PC 090915 - Laserfiche WebLink

applicant not to add a second story. She added that with respect to modifying the existing home, the applicant felt that having a second building instead of adding onto the existing home would be more appropriate for either his budget or to maintain the existing rental unit at the front and the construction at the rear. She added that the applicant is here to talk about that further if the Commission desired. Commissioner Ritter noted that there are a few second -story houses in the area and inquired why adding a second story to the building would not conform to the guidelines Ms. Hagen replied that there is a specific guideline that states that the goal is to maintain the existing streetscape. She indicated that the majority of the homes along Augustine Street are older, single -story homes, and to maintain that streetscape, staff felt it was more appropriate to maintain a single -story home in the front and add the massing to the rear. Commissioner O'Connor requested confirmation of his understanding of staff's comments that in Option 2, the third unit in the rear building above the parking would have an adverse look from the front of the house. Ms. Hagen replied that the view along Augustine Street from the front of the building over the home would not have that much of an impact with the exception that it would affect the symmetry of the home on the east elevation. She noted that this impact would be greater looking down the driveways of 4731 and 4745 Augustine Street, where there would be a clearer view of the side angle of the cantilevered unit with its awkward beams and design. Commissioner O'Connor inquired if both the upper and lower floors would be visible, noting that there is nothing below it. Ms. Hagen replied that they would be visible looking down the driveway. Commissioner Balch agreed, given that the fence would be about six feet high. Commissioner O'Connor asked if that would still be if cars were going more than five miles per hour. Ms. Hagen noted that it is a very narrow street and vehicles are hopefully going very slowly. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he was trying to figure out what the difference would be with the original Option 1 with a second story right behind the house. He noted that the second story would be visible from the front corner of the street in both Option 1 and Option 2. He added that he could not see the carports from the street. Mr. Weinstein stated that the comment was intended to get to the point of the fact that there are not a lot of cantilevered buildings in Downtown, and having a view of the garage from the driveway and then having a view of the second story which is a little bit asymmetrical is an issue. He added that the design needs to use the cantilevered feature because it is relatively massive. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 9, 2015 Page 3 of 17