15 - Laserfiche WebLink

DISCUSSION The appeal filed by Mr. and Mrs. Monzo (the appellants) states that they did not believe that the Planning Commission fully or adequately addressed their objections presented to the Commission contained in Exhibit D of Attachment 5. The attached Planning Commission staff report, (Attachment 5) dated March 25, 2015, provides additional background information and a detailed discussion of the proposed application. A brief summary of the concerns brought up prior to the Planning Commission hearing are included below; for a full discussion please see the March 25, 2015 Planning Commission report. (1) Roof Colors Concerns were raised regarding the red tone of the proposed roof material. Staff and the HOA have been working with the applicant to address this concern, and the applicant has agreed to change the roofing color, to be reviewed and approved by both the HOA as well as the City, prior to issuance of building permits. (2) Adherence to the Architectural Design Guidelines Staff has reviewed the submitted plans and has concluded that the home has been designed to be horizontal in character and does not accentuate vertical features. In addition, staff has concluded that the proposed second story massing is acceptable and meets the intent of the guidelines. (3) Grading Staff has reviewed the proposed grading in context of the subject site and surrounding properties and believes that it is appropriate. The majority of the grading will be located to the rear of the home and will not be visible from the street. Staff has concluded that the rear yard improvements have been designed to be built into the hillside to disturb as little area as possible and are consistent with the intent of the guidelines. (4) Homeowner Association Conduct Lastly, concerns have been raised regarding the HOA evaluation of the project, both substantively and procedurally. The HOA project evaluation process occurs independent of City review and is not supervised by the City. In addition to the original concerns raised regarding the project, this report includes supplemental discussion regarding the additional objections the appellants raised within their appeal letter included in Attachment 3. The appellant's appeal claims: (1) Misstatements of fact in the Planning Commission staff report Staff is unaware of any factual misrepresentations within the report. (2) The Commission's failure to adhere to the Design Guidelines; (3) the Commission's refusal to require the applicant to consider alternative design options; and (4) the Commission's disregard of statements they believed to be misrepresentations. The Municipal Code allows for each Commissioner to use their discretion, as they see fit, to objectively review each project. This includes the ability to individually evaluate Page 6 of 9