3 - Laserfiche WebLink

Project Notification and Information The appellants raised concerns regarding the timing and accuracy of the project notice. All of the noticing was completed in accordance with the procedures outlined in the PMC. As required, public notice of the project was sent to neighboring properties on May 22, 2019. Mr. Gandhi, after contacting staff, came to the Planning Division to review the plans on May 28. At Mr. Gandhi's request, and based on his evident concerns, staff delayed taking action on the application to provide Mr. Gandhi additional time to review the plans and to provide comments. On June 3, Mr. Gandhi submitted a request for a Zoning Administrator hearing. Staff acknowledges that, due to a labelling error on the plans, the addition was mistakenly identified as being on the east side of the property in the initial public notice. However, as soon as the error came to light, information was corrected in all subsequent communication on the project. Project Design, Massing, and Setbacks The appellants have raised concerns that the additional building mass, including the second story addition and stair, would be placed closer to their property, and impede access to sunlight. To address specific concerns about access to sunlight, the project architect prepared a shade and shadow study (sun path study) for various times of day over the course of the year. The study indicates the addition would not result in any significant additional shadowing of the neighbor's property, principally due to the orientation of the two homes relative to one another, and because the bulk of the existing home is already at two stories. A copy of the sun path study is included in Exhibit B. Even though there does not appear to be any significant shadow impacts, the Zoning Administrator nonetheless requested the applicant consider design revisions to lessen the perceived impacts of the addition and stairway, such as modification to the stairway location or design, and potential adjustments to the size or design of the addition, (e.g. reducing the size of the addition or stepping back the second floor.) With respect to the massing of the addition itself, significant changes were determined to be infeasible, given the already modest size of the addition (480 square feet), and need to accommodate appropriate living space within the ADU. Other design changes, such as stepping back the second story, or modifying the roof, were determined to be undesirable because the addition would be less-well integrated, architecturally, into the existing home, than the design as proposed. Given these factors, the conformance of the addition to applicable standards', and outcomes of the shadow study, the ZA found the design and massing of the addition to be acceptable. However, the exterior stairway was redesigned. The original design included a single flight of stairs running the length of the garage wall. Based on comments, it was modified to include a As previously noted,the project site is located in a PUD district where the underlying PUD requires a side-yard setback of 10 feet(one side)and 20 feet(combined).The existing home,as constructed, is set back 15 feet from the west property line at its closest point,a larger setback than the standards would require. The proposed addition would be built directly above the existing garage and would maintain the existing building setback. P19-0130 Planning Commission 11 of 15