Laserfiche WebLink
DRAFT <br /> to take that policy out and give this particular neighborhood the same protections that all <br /> the other neighborhoods would have. <br /> 5. New residential building design and how it is supposed to be compatible with the <br /> neighborhood. <br /> Mr. Dolan stated that the Task Force spent some time talking about how compatibility is <br /> judged and can be a little bit subjective. He indicated that the Task Force tried to come <br /> up with some kind of metric because part of the Council's instruction was to make the <br /> outcomes more predictable and not have as many individual discretionary decisions that <br /> add on to each other and make the process so hard. He added that the Task Force <br /> explored different compatibility standards and ultimately came to the conclusion that the <br /> Downtown was an eclectic community. He noted that the Historic Context Statement <br /> identified the types of architecture that are prominent and historic, and someone from <br /> the audience who attended the Task Force meetings quite regularly suggested that the <br /> structure would be considered compatible if it included one of those styles. He added <br /> that the Task Force liked that, and that is what the recommendation is at this point. <br /> Mr. Dolan stated that staff also struggles occasionally with applications and the current <br /> policies relative to compatibility of residential additions or even new homes. He <br /> indicated that the problem lies in the fact that there are established floor area ratios <br /> (FAR) which dictate the amount of square footage each lot can have relative to the size <br /> of the lot. He added that there are additional policies layered on top of that that say that <br /> it needs to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood relative to massing and <br /> scale and bulk. He noted that these are two conflicting policies or regulations: if it is <br /> 40 percent, or if it is really appropriate to require the applicant to go smaller if things in <br /> the neighborhood are also smaller. He stated that in the interest of trying to come up <br /> with something fairly predictable, a numerical standard was established that basically <br /> says that the applicant can go up to 25 percent more than the average of the floor area <br /> ratios of the existing homes in the immediate neighborhood, defined as on any lot that is <br /> within 150 feet of the subject lot. He explained that while there is nothing magical about <br /> 25 percent, staff felt it is reasonable, and the Task Force was supportive of this <br /> particular formula. He added that the Task Force also recognized that there are certain <br /> circumstances where someone could design something that just spectacularly hides the <br /> mass and this numerical calculation is not appropriate. He noted that in this case, there <br /> is an exception process, He added that there is also an exception process for cases <br /> such as if the property is located in such a way that this neighborhood comparison is not <br /> really possible, or if it is in a corner of the Specific Plan Area, or there are uses that are <br /> not residential adjoining and the proper sampling cannot be obtained within 150 feet, or <br /> if the samples obtained give such odd numbers that they are not usable. <br /> 6. Garage policies in the Specific Plan. <br /> Mr. Dolan stated that the Specific Plan includes policies, when dealing with proposed <br /> homes, about encouraging garages to be detached and not a part of the main structure <br /> facing the street and dominating the streetscape, but to have them more similar to how <br /> DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 11/13/2013 Page 5 of 28 <br />