SR 06:247 - Laserfiche WebLink

neighbors expressed concern that the proposal consisted of excessive square-footage and bulk for the lot; that the two-story house had the appearance of a three-story house and that the one- story garage had the appearance of a two-story structure; that the three car garage was too massive and out of neighborhood character; that the home addition looked "slapped on"; and that the grading required for the garage would impact the neighbors' heritage trees. On September 15, 2005, the Zoning Administrator heard Case Number P ADR-1338!PV -131. The Zoning Administrator continued 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 reflect 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 project. 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 and size of the home. The applicant submitted revised plans to the City on December 1, 2005. The revised plans had a reduced floor area ratio of 45.6 percent. The applicant also reduced the garage height from 29 feet 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 from 37 feet down to 36 feet. The plans also removed the dormer windows in the attic areas of the house and garage to mitigate the appearance ofa third story. 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 percent. 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 presented the revised plans reflecting 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 garage height to 20.5 feet and the second story "pop-out" on the north side of the house was eliminated. Dormer windows were added back into the attic areas of the house and garage. The elimination 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 percent. SR 06;247 Page 3 of8