11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Project Revisions in Response to Planning Commission Direction In response to the Planning Commission's direction, the applicant/appellant revised the plans to address the Planning Commission's concerns. The plans were changed to: (1) Reduce the second-floor massing by pushing the front wall of the second-floor back approximately 5 feet, 8 inches from the existing front wall of the house, eliminating one bedroom on the second-floor, and reconfiguring the second-floor plan, ultimately reducing the proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to 38.2% (for a complete list of FARs on Yellowstone Court, please refer to Attachment 5); (2) Eliminate the proposed second-floor window on the north facing elevation; and (3) Improve the overall architectural detailing for the residence by adding vertical wood siding to the second-floor wall facing Yellowstone Court, consistent with the vertical siding already present on the first-floor wall facing Yellowstone Court, adding a large louvered vent to the center of the second-floor wall facing Yellowstone Court, and adding wood trim around all new and existing doors and windows on all four sides of the residence (first and second floors) consistent with that already present on the front elevation of the residence. The proposed design modifications in response to the Planning Commission's direction are described in more detail in Attachment 1. Additionally, staff has attached the revised project plans as Attachment 1.B to this report. For comparison purposes, the original project plans are also attached to this report as Attachment 1.A.2. Planning Commission Hearing #2 (August 23, 2017) At the second Planning Commission hearing, staff recommended approval of the project, as staff believed the project was revised to reflect Planning Commission direction provided at the hearing on July 12, 2017 (see Attachments 1.6 and 1.0 for revised project plans and conditions of approval). At the August 23, 2017 hearing, the Planning Commission denied the project on a 3-2 vote, with the majority stating that the applicants/appellants had not adequately addressed the direction provided by the Planning Commission on July 12, 2017. In addition, the majority indicated that the proposed project would not substantively comply with the Design Review criteria in Section 18.20 (Design Review) of the PMC and that the project would be improved with a revised and resubmitted application. The Commission did suggest that it would be open to submittal of a new application at a later date so long as the proposed addition better reflected City aesthetic and design objectives and the scale of the neighborhood. The July 12 and August 23, 2017 Planning Commission meeting minutes are attached as Attachments 1.D and 2. Page 5 of 11