11 - Laserfiche WebLink

the staff report. Commissioner Allen specified concerns with the proposed massing, finding it is not compatible to other homes in the neighborhood. Additionally, she mentioned, the band between the rooflines is not aesthetically pleasing. said Commissioner Nagler concurred with Commissioner Allen's comments. He cited the workshop feedback, which made clear the concern about the style, massing, and architecture. Commissioner Nagler said he did not believe the applicant made enough effort to address the concerns of the Commission in the new design. Chair Balch challenged the FAR comments, asking if the project meets the requirements of FAR should the project be denied. Commissioners O'Connor, Nagler, and Allen agreed thatPit4could be denied under the purview of the design review criteria. g1144 Commissioner Brown challenged the comments`regarding the wall on>the front façade how/it architectural interest, pointing out hoit replaced the north facing,window which the Commission had requested be removedfa Kw- Commissioner Allen clarified, she did not he c avoncern over the new window placement, but with the three-layerrcake look of the front façade with the large band of stucco in the middle. She suggested title, roof hada different pitch or gable it could break up the massing, or if trim workAr quality siding w re..integrated rather than stucco it could add to the architectural interestCommissioner Allen,ecounted the Commission requesting at the workshop for the applicant to worktwitth staff on the design. Commissioner Ritterobserved`ihow had the applicant not appealed their approval they wouldn't be here Hecommentedx on parking, recognizing that converting garages to living spaces is becoming more icommon these days. However, Commissioner Ritter acknowledged there``is not enough street sparking for the garage to be converted, and therefore,Fhe concludedlindings 2, 4, and,5could not be made. Comm ssioner Naglerrrecognized, in response to the applicant's comments, that while the rooms are to be used;by grandchildren so the number of cars theoretically would not increase tithe Commission,cannot'assume the use by the current owner but must address the'potential use'for all residents going forward. Chair Balch, presentedffie dissenting opinion, suggesting a home outside of a PUD and without CC&R restrictions need only follow the City requirements. He elaborated, the massing and design were the Commission's concerns at the workshop and in his opinion the applicant tried to meet those concerns. Chair Balch challenged the Commission to explain, without designing from the dais, what it would take to meet the design criteria. He offered his support of the plans as submitted. Commissioner O'Connor acknowledged he was not present at the workshop. He affirmed Commissioner Nagler's comments regarding the number of bedrooms. Commissioner O'Connor stated he read the minutes from the workshop and his biggest concern was not discussed at that time, which is an enhancement to the neighborhood EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 23, 2017 Page 2 of 4