534 E MARINE VIEW DR BELMONTE HEIGHTS WHOLE SITE 2016-01-01 MF Import

property ovcr what would be provided by mceting t6e development standards and desigo guidelines proposed to bc modificd. Findines: The increase in building height results in 2-and 3-story unit designs with relati��ely small footprints. The lower 1evc1 units have a ibotprint ranging from 576 to 756 square feet. This configuration allows for individual private re�u yard areas for each unit. This would be in addition to the common open space areas. Conclusions: The additional height results in an increase in the amount of usable on-site open space, particularly private yard azeas, and an optimal layout in terms of the design and location of the open space. 6. If the dcvclopment proposcs grcater building height than permitted by the zone in w6ich the property is located, does thc increasc in building height impact the views or privacy of abutting residentially zoncd propertics? Pindines: Presently, tl�e singlNfamily residences to the south of the site have a view to the east of the f:ascade Mountains. The buildings that have the greatest potential to impact views f'rom the existing residences are those containing Unit#s 41 through 48,and 57 through 70. As a result of the now completed soils remediation work, the finished grndes of the�� building sites havc been lowered by up to 11 feet. This means that the efl'ective building height, relative to cxisting grade, is between 18 and 32 feet. In addition, tl�e buildings will be stepped down the hill, moving toward G. Marine View Drive. This mea��s that existing views will likcly be prescrved. The tallest buildings, containing Unit l�s 1 tivough 13, �vould be situatcd at the lowest p.ut of tlre site adjacent lo L'•. Marine View Drive and wcll oulsidc lhe view corridor of existing residences. Conclusion: Impacls oti vic�vs and privacy of tlic abutting propertics would be minimized by ilie proposed building dcsign mid location. 7. Docs the proposed devclopment result in a mix of permitted residcntial and commercial uscs allowed by thc zoning in w6ich thc prnperty is located which would not result from compliance with the devclopmcnt st:mdards •and/or Jesign guidclincs proposcd to bc modificd? rindines: '17�e R-1(A) zone is u residcntial zonc that does not allow for commercial uscs. Only residential usc is proposcd for this sitc. Conclusions: 77iis critcri� is not applicablc to U�c proposcd projcct. 8. Docs lhe proposed dcsign mitigatc thc impacts that could be causcd by relaxation of the standards «�hich urc proposeJ to be modificd. Pindines: The project's impacts would be mitigated Uvougl� grading pnctices,provision of private and common open space areas, landscaping, building design and buildiug orientation. Additional I;mdscaping above and beyond thc standard mquiremcnt has becn proposed adjacent to E. Marine Vic�v Drivc as mitigation for moJification of the parking location stmidard. Conclusions: Tl�e proposed design mitigatcs possible impacts to Qie adjacent property. DECISION: Thc Plmming Dircctor APPROVGS the requcst modificalion of the building hcight standard and parking location standard with thc follo�tiring conditions: EXHIBIT #�_ . PAG E�F� ' .:� `