SR 06:210 - Laserfiche WebLink

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 27, 2006, to review the subject application. Detailed information on this meeting is provided in the attached draft excerpts of the Planning Commission minutes (Exhibit G). After hearing all public testimony, including Mr. Stanton, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Rhoades, and Ms. Bates, the fiancee of Mr. Rhoades, the Commission denied the appeal and approved the administrative design review application on a 4-1 vote with the conditions of approval recommended by Staff. Although the majority felt the balcony served as an architectural feature, the dissenting Commissioner felt that the balcony should be eliminated. CONCLUSION Staff believes that the proposed project is well designed, aesthetically pleasing, and will blend in well with the neighborhood that has a mix of architectural styles and heights. Additionally, the project conforms with all site standards of the R-I-7500 zoning district. Staff believes that the concerns raised by the Stantons have been adequately addressed by the conditions of approval attached in Exhibit B. Staff therefore believes the Planning Commission's denial of the appeal should be upheld, thereby approving the project. FISCAL IMPACT This project will have minimal fiscal impact on the City of Pleasant on. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Deny the appeal by upholding the Planning Commission's approval of the proposed project; and 2. Adopt the attached draft resolution approving Case PADR-542, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. Respectfully Submitted, j}o~ Jerry Iserson Director of Planning & Community Development ;7~C' 3 David Culver Director ofPinance Steve Bocian ASSistant City Manager SR:06:21O Page 7