11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16 - Laserfiche WebLink

completely fail if the "last hill" is less than 100' from the bottom of the ridge. It would then suffer from the same problem it was attempting to solve. RIDGE DEFINITION USING STAFF'S i.*s HILL° _ e T, y Using the general plan definition of ridge and having the measurement stop 100' vertical above the natural termination of the ridge is the common sense application of PP. That allows the homes on the flat to be developed and prevents the homes on the ridge lines. Staff suggested that adopting this methodology would have little impact on this project, which may be true, but the implications for future projects where the "last hill"definition would have much more serious impacts and would clearly violate what the voters intended when they voted for PP. In the proposed development, I believe that lots 32 and 31 clearly violate the PP ridge rule as they sit directly on a ridge. While the ridge where lot 31 sits becomes less distinct after the"knob" at elevation 591', even using the City's controversial "last hill" definition, the fact is that the proposed home base elevation of 500' is not in compliance. In addition, lots 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, and 25 appear to encroach on the 100' vertical limit on the ridge to their immediate north. Staff suggested that an issue whether the top or the base of the house is used. In most cases that is not an issue for this development, because all the areas impacted by encroachment on the ridges have proposed grading further up the slope than height of the house. That grading is also prohibited by PP, so the lot can't be created. In the Staff report, there is a proposal for a new `vertical setback" from a ridge. I think conceptually this okay, but the definition is not complete and therefore could be problematic for other projects. In particular, the definition does specify what happens then the ridge is less than 100' high or what happens when there is a small rise in the slope as it descends. I provided some suggested language to Staff`ridge setback definition should be 100'vertical along a line perpendicular the majority of contour lines from defined ridge line or to minimum elevation which afterwards rises 50'or more vertical feet along the same line (i.e. a bottom of a valley or depression). The measurement point for a structure would be highest elevation of either the uppermost pad for the structure or the highest elevation graded for the structure." Besides the details of the language on the setback, there is an error in figure 4 (page 14). For the southernmost hill,the correct elevation using the Staff's last hill definition is 565' not 580'. On the northern hill it is 600'.