16 - Laserfiche WebLink

As proposed and conditioned, the addition complies with the above development standards prescribed by the PMC. Scope of Design Review — Criteria Chapter 18.20 (Design Review) of the PMC indicates that in order to preserve and enhance the City's aesthetic values and to ensure the preservation of the public health, safety, and general welfare, additions to single-family residences greater than ten feet in height are subject to administrative design review. Staff notes that even though an addition may comply with the development standards of the applicable zoning district, through the design review process the PMC allows the reviewing body to approve conditions that may be more restrictive than the normal PMC standards to ensure that the public health, safety, or general welfare is preserved. As outlined in the Design Review Chapter, the Zoning Administrator's or Planning Commission's scope of review of project plans shall include design criteria including: • Preservation of the natural beauty of the city and the project site's relationship to it. • Appropriate relationship of the proposed building to its site, including transition with streetscape, public views of the buildings, and scale of the buildings within its site and adjoining buildings. • Appropriate relationship of the proposed building and its site to adjoining areas, including compatibility of architectural styles, harmony in adjoining buildings, attractive landscape transitions, and consistency with neighborhood character. • Preservation of views enjoyed by residents, workers within the City, and passerby through the community. • Architectural style, as a function of its quality of design and relationship to its surroundings; the relationship of building components to one another and the building's colors and materials. Staff considers these design criteria in its review of all design review applications. The proposed addition would match the architectural style, colors, and materials of the existing residence. Additionally, new trees were conditioned along the western property line to provide a vegetative screen that would block views from the proposed second-floor balcony to the appellants' back yard. The tree species were selected to be fast-growing, to avoid the deposition of large amounts of organic matter, and to create a continuous vegetative screen. Staff believes that the design of the addition would be complementary to the design of the existing residence and would not adversely affect the other homes in the neighborhood. Appellant Concerns As noted above, at the March 10, 2015 Zoning Administrator Hearing, Jamison Cummings, who resides at the adjacent residence to the west (5204 Hummingbird Road), expressed concerns that the proposed second-floor balcony would allow for views into his bedroom windows and backyard/swimming pool area. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal on March 24, 2015, staff met with the appellants at their property and further concerns were expressed related to the planting of trees along the fenceline and how those trees and their associated P15-0037. Kiziloglu Addition Planning Commission 5 of 11