HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07-2012 ac PH1 cross ph1Richardson, April
From :Council, SloCity
nt Tuesday,August 07,2012 4 :06 P M
Richardson, Apri l
FW :Taft Street project appeal
From :Brett Cros s
Sent:Tuesday, August 07, 2012 4 :05 :45 PM (UTC-08 :00) Pacific Time (US & Canada )
To :Council,SloCity
Subject :Taft Street project appeal
Dear Council Members;
First I apologize for the lateness of this correspondence, unfortunately ATT wireless has majo r
interruption issues that still have not been solved .
I have a number of concerns regarding this particular project, among them is building a n
"affordable by design" apartment, which is this case is 700 sq ft-less than 1/2 the squar e
footage of the other apartments, and designating that unit as the affordable unit . It's already
affordable because of the size . I don't believe that the concept behind "similar in appearance"i n
the Housing Element (4 .2 Include both market-rate and affordable units in apartment and
sidential condominium projects and intermix the types of units . Affordable units shoul d
IP!comparable in appearance and basic quality to market-rate units .) meant you can build a
"mini me" version of the rest of the units and then say, "hey we met the conditions for an
affordable unit and a 35% density bonus".
The other issue is staffs interpretation that the LUE policies regarding new development being
built in scale and character in existing neighborhoods is meant to apply to new neighborhoods .
That interpretation is not consistent with . "All multifamily development and large group -
living facilitie s
should be compatible with any nearby, lower density development . A . Architectura l
Character
New Buildings should respect existing buildings which contribute to neighborhoo d
historical or architectural character,in terms of size,spacing,and variety .
The staff report states, " The property development standards for the C-N zone are simila r
to the adjacent R-2 zoning including other yard requirements, a 35-foot maximum buildin g
height,
and density standard of 12 units per acres for both zones ." The report fails to mention tha t
the front yard setback for R-2 zoned property is 20', other yards ;side and rear for a 35'tal l
ucture would be 15'. Maximum coverage is 50% for R-2 zoned property . This projec t
dares little if no similarity with the adjacent R-2 Zoning .
The "non bedroom" bedroom aka "Den" demonstrates the huge loop hole in zonin g
regulation definition regarding bedrooms . Staff is suppose to be "on the lookout" for thes e
glaring issues . The project at the corner of Tassajara and Foothill exposed this flaw and it •
should be remedied .
One last thing is that California Blvd is designated in a Scenic Route in the Circulatio n
Element and the site probably should have considered sensitive but I don't recall readin g
anything pointing this out in the staff report . And speaking of the staff report there are n o
conditions for denial but a statement indicating that Council can direct staff to come bac k
with findings . There is no one on staff that could come up reasons for a denial?. The staff
report is much too one sided and should have been more balanced .
Sincerely,
Brett Cross