11 - Laserfiche WebLink

COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL PROPOSAL VERSUS THE CURRENT PROPOSAL Table 1 compares the proposed project at the time of the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission #1, and Planning Commission #2 hearings. Zoning Planning Planning Administrator Commission Commission Project Attribute Hearing Hearing#1 Hearing #2 Proposed Addition 740 sq. ft. 740 sq. ft. 720 sq. ft. Existing +Addition 2,351 sq. ft. 2,351 sq. ft. 2,331 sq. ft. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)* 38.6% 38.6% 38.2% Number of Bedrooms 8 8 6 Presence of North-Facing Window Yes Yes No (Yes/No)? Heritage Trees Removed Yes Yes Yes Front Architectural Detailing No No Yes, see above *FAR is calculated by dividing the total conditioned space of each home(but excluding garages,basements that are entirely below grade on all sides, non-habitable accessory structures,exterior balconies,stoops and steps,decks,and porches not enclosed on three sides)by the total lot area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION As stated above, the Planning Commission held public hearings on July 12 and August 23, 2017, to review the appeal by the applicants/appellants of the Zoning Administrator determination. Detailed information on these meetings is provided in Attachments 1.D and 2. Several members of the public spoke at the hearings and generally shared a lack of support for the application due to concerns focused on privacy, public health and safety (criminal activity occurring at the residence), and concerns that adding four additional bedrooms to an existing four-bedroom residence would be out of scale and incongruous with other homes with the neighborhood. After receiving public testimony, the Commission, on a 3-2 vote, denied the project as currently proposed, with the majority stating that the applicants/appellants had not adequately complied with the direction provided by the Planning Commission on July 12, 2017, and that the project was not in compliance with the following Design Review criteria specified in Chapter 18.20 (Design Review) of the PMC (specific Commissioner comments are bulleted/italicized below each criteria): 1. Preservation of the natural beauty of the city and the project site's relationship to it. ® This would be adversely affected by the project as no detailed landscape plan was provided that would establish a planting palette that would be well- integrated with the proposed architecture with the potential to be successfully maintained in a Mediterranean climate. Page 6 of 11