15 - Laserfiche WebLink

all material and statements presented to them and weigh each one using their best judgment. After careful and thoughtful consideration of the application, the Commissioners concluded that the proposed project did adhere to the Design Guidelines and is compatible in terms of site and building design with the development pattern of the Golden Eagle Farm neighborhood. The Commissioners used their discretion and concluded that the results of requiring the applicant to consider alternative design options would not outweigh the impacts created by the redesign of the project. (5) The disregard of conflicting information in project imagery; The appellants have indicated that there is conflicting information within the proposed plans and imagery. City staff, as well as the project architect, acknowledged that the originally submitted project rendering was created from a previous project iteration that did not show all of the second story windows as shown on the project architectural elevations. Staff however felt that the submitted renderings did not misrepresent the massing of the proposed project. The applicant has submitted revised plans with renderings to match the submitted elevations included in Attachment 2. (6) The Commission's failure to conduct an investigation into the history of the project prior to it being submitted to the City. Lastly, concerns have been raised regarding the project history and previous 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. Staff presented the Commission with the history of what had occurred once plans were submitted to the City. The Commission objectively reviewed the project proposal that was before them, independent of the evolution prior to City submittal, and concluded that the submitted application conforms to the PUD development plan and Design Guidelines. To address questions raised by Planning Commissioners during the hearing regarding whether the HOA would be supportive of any additional changes to the project, the HOA has submitted a letter dated April 27, 2015, included within Attachment 7, which identifies specific changes to the suggested building envelope, grading or other minor modifications it would support to address the appellants concerns. Although the HOA may be supportive of additional changes, staff has reviewed various alternative ideas that have been suggested to move or redesign the home and its location on the lot and believes that the proposed location would cause the least disturbance to the grading and natural topography of the site in accordance with the suggested building envelope set forth in the Design Guidelines. GROWTH MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT The City's Growth Management Ordinance (GMO) regulates the number of residential building permits that can be issued each year in order to assure a predictable growth rate while providing housing. The applicant's Growth Management request did not need to be acted upon by the Planning Commission as it requires either Zoning Administrator or City Council decision only. Adequate allocations have been determined to be available at this time, therefore, one is being requested as part of this DR application. Page 7 of 9