06 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Staff analysis: No new landscaping was proposed as a part of this project. However, the applicant has included a "landscaping plan" (sheet 7 of Exhibit B) that shows existing landscaping and indicates the location of grass and paver areas and the location of a proposed rear yard deck and fireplace. 6. Relationship of exterior lighting to its surroundings and to the building and adjoining landscape. Staff analysis: The applicant will be required to submit a lighting plan with the building permit plan check (Exhibit A, No. 6). 7. Architectural style, as a function of its quality of design and relationship to building's colors and materials; and the design attention given to mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings. Staff analysis: Staff believes that the color and materials of the home are appropriate for architectural style and design of the building and, furthermore, are compatible with the neighborhood. No mechanical equipment or other utility hardware was proposed with this project. 8. Integration of signs as part of architectural concept. Staff analysis: No signage was proposed with this project. 9. Architectural concept of miscellaneous structures, street furniture, public art in relationship to the site and landscape. Staff analysis: No miscellaneous structures, street furniture, or public art were proposed with this project. This portion of the Downtown (Neal Street, Second Street, and Third Street) consists of a mixture of one- and two-story homes and a two-story home on this site would conform to the established neighborhood pattern. The height of the proposed house conforms to the Zoning Ordinance, as it is 22-feet, 6-inches measured from finished grade to the mid-point of the roof, as the Code requires; the height measured from finished grade to the roof peak is 24-feet, 6- inches. The FAR is 37.68%, which is under the maximum 40% allowed by Code. However, staff finds that the house would appear better integrated into the neighborhood if it were designed to be smaller in scale/massing. Therefore, staff believes that the project, as proposed, does not meet all of the criteria discussed in the DTSP, DTDG, and the Zoning Ordinance related to massing/scale. The location of the proposed garage is also problematic. Variance Requests As stated above, the subject lot is located in the R-1-6,500 Zoning District and, therefore, new construction would have to comply with the development standards and parking requirements P11-0709/P11-0717, 205 Neal Street Planning Commission 13of18