2003-0103 - Application for a Special Development Permit on a 4,283 square foot site to allow a second-story addition to an existing two-story home for a total of 2,193 square feet resulting in a 61% FAR (Floor Area Ratio) where 45% FAR is allowed without Planning Commission Review. The property is located at 536 Cashmere Court in an R-2/PD (Low-Medium Density Residential/Planned Development) Zoning District. (APN: 323-12-015)

Kelly Diekmann, Project Planner, presented the staff report. Staff provided a summary of the proposed project highlighting the use, site layout, architecture, landscaping, parking and circulation. Staff was unable to support the proposed design due to the configuration of the proposed addition, incompatibility with the neighborhood, setbacks and deviations. Staff was unable to make the required findings and recommended denial of the Design Review.

Dennis Shafer, architect, commented that he understands the concerns expressed by staff. He noted that the roof is perpendicular with a very steep pitch and discussed the challenges to achieve more usable living space. He further noted that he has no problem with staff recommendation and that he is willing to find an acceptable design. He concluded that the design is based on the owner's needs for a more living space.

Comm. Chu asked the applicant if the 592 square feet is for one additional room. Mr. Shafer responded that the addition is basically two bedrooms.

James Thorne, architect and representing the applicant, noted that there are design problems in order to achieve habitable and efficient space. He noted that Bahl homes have small living space and a unique design that in order to achieve desired living needs, the roofline has to be increased. He concluded that he is willing to work with staff to address the concerns therefore he is asking for a continuance.

Comm. Moylan commented that the applicant made a persuasive argument on the architectural design of the existing home driving his design of his proposed addition. He asked Mr. Thorne if he considered removing the pitch or add a loft to achieve a habitable space. Mr. Thorne responded that he is willing to explore the idea.

Comm. Chu suggested creating a trapezoid ceiling. Mr. Thorne said that he also would consider his suggestion.

John Norvicki, resident from across the street, expressed his objection to the proposed design and that an approval of the design would create an unwanted precedence. He added that a wall that is 25-feet high would be imposing, would reduce sunlight during the morning hours and the proposed design is too high.

Comm. Swegles asked Mr. Norvicki whether it would still be offensive if the design is changed. Mr. Norvicki responded that it depends on how dominating the wall would be and how the proposed design would be changed to be compatible with the neighborhood.

James Thorne, applicant, acknowledged staff's concerns and asked for a continuance to work with staff on a re-design.

Comm. Satterlee commented that she wants to maintain the diversity of the housing stock and expressed concerns on whether the applicant would be able to achieve the desired livable space given the design constraints of the existing house. However, she was willing to look at the new design.

Comm. Chu commented that if the FAR of the surrounding neighborhood is in the upper 50%, the proposed redesign may be consistent with the neighborhood.

Comm. Moylan commented that the motion is at the request of the applicant. He suggested removing the constraints by replacing the sharp loft, which would provide the needed living space. He supported staff's recommendation.

Return to Agenda, Reports & Minutes