Reso PC20-12 0116 PC Reso Denying Appeal for 645 Sapphire

Browse Search

ATTY/RESO.0116/PC RESO DENYING APPEAL FOR 645 SAPPHIRE REV: 11-03-2020 PR Page 4 of 10 G. The reservation of landscaping areas for the purposes of separating or screening service and storage areas from the street and adjoining building sites, breaking up large expanses of paved areas, separating or screening parking lots from the street and adjoining building sites, and separating building areas from paved areas to provide access from buildings to open space-areas; The proposed project would maintain the existing landscaping in the front yard, side yards. No new landscaping is proposed as part of the project. H. In the case of any commercial or industrial structure, the Zoning Administrator shall consider its proximity to any R District and shall consider the effect of the proposed structure upon the character and value of the adjacent R District area; This finding is not applicable as the project is residential. I. The provision of permeable areas and drainage design appropriate to capture and treat stormwater runoff prior to its discharge from the site including, but not limited to, the use of vegetated swales, landscape features, permeable pavement materials, infiltration basins or engineered designs. The project complies with the residential zoning standards for permeable area onsite, including 60 percent of the required front yard and 40 percent of the entire site. 4. The Planning Commission makes the following additional findings in response to the stated reasons for the appeal, both as set forth below: A. Objections by Karen Saucier, Owner of 1826 Madison Avenue i. Ms. Saucier contends that the Plans and the Notice of Official Action incorrectly state the height of the project. In the appeal materials, the appellant states that the Notice of Official Action incorrectly reflects the maximum height of the structure at 20 feet. The appellant points to a maximum height of 20.3 feet at the front and 20.7 feet at the rear. The front elevation (sheet A-3), shows the height at 20 feet with a maximum height of 20.3 at the front elevation, accounting for roofing materials. ii. Ms. Saucier contends that the project’s external appearance would be demonstrably large and monotonous from any view, but particularly from her backyard.