PC 092607 - Laserfiche WebLink

this meeting. However, the Commission may add new conditions of approval should it deem necessary. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding whether the 287-square-foot area was not permitted, Ms. Decker replied that the 273-square-foot area was not permitted and that there was some inconsistency between the plans and staff’s description of the square footage. Ms. Decker noted that the 2000 project was outlined on page 2 of the staff report. The original 2001 approval was for an approximately 963-square-foot addition, increasing the original home from 2,148 square feet to approximately 3,111 square feet. This request was to increase the home from 3,111 square feet with a 273- and 64-square-foot additions. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the square footage comparisons to the surrounding houses in the neighborhood, Ms. Decker replied that staff did not perform an analysis in terms of how many square feet the adjacent homes were. When staff looked at the site, it did not appear to staff that the home was significantly out of scale. She displayed an elevation of the home and noted that staff had received a comment from the neighbors. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O’Connor regarding the floor area ratio (FAR) of this home, Ms. Decker confirmed that 40 percent was allowed, and the proposed completion of this project would increase the FAR from 29.6 percent to 29.8 percent. Ms. Decker noted that the Zoning Administrator heard the testimony and after reviewing the issues brought forward by the neighbors, believed it was in compliance and consistent with the surrounding neighbors. The Zoning Administrator also made the observation that this addition was towards the front and north of the property where there is less of an impact to the rear neighbors. She noted that as the subject of the appeal, the first-floor restroom, was intended to be for the pool; repairs for the pool complicated the building of the home in that a building permit was obtained for the pool without having completed the original 2001 permit. In this instance, the neighbors felt that approvals were granted, but along the way, the applicants continued to expand the scope of their work as the project got bigger and that the applicants acted as their own general contractor in doing the work themselves with some added expertise. The Zoning Administrator held three meetings, one in May and two in July, whereby the applicants provided elevations that reflected actual construction rather than the plans that had been approved in 2001. Ms. Decker displayed and described the rear yard elevations and pointed out the 273-square-foot addition to be considered at this hearing. She noted that Mr. Smith’s efforts to coordinate his efforts and mitigate some of the neighbors’ concerns about the additional square footage that was not approved included removing some of the previously approved windows facing the Morgans’ home and applying stucco over them. She noted that vegetation along the fence had been removed for the benefit of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 26, 2007 Page 5 of 20