in some change in the visual environment, so determination of whether that change is substantially adverse is based on consideration of whether it might: (1) obstruct a view; (2) contrast with the surroundings; (3) dominate the view; or (4) be inconsistent with the character of the existing view. 16
17 Thresholds for Aesthetic Impacts (cont d) 1. Does the project obstruct public views? No public views would be obstructed or blocked by placement of the proposed structure on the ridgetop, due to factors such as the elevation of Old Topanga Canyon Road, general topography of the area, and the distance of the building pad from Old Topanga Canyon Road. 2. Does the project contrast with the surroundings? No, because the architect utilized various design strategies to blend the structure into the natural environment to the maximum extent feasible. 17
18 Thresholds for Aesthetic Impacts (cont d) 3. Does the project dominate views? No. The viewshed from the scenic corridor is, and would continue to be, dominated by the area ridgelines, because the project represents a very minor percentage of the total extent of significant ridgelines visible within the viewshed. Of 7,000 linear feet of visible significant ridgeline, the 135-foot long home represents approximately 1.9 percent, leaving more than 98% of the significant ridgelines unaffected. 135 ft. or 1.9% 7,000 ft. 18
19 Thresholds for Aesthetic Impacts (cont d) 4. Is the project inconsistent with the character of the view? No, because the existing visual character of the general area along Old Topanga Canyon Road is rural and mountainous and includes other singlefamily homes, individual and clustered, with similar fuel modification areas and landscaping. 19
20 Landscape Buffer for Alt. #1 20
21 Landscape Buffer for Alt. #1 Viewpoint 1(near summit) Proposed Project Alt. #1 21
22 Landscape Buffer for Alt. #1 Viewpoint 2 (lower bend) Proposed Project Alt. #1 22
23 Landscape Buffer for Alt. #1 23
24 Variance for Alt. #1 24
25 Compatibility Analysis Project FAR: RR Zone Areas (8 properties) Avg FAR = RC / CH Zone (184 properties) Avg FAR = 0.35 RS Zone Areas (78 properties) Avg FAR = HM Zone Areas (24 properties) Avg FAR = RC / OT Zone (38 properties) Avg FAR = OS Zone Areas (7 properties) Avg FAR = 0.037
26 Potential Building Envelope 5-Acre HM Zoned Lot Start with 5 acre site (217,800 s.f.), and subtract for: Yard Setbacks (50 front & rear, and 25 sides), totaling 87,950 s.f. 14% Impervious Surface Area Limit (only the pervious area above & beyond total of the yard setbacks), which is 99,358 s.f. Existing concrete driveway (impervious area) at 4,312 s.f. 217,800-87,950-99,358-4,312 26,150 26
27 The Certified Building Pad Grading on the subject site was accomplished legally, with all permits issued by the County of LA, and in accordance with the approved Amended Parcel Map The grading work was accomplished as part of an overall grading effort which yielded the subject pad, two other pads on adjoining lots, and the shared driveway, along with attendant V -ditch drains and re-contoured slopes. The Rough Grade Certification stamped by the civil engineer on April 5, 1990 and approved by the County on May 9, Associated bonds for the completed grading work were exonerated via letters dated March 7, 1991 and May 4, 1998, further evidencing the fact that the pads were certified and accomplished according to approved plans and standards. 27
28 Approved Amended Parcel Map
29 The Approved Pad (Amended PM 11026) N 29
30 USGS 15-Min. Map from elev elev. 30
31 Current USGS Map 1600 elev. 31
32
33 Other Concerns Raised - Trail The City is not aware of any court-ordered prescriptive right of the public to any trail on the property. Without proof of any public trail, whether by a court order establishing a prescriptive right, a recorded dedication, or otherwise, the City cannot base a land-use decision on this claim or suggestion. Furthermore, and in good faith, the applicant recognizes that the project will impact an existing, albeit unauthorized, trail and has agreed to offer an easement for new trails at the north end of the property to mitigate for the loss. 33
34 Other Concerns Raised Fire Department Approvals The City s Land Use and Development Code does not require Fire Department approvals prior to action. Section of the California Fire Code states: The grade of the fire apparatus access road shall be within limits established by the fire code official based on the fire department s apparatus. The City relies on the Fire Department to confirm acceptability of project plans. LA County Fire Department has reviewed and approved the current set of plans for the proposed project. In the event that upon further review the Fire Department determines that minor portions of the driveway do not meet the grade requirements, the project engineer has confirmed that simple modifications can be made to the existing driveway to remedy such an issue. 34
35 Other Concerns Raised- Cumulative Impacts The DEIR discusses cumulative impacts on the following pages: 3-31; 3-32; ; ; and There are currently no project proposals for the development of the remaining three, legal lots in the subject subdivision. Nor has City staff received any recent inquiries regarding potential application submittals for these properties. Nonetheless, the development of all 4 legal lots within this subdivision was anticipated as part of the City s overall growth and was analyzed in the 2030 General Plan EIR. 35
36 Updated Findings Site Plan Review Finding No. 4 (2 nd paragraph) Site Plan Review Finding No. 6 (1 st paragraph) Scenic Corridor Permit Finding No. 4 (2 nd paragraph) Variance Finding No. 1 (3 rd paragraph) Variance Finding No. 2 (1 st and 2 nd paragraphs) Variance Finding No. 3 (1 st paragraph) (C)(3) Ridgeline Variance Finding No. 1 (1 st and 2 nd paragraphs) 36
37 Corrections to Resolution Staff made the following 3 minor corrections to the resolution being considered by the Commission tonight: 1. Page 3, Section 3 Section 3. In view of all of the evidence presented and based on the following findings and conclusions, the hereby certifies the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), in accordance with CEQA guidelines, Sections and Page 5, Finding 1, second paragraph, second sentence The project is also required to comply with the requirements set forth in Section (Hillside and Ridgeline Development) of the CMC. The Project does not meet the established 50-foot ridgeline setback standard set out in Section C.2 of the Code because the previously graded and certified building pad was constructed directly on the natural ridgeline. 3. Page 9, Finding 6, second paragraph, first sentence The addition of a building to this currently graded site would change the existing visual character of the site. 37
38 Recommended Action That the Commission adopt Resolution No , certifying adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report and approving all requested entitlement permits for File No associated with the proposed project located at 3121 Old Topanga 38
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT APRIL 7, 2016
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT APRIL 7, 2016 TO: FROM: Members of the Planning Commission Talyn Mirzakhanian, Senior Planner FILE NO.: 160001710 PROPOSAL: APPLICANT: RECOMMENDATION: A request for a
More informationCity of Lafayette Staff Report
City of Lafayette Staff Report For: By: Design Review Commission Greg Wolff, Senior Planner Meeting Date: April 27, 2015 Subject: SS03-15 Gundi & Peter Younger (Owners), R-40 Zoning: Request for a Study
More informationCity of Lafayette Study Session Staff Report Design Review Commission
City of Lafayette Study Session Staff Report Design Review Commission Meeting Date: April 24, 2017 Staff: Payal Bhagat, Senior Planner Subject: HDP18-15 & HDP31-15 Ramesh Patel & Melcor Development (Owners),
More informationCity of Lafayette Study Session Staff Report Design Review Commission
++ City of Lafayette Study Session Staff Report Design Review Commission Meeting Date: January 08, 2018 Staff: Subject: Chris Juram, Planning Technician SS12-17 Miramar Homebuilders, R-20 Zoning: Request
More informationPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SEPTEMBER 1, 2016
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SEPTEMBER 1, 2016 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Michael Klein, Planner FILE NO.: 150000780 PROPOSAL: APPLICANT: RECOMMENDATION: A request for a Site Plan
More informationNob Hill Pipeline Improvements Project EIR
Section 3.1 Aesthetics This section addresses the visual aspects that may affect the views experienced by the public, including the potential to impact the existing character of each area that comprises
More informationCOMPLIANCE CHECKLIST HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES MANUAL
COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES MANUAL The following checklist summarizes development guidelines and standards. See the appropriate section for a complete explanation of the
More informationSite Design (Table 2) Fact Sheet & Focus Questions:
Site Design (Table 2) Fact Sheet & Focus Questions: BACKGROUND WHAT IS SITE DESIGN? Site design refers to the arrangement of buildings and open spaces on adjacent sites to maximize the shared benefits
More informationLand Use and Planning
9 Land Use and Planning This chapter describes existing land uses, the General Plan land use classification and zoning designation of the Project sites, and applicable General Plan policies. The chapter
More informationGENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Prepared by Planning Staff 10/28/2013 APPLICABLE GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS FROM the LAND USE CHAPTER Goal LU-1 Policy LU-1.1 Policy LU-1.2 Goal LU-2 Protect the character
More informationExample Codes. City of Brentwood, Tennessee Brentwood Hillside Protection Overlay District Summary
Example Codes City of Brentwood, Tennessee Brentwood Hillside Protection Overlay District Summary The City of Brentwood in July 2007 adopted a Hillside Protection (HP) Overlay District to address the problems
More informationPC RESOLUTION NO
PC RESOLUTION NO. 14-01-14-02 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP fttm) 17441. REZONE {RZ) 13-003, ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL (AC) 13-003, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (TRP) 13-052. GRADING PLAN MODIFICATION (GPM) 13-002. CONDITIONAL
More informationARTICLE IV: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 404 MASTER PLANNING
IV 13 404 MASTER PLANNING Master Planning through the Site Analysis (Master Planning Site Analysis) or Planned Development (Master Planning Planned Development) is provided to encourage development which
More informationA. General Plan: Land Use, Growth Management and the Built Environment Element. d. Use visually unobtrusive building materials.
Chapter 16 Hillside Protection 16.010 Purpose This chapter establishes the regulations for development and alteration of properties in hillside and ridgeline areas in order to preserve the essential scenic
More information5.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES Physical Setting
5.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 5.1.1 Physical Setting Aesthetic values are an important aspect in establishing the identity, sense of place, and quality of life in a community. Natural features in
More informationPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT NOVEMBER 15, 2012
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT NOVEMBER 15, 2012 TO: FROM: Members of the Planning Commission Michael Klein, Associate Planner FILE NO.: 120000890 PROPOSAL: APPLICANT: Request for an Administrative
More informationSENSITIVE LANDS OVERLAY
SENSITIVE LANDS OVERLAY Chapter 22 Sensitive Lands Overlay 22.1 PURPOSE 22.2 APPLICATION AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS 22.3 SENSITIVE LAND REGULATIONS 22.4 ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS 22.5 DESIGN STANDARDS 22.6
More informationCHAPTER 10 AESTHETICS
CHAPTER 10 AESTHETICS CHAPTER 10 AESTHETICS This section identifies and evaluates key visual resources in the project area to determine the degree of visual impact that would be attributable to the project.
More information-MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES- DIVISION II OF TITLE 20--COASTAL ZONING CODE
CHAPTER 20.504 VISUAL RESOURCE AND SPECIAL TREATMENT AREAS Sec. 20.504.005 Applicability. Sec. 20.504.010 Purpose. Sec. 20.504.015 Highly Scenic Areas. Sec. 20.504.020 Special Communities and Neighborhoods.
More informationZoning Ordinance Chapter 10
CHAPTER 10 - WASHES SECTION 10.0 GENERAL: A. The purpose of this Ordinance is to establish standards for development in or near Major and Minor Washes as defined in Appendix A Glossary of Terms and Definitions
More informationCity of Lafayette Staff Report
City of Lafayette Staff Report For: By: Design Review Commission Greg Wolff, Senior Planner Meeting Date: November 25, 2013 Subject: L03-11 O BRIEN LAND CO., LLC (APPLICANT), AMD FAMILY TRUST (OWNER),
More informationMORAGA HILLSIDES AND RIDGELINES PROJECT
MORAGA HILLSIDES AND RIDGELINES PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING, JUNE 29, 2016 Project Overview The Hillsides and Ridgelines project will amend existing Town hillside regulations to increase certainty,
More information5.11 AESTHETICS ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
5.11 AESTHETICS ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The lies on a relatively flat valley floor surrounded by rugged hills and mountains. The topography of the planning area is defined by the Box Springs Mountains and
More informationAPPENDIX C: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (prev. Ordinance #2008-1)
APPENDIX C: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (prev. Ordinance #2008-1) 1. PURPOSE: The purpose of this section is to define the conditions under which hillside development may occur that will not result
More informationMajor Subdivision Sketch Plan Checklist
This checklist provides specific requirements that are apart of the Sketch process. The entire process is described by the Huntersville Subdivision Review Process which details all the submittal and resubmittal
More informationORDINANCE NO WHEREAS, the City of Kalama has many areas of timberland and open areas inside its City limits adjacent to residential areas;
ORDINANCE NO. 1342 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF KALAMA, WASHINGTON ADOPTING A NEW KALAMA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 17.20 ESTATE LOT FLOATING ZONE TO PROVIDE TRANSITIONAL ZONING OPTIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
More informationNotice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and Scoping Meeting for the Canyon Lane Roadway Improvements Development Project
of an Environmental Impact Report and Scoping Meeting for the As the Lead Agency, the County of San Mateo (County) will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the (project), and would like your
More informationCITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD IBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Coast Highway APN
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: October 13,2011 TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD IBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE: Variance 7717 Design Review 11-163 Coastal Development
More informationCHAPTER 22 Rural Open Space Community Developments
CHAPTER 22 Rural Open Space Community Developments Section 22.1 Description and Purpose The intent of this Chapter is to offer property owners an alternative to traditional zoning requirements for rural
More informationIV.B. VISUAL RESOURCES
IV.B. VISUAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Existing Visual Character Project Site The project site is located at 17331-17333 Tramonto Drive in the Pacific Palisades community of the City of Los Angeles
More informationCity of Lafayette Study Session Project Data
City of Lafayette Study Session Project Data For: Design Review Commission By: Michael P. Cass, Senior Planner Date: August 24, 2015 Property Address: 954 Mountain View Drive APN: 243-070-011 Zoning District:
More informationPARK CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE 15 LAND MANAGEMENT CODE - CHAPTER 2.21
PARK CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE 15 LAND MANAGEMENT CODE - CHAPTER 2.21 TITLE 15 - LAND MANAGEMENT CODE CHAPTER 2.21 - SENSITIVE LAND OVERLAY ZONE (SLO) REGULATIONS 15-2.21-1. PURPOSE...1
More informationPlanning Commission Staff Report June 5, 2008
Owner/Applicant Taylor Village Sacramento Investments Partners, LP c/o Kim Whitney 1792 Tribute Road #270 Sacramento, CA 95815 Staff Recommendation Planning Commission Staff Report Project: File: Request:
More informationCOUNTY COUNCIL OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND SITTING AS THE DISTRICT COUNCIL 2010 Legislative Session. Council Members Dernoga and Olson
DR- COUNTY COUNCIL OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND SITTING AS THE DISTRICT COUNCIL 00 Legislative Session Bill No. CB--00 Chapter No. Proposed and Presented by Introduced by Co-Sponsors The Chairman
More informationDRAFT SCOPE FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR HUDSON HIGHLANDS RESERVE TOWN OF PHILIPSTOWN, NEW YORK June 5, 2018
DRAFT SCOPE FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR HUDSON HIGHLANDS RESERVE TOWN OF PHILIPSTOWN, NEW YORK June 5, 2018 Project Name: Project Location SEQRA Classification of Project: Lead Agency:
More informationRESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION NO. 2018- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELMONT APPROVING A SINGLE-FAMILY DESIGN REVIEW AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR A VACANT LOT ON LOWER LOCK AVENUE (APN: 043-042-750,
More informationExhibit A. 8:9 Scuffletown Rural Conservation District
Exhibit A 8:9 Scuffletown Rural Conservation District 8:9.1 Intent and Purpose The Scuffletown Rural Conservation (SRC) District is intended to provide for residential development that supports the development
More informationAPPENDIX A 6 CONCEPTUAL PRELIMINARY PLAN GUIDE AND CHECKLIST FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS CARRBORO DEVELOPMENT GUIDE APPENDIX A
6 CONCEPTUAL PRELIMINARY PLAN GUIDE AND CHECKLIST FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS Conceptual Preliminary Guide/Checklist for Major Subdivisions Page 1 FORM: REVIEW DATE: CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW 2000 REVIEWED BY:
More informationCITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO
CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 16-54 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MALIBU, CONSIDERING AN ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED CRUMMER SITE SUBDIVISION FINAL EIR AND MAKING
More informationGENERAL PLAN UPDATE ISSUES MEETING. January 21, 2010 City Hall Mitchell Room 6:00 pm 9:00 pm
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ISSUES MEETING January 21, 2010 City Hall Mitchell Room 6:00 pm 9:00 pm WELCOME! Introductory Comments Continued Review of Quality of Life Standards, Growth Management, Proposition
More informationTown of Portola Valley General Plan. Nathhorst Triangle Area Plan
Town of Portola Valley General Plan Amended December 10, 1997 Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Planning Area... 1 Objectives... 2 Principles... 2 Standards... 4 Description... 4 Community Commercial...
More informationMinnesota Department of Natural Resource - Natural Resource Guidance Checklist Conserving Natural Resources through Density Bonuses
Minnesota Department of Natural Resource - Natural Resource Guidance Checklist Conserving Natural Resources through Density Bonuses NRDB Why Use Density Bonuses & This Checklist Local units of government
More information4.1 AESTHETICS/VISUAL RESOURCES
4.1 AESTHETICS/VISUAL RESOURCES This section provides a discussion of the visual resources in and around the project site, with an emphasis on the visual character and scenic qualities of the Gaviota Coast
More informationPLANNED DEVELOPMENT (MASTER PLAN & UNIT PLAN)
Central Permit Center 555 Santa Clara Street Vallejo CA 94590 Business License Building Fire Prevention Planning Public Works 707.648.4310 707.648.4374 707.648.4565 707.648.4326 707.651.7151 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
More informationAppendix G Response to Comments
Appendix G Response to Comments This appendix contains the comments received during the public circulation and comment period (May 27, 2008 to July 11, 2008). The comments have been numbered (Comment Set
More informationInfill Residential Design Guidelines
Infill Residential Design Guidelines Adopted March 23, 2004 Amended September 10, 2013 City of Orange Community Development Department Planning Division Phone: (714) 744-7220 Fax: (714) 744-7222 www.cityoforange.org
More informationDraft Gaviota Coast Plan Chapter 7: Visual Resources
Draft Gaviota Coast Plan Chapter 7: Visual Resources 11/28/2012 Long Range Planning Division Planning and Development Department County of Santa Barbara Page Intentionally Blank Cover Photo: Gaviota Morning
More information14825 Fruitvale Ave.
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: August 26, 2015 Application: PDR14-0017 Location/APN: 14825 Fruitvale Ave. / 397-18-028 Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Sin Yong Michael Fossati 14825 Fruitvale
More informationA Guide to Open Space Design Development in Halifax Regional Municipality
A uide to Open Space Design Development in Halifax Regional Municipality May 2007 1 Introduction Pursuant to Section 3.5 of the Regional Municipal Planning Strategy (RMPS), subdivision of land may proceed
More informationZoning Ordinance Article 3
Article 3 Natural Resources Protection Section 301 Natural Resources Protection 301.1. Purpose - The following natural resources protection standards are established to protect the public health, safety
More informationDRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DEEP VALLEY DRIVE AND INDIAN PEAK ROAD MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. JUNE 2012 SECTION 4.1 AESTHETICS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4.1 AESTHETICS Introduction This section provides a discussion of the existing visual and aesthetic resources on
More informationCity of Lafayette Staff Report
City of Lafayette Staff Report For: By: Planning Commission Megan Canales, Planning Technician Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Subject: Deadline: HDP15-14 RSR Development Company (Owners) R-10 Zoning: Request
More informationI. STAFF POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS. The following RMP policy strategies are proposed by staff in support of a Scenic Resource Protection Program:
Policy Consideration: Scenic Resource Protection Program Status: For Consideration by the Highlands Council at September 14, 2006 Work session Date: September 12, 2006 I. STAFF POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS The
More informationCITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING ZONING INFORMATION FILE Z.I. NO POTRERO CANYON
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 11 CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING ZONING INFORMATION FILE Z.I. NO. 2422 POTRERO CANYON BACKGROUND: The single-family lots that surround the rim of the Potrero Canyon
More information3.10 LAND USE SETTING PROJECT SITE EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING. General Plan Land Use Designations.
This section of the Draft EIR addresses the existing land uses on and adjacent to the project site and discusses the potential impacts of the proposed project on existing land uses. Key issues addressed
More informationTHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN BAUTISTA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE NO. 2016 01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN BAUTISTA AMENDING THE SAN JUAN BAUTISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD CHAPTER 11-08 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed
More informationMASTER PLAN. 201 Planning Concepts. Chapter 2
Chapter 2 MASTER PLAN 201 Planning Concepts 202 Master Land Use Plan 203 Affordable Housing Program 204 Parks, Open Space, and Recreation Trails 205 Grading Concept 206 Circulation Plan 207 Landscape Concept
More informationChapter 4 - Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans
Chapter 4 - Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans The Stormwater Site Plan is the comprehensive report containing all of the technical information and analysis necessary for the City to evaluate a proposed
More informationConservation Development
Acknowledgements RIDEM: Scott Millar Anthony Lachowicz-Planning and Zoning Consultant Director of Planning 1 : a creative land use technique that allows a community to guide growth to the most appropriate
More informationARTICLE RRCO RED ROCK CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT
ARTICLE 11.10 RRCO RED ROCK CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT (adopted 11/22/2011 MC16-116-11) SECTIONS: 11.10.01 Intent 11.10.02 Boundaries of District 11.10.03 Development Standards 11.10.04 Variance 11.10.01
More informationChristopher M. Price, AICP Director of Planning February 7, 2014 STAFF REPORT
COUNTY OF PRINCE WILLIAM 5 County Complex Court, Prince William, Virginia 22192-9201 PLANNING MAIN (703) 792-7615 FAX (703) 792-4758 OFFICE www.pwcgov.org/planning Christopher M. Price, AICP Director of
More informationCITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. ITEM NO(s): C.1 C.3 STAFF: STEVE TUCK
Page 34 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO(s): C.1 C.3 STAFF: STEVE TUCK FILE NOS: CPC ZC 12-00035 QUASI-JUDICIAL CPC NV 12-00036 QUASI-JUDICIAL AR DP 12-00039 QUASI-JUDICIAL PROJECT: APPLICANT: OWNER:
More informationNick Sigmund, Sr. Zoning Officer
Nick Sigmund, Sr. Zoning Officer Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Administrative Code NR 115 under the authority of Wisconsin Statute 59.692, establishes and provides that shoreland zoning regulations
More informationAPPENDIX A SIMPLIFIED APPROACH TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FOR SMALL PROJECTS. In West Sadsbury Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania
APPENDIX A SIMPLIFIED APPROACH TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FOR SMALL PROJECTS In West Sadsbury Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 3 II. Importance of Stormwater Management
More informationCITY OF CYPRESS 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, California (714) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PERMIT PROCESS
CITY OF CYPRESS 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, California 90630 (714) 229-6720 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PERMIT PROCESS 1. Discuss project with Planning staff to determine zoning regulations, any unusual characteristics
More information5. Environmental Analysis
5.1 This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) describes the existing landform and aesthetic character of the project area and discusses the potential impacts to the visual character
More informationORDINANCE WHEREAS, this Ordinance is consistent with the City of Winter Garden Comprehensive Plan; and
ORDINANCE 17-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER GARDEN, FLORIDA, CREATING ARTICLE XIV OF CHAPTER 118 OF THE CITY OF WINTER GARDEN CODE OF ORDINANCES PROVIDING FOR THE EAST PLANT
More informationCOMMUNITY DESIGN. GOAL: Create livable and attractive communities. Intent
COMMUNITY DESIGN Intent An attractive, well-designed County will attract quality development, instill civic pride, improve the visual character of the community, and create a strong, positive image for
More informationRESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION NO. 2017- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELMONT RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A REZONE FOR A CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (CDP), PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) FOR PROPERTY
More informationDesign Review Application *Please call prior to submittal meeting to determine applicable fees*
CITY OF EAGLE 660 E. Civic Lane, Eagle, ID 83616 Phone#: (208) 939-0227 Fax: (208) 938-3854 Design Review Application *Please call prior to submittal meeting to determine applicable fees* FILE NO.: CROSS
More informationPrepared by: Casey Kempenaar, Senior Planner
CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 13, 2017 Prepared by: Casey Kempenaar, Senior Planner REQUEST The applicant requests a Design Review Permit Modification
More informationCITY OF ZEELAND PLANNING COMMISSION
APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SPECIAL LAND USE Date City Official App. Filing Fee Rec'd ($350) NOTE TO APPLICANT: Please submit this application for Site Plan Review along with twenty (20) copies
More informationDeb Grube, Sr. Zoning Officer
Deb Grube, Sr. Zoning Officer Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Administrative Code NR 115 under the authority of Wisconsin Statute 59.692, establishes and provides that shoreland zoning regulations
More informationI611. Swanson North Precinct
I611. Swanson North Precinct I611.1. Precinct Description Swanson North is located in the north eastern foothills of the Waitakere Ranges. It is outside the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act and the Waitakere
More informationSTREAM BUFFERS
88-415 STREAM BUFFERS 88-415-01 PURPOSE In the Kansas City region and throughout the nation, vegetated stream buffers have been clearly shown to protect stream stability and related infrastructure, improve
More informationSPECIFIC PLAN Requirements
CITY OF LANCASTER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 44933 Fern Avenue, Lancaster, California 93534 (661) 723-6100 SPECIFIC PLAN Requirements Purpose The purpose of a specific plan is to provide for the logical development
More informationZoning Design Standards. Low Impact Development Code Update Thurston County Planning Commission March 2, 2016
Zoning Design Standards Low Impact Development Code Update Thurston County Planning Commission March 2, 2016 Background Zoning regulations include limitations on the size and location of structures within
More informationNote: Staff reports can be accessed at Zone: I-3. Tier:
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George s County Planning Department Development Review Division 301-952-3530 Note: Staff reports can be accessed at www.mncppc.org/pgco/planning/plan.htm.
More informationPC RESOLUTION NO GRADING PLAN MODIFICATION (GPM)
PC RESOLUTION NO. 16-07-26- GRADING PLAN MODIFICATION (GPM) 16-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA APPROVING GRADING PLAN MODIFICATION (GPM) 16-006,
More informationWQ-23 MOUNTAINOUS AND STEEP SLOPE SITES
Greenville County Technical Specification for: WQ-23 MOUNTAINOUS AND STEEP SLOPE SITES 1.0 Mountainous and Steep Slope Sites 1.1 Description The geographic locations of portions of Greenville County are
More informationSECTION 39. Title V, Chapter 6, Article 2, added to the Zoning Code of Sacramento County shall read as follows: GREENBACK LANE SPECIAL PLANNING AREA
SECTION 39. Title V, Chapter 6, Article 2, added to the Zoning Code of Sacramento County shall read as follows: GREENBACK LANE SPECIAL PLANNING AREA 506-20. INTENT. It is the intent of the Board of Supervisors
More informationSECTION 5 - SCENIC HIGHWAYS
SECTION 5 - SCENIC HIGHWAYS INTRODUCTION The California State Scenic Highways Program was established by the State Legislature through Senate Bill No. 1467 (Farr) in 1963. This Bill established the Scenic
More information3.2 AESTHETICS/VISUAL QUALITY
3.2 AESTHETICS/VISUAL QUALITY This section evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed project on the existing visual conditions within MTRP. Design features proposed to reduce or avoid adverse effects
More informationThe impacts examined herein take into account two attributes of aesthetic values:
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS This section addresses the potential impacts to views and aesthetics as a result of the proposed Project at the Project Site and the development scenarios analyzed for
More informationCITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. Design Review Coastal Development Permit 10-49
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: TO: CASE: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: PREPARED BY: September 9, 2010 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Design Review 10-157
More informationORDINANCE NO WHEREAS, a primary opportunity identified in the Plan is to Re-Connect the Uncompahgre River:
ORDINANCE NO. 17 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF RIDGWAY, COLORADO AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO PROVIDE FOR THE UNCOMPAHGRE RIVER OVERLAY DISTRICT AND CREATING RIVER CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
More informationCITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM: C STAFF: ROBERT TEGLER FILE NO: CPC PUD QUASI-JUDICIAL
CPC AGENDA June 8, 2006 Page 37 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM: C STAFF: ROBERT TEGLER FILE NO: CPC PUD 05-294 - QUASI-JUDICIAL PROJECT: APPLICANT: OWNER: PARKWOOD AT WOLF RANCH NASS DESIGN ASSOCIATES
More information1. Request: The subject application is for approval of a gymnasium addition to an existing private school and church.
R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, the Prince George's County Planning Board is charged with the approval of Detailed Site Plans pursuant to Part 3, Division 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Prince George's
More informationRESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION NO. 13-35 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) NO. 12-001, AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE
More informationA P P E N D I X D. Project Stormwater Plan Worksheets
A P P E N D I X D Worksheets for Section 1: Basic Project Information This worksheet must be filled out for all projects required to implement the 2015 Post- Construction Stormwater Standards Manual. A
More informationOak View Estates Specific Plan
Oak View Estates Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report SCOPING MEETING MARCH 14, 2018 CITY OF BRADBURY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Welcome and Project Team Kevin Kearney, City Manager Jim Kasama, City Planner
More informationR E S O L U T I O N. Single-Family Residence/ Church. 2,488 sq. ft. 2,488 sq. ft. Area Parking Required: Church
R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, the Prince George s County Planning Board is charged with the approval of Detailed Site Plans pursuant to Part 3, Division 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Prince George s
More informationCOUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No.: 5.4 Area Map: Jurupa Zoning District: Prado-Mira Loma Supervisorial District: Second Project Planner: Christian Hinojosa Planning Commission: February 3, 2010 Conditional Use Permit No.
More informationLeona Valley Community Standards District.
Chapter 22.330 Leona Valley Community Standards District. D Sections: 22.330.010 Purpose 22.330.020 Definitions 22.330.030 District Map 22.330.040 pplicability 22.330.050 pplication and Review Procedures
More informationEast Panorama Ridge Concept Plan Amendment
Page 1 of 7 L003 : East Panorama Ridge Concept Plan Amendment Corporate NO: L003 Report COUNCIL DATE: March 4, 2002 REGULAR COUNCIL LAND USE TO: Mayor & Council DATE: February 27, 2002 FROM: General Manager,
More informationCHAPTER FIVE COMMUNITY DESIGN
CHAPTER FIVE COMMUNITY DESIGN CHAPTER FIVE - COMMUNITY DESIGN Assumptions Frazier Park and Lebec have historically developed according to different patterns of spatial form. While both communities are
More informationIntroduction Environmental Setting. Visual Character. Surrounding Land Uses. Regional Setting. Project Site
Contra Costa County Tassajara Parks Project Recirculated Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare 3.1 - Aesthetics, Light, and Glare 3.1.1 - Introduction This section describes the existing aesthetics, light,
More informationSt. Croix County Shoreland Overlay Zoning Districts. Public Hearing Community Development Committee December 19, 2013
St. Croix County Shoreland Overlay Zoning Districts Public Hearing Community Development Committee December 19, 2013 Timeline CDC Review October 17 Public Information Meeting October 29 (6:00-8:00 pm)
More informationZONING AMENDMENT & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Date: April 4, 2013
ZONING AMENDMENT & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Date: April 4, 2013 NAME DEVELOPMENT NAME LOCATION DIP Exchange, LLC DIP Exchange, LLC 93 Sidney Phillips Drive (West side of Sidney Phillips Drive,
More informationCPA , Bristoe Station and Kettle Run Preservation Study Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Bristoe Station and Kettle Run Battlefields Special Study Area Introduction and Background The Bristoe Station Battlefield consists of approximately 9,410 acres. This battle on October 14, 1863, was the
More information