Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br /> <br />doors is the same <br />width as a single- <br />door entry with a <br />45-degree recess. <br />108 2.8.5.A.2.b <br /> <br />The Building Middle Cap <br />should be no less than 3- <br />feet in height. <br />The Building Middle Cap is <br />designed at 30-inches in <br />height. <br />Approve, as the <br />difference <br />between the <br />proposed height <br />and the <br />requirement is <br />minimal, and there <br />is no design <br />reason for an <br />additional 6-inches <br />to be required. <br />110 2.8.6.B.2.b <br /> <br />The depth of a Building Top <br />façade offset (recesses in <br />the wall plane) shall be a <br />minimum of 1-foot, and <br />should not be more than 5- <br />feet. The offset should be <br />vertically straight and <br />should run the full height of <br />the Building Top. <br />The proposed Building <br />Top façade offsets are <br />created through vertical <br />extensions of the 8th floor <br />residential <br />patios/balconies. These <br />façade offsets are <br />vertically straight and run <br />the full height of the <br />Building Top, but are <br />between approximately 10 <br />and 14-feet in depth. <br />Approve, as the <br />proposed design <br />adds more <br />articulation to the <br />massing, and the <br />increase in recess <br />depths makes the <br />spaces more <br />usable. <br /> <br />On May 17, 2016, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission <br />approved the entitlement applications for the Project by adopting Resolution No. 16-08, <br />finding that the City had complied with CEQA and that the proposed Project was <br />consistent with the DTPP and the certified EIR, including its applicable mitigation <br />measures and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. To determine whether <br />further environmental review was required in connection with the Project, the City <br />prepared an extensive Initial Study Checklist that considered technical studies by <br />environmental consultants and analyzed other relevant facts and requirements. At the <br />conclusion of its review, the City determined that no further environmental review was <br />required (see p. 6 of the Initial Study Checklist, bearing signature of Associate Planner <br />Seth Adams, dated May 11, 2016). <br /> <br />Subsequent to the Planning Commission approval, the application was appealed by two <br />parties. The following report provides a detailed response to the points in both appeal <br />letters. As detailed in this report, City Council has ample grounds to deny the appeals <br />and uphold the approval of the Project. <br /> <br />ANALYSIS <br />Appeals of the Planning Commission approval were filed by two parties (collectively, <br />Appellants): <br />8.C. - Page 4