Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DISCUSSION <br />The applicant proposes to fill in a portion of the existing vaulted ceiling space. The only exterior <br />change is regarding the existing clerestory window, which will be adjusted in size and location. <br />The new window will become an operable window to satisfy the building code requirements for <br />life safety egress. The reduction in size of the window will not impact the architectural integrity <br />of the elevation in that the elevation is still balance and matches the architectural style of the <br />existing residence. <br />Staff therefore finds that the proposed project is supportable. <br />PUBLIC COMMENT <br />Notices of the proposed development plan modification were sent to the residents within a 1,000- <br />foot radius of the subject property. Additionally, noticing ofthe project details were sent to the <br />adjoining property owners to solicit comments on the passive use windows becoming active use <br />windows. Staff has not received any comments pertaining to the proposed development as of the <br />time the staff report was written. <br />ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT <br />This project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California <br />Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301 "Existing Facilities", therefore no <br />environmental document accompanies this report. <br />FISCAL IMPACT <br />The project consists of private development associated with interior residential construction that <br />will have no fiscal impact on the City. <br />CONCLUSION <br />The proposed addition is consistent with previously approved applications within the same <br />development, but due to the lot configuration and floor plan, the proposed loft on the subject lot <br />would exceed the allowable FAR. Additionally, due to the fact that the additional FAR does not <br />result in exterior changes aside from the window modifications, staff is in support of the <br />modification request for this site. <br />This PUD modification is site specific and is not intended to be a revised FAR for the entire <br />development. Future PUD modifications to allow a greater FAR than 59.3 to this development <br />would be reviewed independently of this approval. <br />SR:05:285 <br />Page 3 <br />