08 - Laserfiche WebLink

During the work session meeting, the Bourgs spoke in opposition to the project stating their concerns with massing and requested Variances. Two additional residents spoke in opposition of the project and five spoke in support. Staff has included the April 13, 2011 work session meeting minutes as Attachment 4 for the Council's consideration. Formal Application The applicant revised the plans based on the feedback received at the April 13, 2011, work session and submitted a formal Design Review and Variance application that proposed to replace the approximately 482-square-foot, single-story home, but retain the existing foundation and the easternmost wall, approximately 20 feet in length, with an approximately 1,844-square-foot, two-story home with tandem parking in front of the proposed attached single-car garage. Staff notes that the east elevation wall of the existing house will be retained; however, given the age of the structure, the wall may need to be removed if there is extensive damage (e.g., dry rot, termites, etc.). As proposed, Variances from the PMC would be required to: (1) reduce the front yard setback from the required 23 feet to 20 feet for the new home; (2) allow tandem parking; and (3) allow one required off-street parking space to be located in the front yard setback. The design of the proposed home features wood clapboard siding and wood trim, composition shingle roofing, and a belly band. The applicant is proposing to use a dark khaki color for the body of the house, with the trim being an eggshell white. The gutters would be a teal color. Staff notes that an application to construct a new single-family home is usually processed at staff level with action taken by the Zoning Administrator. However, the Planning Commission requested that a formal application return to them for review and action. November 9, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting At the November 9, 2011, Planning Commission meeting, the applicant presented the Commission with the formal application that addressed the feedback received from the April 13, 2011 work session. The applicant revised plans by reconfiguring the first- and second-floor plans, removing the balcony on the rear elevation, and reducing and reconfiguring the balcony on the front elevation in an effort to reduce the massing of the front elevation. Although the applicant revised the plans based on the feedback received at the work session, staff did not support the project in our recommendation to the Commission based on the following Downtown Specific Plan policy and design review criteria in Chapter 18.20 of the PMC: Design and Beautification Policy 17: "Protect the established size and spacing of buildings in residential neighborhoods by avoiding excessive lot coverage and maintain appropriate separation between buildings." Design Review Criteria No. 2: "Appropriate relationship of the proposed building to its site, including transition with streetscape, public views of the building, and scale of buildings within its site and adjoining buildings." Page 3 of 7