2004-0916 - Dan Winklebleck [Applicant]:  Application for a Design Review on a 6,320 square-foot site to allow the construction of a new 3,799 square-foot two-story home resulting in a 60% Floor Area Ratio where 45% may be considered without Planning Commission Review.  The property is located at 1614 Grosbeak Avenue in an R-0 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. (APN: 309-48-012) KD

Kelly Diekmann, Project Planner, presented the staff report.  He summarized the proposed application highlighting the site layout, architecture and the character of the surrounding neighborhood.  Staff reported that no testimony was received to address privacy issues regarding the windows on the second story and staff has no recommendation to modify the window pattern. Staff was able to make the required Findings and recommended approval of the Design Review.

Comm. Babcock asked staff whether it is customary for staff to address privacy and widows only when there is a complaint.  Staff responded not customary but staff considers the applicant’s preference of the design.  The window placement was not a concern to staff since it is not overlooking a usable area in adjacent properties which could invade privacy. He added that staff mitigates and recommends revision to the design when there is potential privacy issues. 

Ms. Ryan added that staff always looks for potential impacts.  She noted that the application’s setback is more than double the minimum on the first floor.

Vice Chair Hungerford asked staff to explain the setback as noted in the project data table, page 3 of 7 of the staff report.  Staff explained that both the first and second story are at least 20 feet from the rear property line and that no deviation to the code is being requested.  Ms. Ryan further clarified that the existing structure encroaches into the 20 foot area which is permitted up to 25% into the rear yard and the proposed structure does not encroach into the rear yard.

Comm. Sulser confirmed with staff that overall the proposed building has a higher FAR as well as the other homes in the area and asked staff for the floor area ratio character of the neighborhood.  Staff responded that on Grosbeak single story homes are approximately between 25-35% FAR; the block to the northwest has two story homes with 50% FAR.  Ms. Ryan added that at the time the subdivision was built there was a 50% FAR restriction.  Staff also added that the home directly to the north of the site is 60% FAR which is a direct comparison to the application.  Ms. Ryan added that the corner of Heron and Inverness has three homes in a row with 55-60% FAR.

Chair Moylan opened the public hearing.

Dan Winklebleck, architect for the applicant, stated that they worked very hard to achieve a design that would be compatible with the neighborhood and to the needs and the desires of the family.  He summarized the design of the house providing the necessary space that the family needs.  He addressed the window placement and design of the house while preserving privacy of adjacent homes. He highlighted the architectural design of the house and its FAR being compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.  He stated that they worked with the neighborhood and listened to the concerns that they may have addressing encroachments and privacy concerns.  He urged the Commission to approve the Design Review.

Sridhar Lakshmanamurthuy, property owner, addressed the Commission’s concerns stating that they met with the neighbors even before the plans were submitted to the City.  The neighbors expressed no concerns with the design or privacy.

Chair Moylan closed the public hearing.

Comm. Babcock asked staff what recommendation would staff give to the property owners of either the north or south of the subject site should they decide to build a second story home.  Staff responded that staff will give deference to the approved project and staff will review the window placement and alignments that are across from each.  The second applicant may have more difficulty in having their window placement preference.  Ms. Ryan added that it is also important to look at the types of rooms which are being used only occasionally.

Comm. Sulser commented that planning is all about context.  He noted that if the application was in a different neighborhood such as one-story Eichlers, he would not support it.  However, during his site visits, the design, style, FAR and square footage meets and is compatible with the neighborhood. 

Comm. Fussell supported the motion.  He commended the applicant for his fantastic outreach efforts.

Ms. Ryan stated that the decision is final unless appealed to the City Council with the payment of the appeal fee within the 15-day appeal period.