Laserfiche WebLink
FINANCIAL STATEMENT <br /> The applicant must pay fees for Planning entitlements and Building permits; therefore, <br /> no fiscal impact on the City is anticipated. <br /> PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION <br /> In March of 2009, Charles Huff, on behalf of the property owners, submitted a <br /> Preliminary Review application requesting the City consider the property owners' <br /> request to replace the existing single-story residence with a new two-story home prior to <br /> submitting a formal Design Review application. Staff provided Mr. Huff with feedback <br /> addressing site development standards (i.e., setbacks, separation, etc.), the design of <br /> the home, the proposed parking, the need for an historic evaluation, and the issue of <br /> retaining the home versus replacing it. In response to staffs 2009 comment letter, <br /> Mr. Huff submitted three additional Preliminary Review applications, two in 2010 and <br /> one in January of 2011; however, the applications were similar to the initial request and, <br /> therefore, staff's comments remained the same. <br /> In order to allow the public to comment on the project, and prior to submitting a formal <br /> application, staff and the applicant requested that the Planning Commission review, <br /> comment, and provide direction on the applicants' Preliminary Review application. <br /> Planning Commission Work Session <br /> At the April 13, 2011, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission provided the <br /> following comments regarding the application: <br /> • Most of the Commissioners felt that the design was appropriate, but were <br /> concerned with the massing. There was consensus on the need to install story <br /> poles to help assess the massing. One Commissioner suggested that the <br /> amount of second floor be reduced and more square footage be added to the <br /> first floor. The applicant was encouraged to set the second floor walls back from <br /> the first floor walls, especially on the west side. <br /> • One of the Commissioners was concerned with the location of the garage; <br /> however, there was a consensus that the Variance requests seemed <br /> supportable. <br /> • The Commission requested that when a formal application is submitted, that it <br /> return to the Planning Commission for action and include the following: <br /> o Historical evaluation, <br /> o Shadow study, <br /> o Streetscape elevation, and <br /> o Structural integrity evaluation <br /> Page 2 of 7 <br />