AgdaPkt 2017-05-22 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Page 7 of 27 Table 2: Architectural Advisory Committee Recommendations Page Guideline Section Deviation AAC Recommendation changes in color should take place at cornices, belt courses, and other such horizontal ornament. On March 21, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing. In considering the project, the Commission also examined the rear yard size and the AAC’s recommendation to deny this guideline deviation. In its report, staff supported the Project and felt that it adequately promoted the overall intent of the DTPP. Staff explained that the proposed rear yard size relative to the overall lot size exceeds the ratio that would result if one were to comply with the guideline on a lot that is twice the size of the subject property. In addition, the parcel that is immediately adjacent to the west contains a residential historic resource that is set back approximately 40 feet from the shared rear property line, and thus both properties contribute to a large open area at the center of the block, which is in keeping with the intent of the Rear Yard Building Disposition Type under the DTPP. The Planning Commission ultimately determined that this guideline deviation met the overall intent of the DTPP in its adopted resolution. The Planning Commission approved the entitlement applications for the Project by adopting Resolution No. 17-06, finding that the City had complied with CEQA and that the proposed Project was consistent with the DTPP and the certified EIR, including its applicable mitigation measures and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. To determine whether further environmental review was required in connection with the Project, the City prepared an extensive Initial Study Checklist that considered technical studies by environmental consultants and analyzed other relevant facts and requirements. At the conclusion of its review, the City determined that no further environmental review was required (see p. 6 of the Initial Study Checklist, bearing signature of Associate Planner Seth Adams, dated March 16, 2017). Subsequent to the Planning Commission approval, the application was appealed by Mr. Geoffrey Carr, Managing Member for 605 Middlefield, LLC. The following report provides a detailed response to the points in the appeal letter. As detailed in this report, City Council has ample grounds to deny the appeal and uphold the approval of the Project. ANALYSIS An appeal of the Planning Commission approval was filed by one party: · Mr. Geoffrey Carr, March 28, 2017 The appeals challenge (1) the approval of the Downtown Planned Community Permit, and, (2) the determination that no further environmental review is required under CEQA. 8.A. - Page 7