SR 06:247 - Laserfiche WebLink

. The architecture was unattractive; . Effect of the proposed development on the neighbor's trees. The City has a policy to try to help neighborhoods tind compromise when there appears to be significant concern related to a proposed project. The Zoning Administrator contin- ued the project to allow the applicants to work with their neighbors. As a result of the Zoning Administrator hearing, the Zoning Administrator recommended the applicant erect story poles to rellect the height of the addition and to have photo montages provided for the next hearing. Staff'then coordinated a meeting between the applicant, his architect, and the concerned neighbors. On October 10,2005, staff hosted an informal workshop to discuss the applicant's pro- ject. Neighbors reiterated their concerns noted above about the massing and bulk of the project. The applicant subsequently met with the project planner on November 23, 2005 to discuss various design options to address the neighbors' concerns. Staff proposed changes to the plans including reducing the size and height of the garage, and to lower the height of the home. The applicant submitted revised plans to the City on December 1,2005. The revised plans had a reduced the lloor area ratio of 45.6%. The applicant reduced the garage height from 29 teet to 22.5 feet. The reduction in height rendered the "second story" of the garage into non-habitable space, thus reducing the FAR. The floor area was further reduced by shortening the length of the addition trom 37 feet down to 36 feet. The plans also removed the dormer windows in the attic areas of the house and garage. On January 23, 2006, staff met with the applicant to discuss the various design revisions that the applicant could employ to gain both staff and neighborhood support. Staff did not support the project at a FAR of 45.6% On January 26, 2006 a Zoning Administrator hearing was scheduled. With the applicant's consent, the hearing was postponed and the time was used as a workshop session for the applicant to further discuss project plan options with the neighbors. The applicant pre- sented the revised plans rellecting the changes noted above. The neighbors still expressed strong opposition to the project. They felt the revisions were minimal and did not address or mitigate any of their initial concerns. On May 16, 2006 the applicant submitted revised plans. The revisions, reduced the ga- rage height to 20.5 ft, the second story "pop-out" on the north side was eliminated. Dor- mer windows were added back into the attic areas of the house and garage. The elimina- tion of the second-story "pop-out" on the north elevation, eliminated the need for a side yard separation variance and reduced the FAR to 45%. The City has a policy of support- ing, on a case-by-case basis, increases of FAR up to 45% within the Downtown Revitali- zation District. The applicant also submitted photo-simulations of the proposed project and photos of other large homes in the Downtown area. Atter the Zoning Administrator and project Item 6.b. PADR-1338/PV-131 Page 3 of 14 September 27. 2006