PC 031203 - Laserfiche WebLink

being the upper limit. As part of the normal administrative design review process, after receiving the applicatior, staFf notified the surrounding neighbors, and several concerns were received. Staff explored a number of solutions for the issues so that a consensus could be reached for the prof ect_ However, that was not the case; at the Zoning Administrator hearing, while there was discussion and progress, a consensus was not reached. The Zoning Administrator approved the application with several conditions. Subsequent to the hearing, the applicants appealed several of the conditions of approval. "The project meets the zoning development standards in terms of setbacks and floor area ratio. The design review section of the Code lists specific criteria that the approving agency must look at with respect to a design review application, and did allow for more restrictive conditions, if necessary, to meet the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff tried very hard to be reasonable, and to include conditions which were designed to reduce the specific impacts that the neighbors stated. At the same time, staff tried to provide the applicants with their basic building program, to allow for the square footage that they requested and the floor plan layout_ Staff wished to keep the proposed addition intact, and to deal with the individual impacts as expressed by the neighbors. One issue that was raised was the height of the structure and the view impacts, which were mainly to the neighbors to the rear (the Baldwins on Amoroso Court and the MacKays on Montevino Drive. There is a tree cover between the two sets of lots, and the neighbors are somewhat elevated in relation to the subject property. The neighbors in the back were concerned that the additional height on the building would result in partial obstruction of their ridge view. Staff made that finding as well. Staff developed modifications to the design, which would not remove any of the second story portion, but would bring the roof down. Staff suggested the use of a hip roof, instead of a gable roof; the width of the roof at its peak was substantially reduced from 50 feet to 13 feet. The mass of the building was also removed by removing the walls that would join the gable. Staff suggested reducing the second boor plate height from 9 feet to 8 feet to reduce another foot off the height of the building. That would require several arched windows on the rear elevation to be somewhat reduced in size or lowered. Staff believed that an effective design solution could be made with that reduction_ Staff suggested reducing the pitch of the roof from 4:12 to 3: 1 2, which would reduce the height of the addition by approximately 1 %z Feet. StaFF also suggested reducing the gap between. the ceiling of the first floor and the floor of the second story to bring the house down by at least six inches. Mr. 7serson noted that another issue was privacy. On the south side of the house, two windows are proposed for the second story master bedroom, which would produce views into the Johnstons' adjacent windows. On the north side, the Somersetts were concerned about the bonus room on the second floor, where there were two windows on the side, as well as a bay window toward the front. The side pane of the bay window would produce views into their side yard, as well as into a picture window. Staff examined several different possible solutions, which included adding aview-obscuring glaze; staff did not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 12, 2003 Page 3