2004-0268 – Application for a Design Review on a 5,500 square-foot site to allow a new two-story house of 2,850 square feet resulting in a 52% FAR (Floor Area Ratio) where 45% may be considered without Planning Commission Review.  The property is located at 1114 Myrtle Drive in an R-0 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District.  (APN: 213-31-024) DO

Gerri Caruso, Principal Planner, presented the staff report on behalf of the Project Planner, Diana O’Dell.   She summarized the proposed application highlighting the use, site layout, architecture, parking and circulation.  Staff noted that the application complies with the development standards and the increased FAR is in conformance with R-0 development standards.  Staff was able to make the required Findings and recommended the approval of the Design Review subject to the Conditions of Approval.

Comm. Simons asked staff what would be the impact if the applicant choose different color scheme. Staff responded that if the color scheme is in the Conditions of Approval, then that applicant has to comply.

Chair Babcock opened the public hearing.

Amar Devi, applicant, stated that she is willing to change the color scheme and to comply with the Conditions of Approval.  She noted that she also addressed the entry way concerns expressed by staff and that a revised architectural design was distributed to the Commission before the public hearing.

Chair Babcock asked Ms. Devi to clarify the new documents distributed at the dais.  Ms. Devi and her architect explained that the dome has been reduced to meet staff’s recommendation.

Comm. Hungerford asked Ms. Devi if she is comfortable with Condition of Approval #3.  Ms. Devi responded that she has re-designed the plan by lowering the dome in response to Condition of Approval #3.

Comm. Klein asked Ms. Devi if she is willing to remove the balcony as designed in the left elevation.  Ms. Devi said yes.

Comm. Fussell asked Ms. Devi to explain the proposed dome which is conditioned to be removed.  Ms. Devi responded that instead of removing the dome, she has reduced the size of the dome.

Ms. Devi asked the Commission what are her options for color scheme.  Chair Babcock responded she should work with staff to achieve a mutually agreeable color.

Harriet Rowe, member of the public, expressed concerns that color schemes affects the economic value of the house. She noted that the proposed design is rather large surrounded with smaller homes and asked the Commission how would the Commission solve the issue of color.

Chair Babcock closed the public hearing.

Comm. Simons commented that it is unusual that color choices would be chosen by staff; however, he felt confident that staff will work out.

Comm. Klein agreed that staff can work with the applicant and come up with some kind of color that would be mutually agreeable.  He thanked the applicant for addressing the concerns expressed by staff and making the changes prior to the hearing.  He stated that it is in the right direction that staff assists in choosing the color.

Vice Chair Moylan made a friendly amendment to remove Condition of Approval #5.  Comm. Simons suggested rather than making it as a Condition of Approval, encourage the applicant to work with staff on the color scheme.  Accepted by the second.

Vice Chair Moylan supported staff’s recommended Condition of Approval with the exception of the color requirement.  He noted that the color concern is legitimate but would be difficult to monitor this condition.

Comm. Sulser preferred removing Condition of Approval #5 and #3C.  He did not want to micro manage the design unless it is detrimental to the neighborhood. 

Chair Babcock commented that Condition of Approval #5 has been reworded and that it would be a suggestion and not a requirement.

Comm. Fussell commented that he does not want to regulate or put a color condition on a residential property.  He was pleased that Condition of Approval #5 has been reworded.

Comm. Hungerford commented that it would be hard to enforce color scheme.  He stated that he has reservation with Condition of Approval #3C. He was pleased that the applicant made efforts to make it less obvious and her willingness to accommodate staff’s recommendation.  He also commended staff.

Chair Babcock supported the motion and commented that the dome matches the architecture of the house.

FINAL MOTION:

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