31B - 711 EASTSIDE DRIVE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Variance Nos. 07-07, 07-08 and 07-11 January 28, 2008 Page 4 front yard setback, based on staff's review and comments from the Planning Commission, in order to provide a sufficient amount of living space for the home and an architecturally pleasing front facade, the front yard setback was encroached upon. Although the proposed residence does encroach into the front yard setback, because the property is located on a cul-de-sac, the front wall falls in line with the other homes on the street, thus not interrupting the existing pattern of development (Exhibit 7) . The encroachment into this setback has allowed the residence to gain needed living space and provide an architecturally appropriate front porch. By maintaining the existing development pattern along the street the project is supporting Policy 3.5 of the Land Use Element, which encourages new development that is compatible in scale and is consistent with the architectural style and character of the neighborhood. By developing a vacant parcel of land, this proposal is also consistent with Policy 3.1 of the Land Use Element which encourages development that provides a positive contribution to neighborhood character and identity. Finally, this project supports Policy 4.1.6 of the Housing Element in the City's General Plan by developing vacant and underutilized land for residential purposes. On September 24, 2007, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing for the project. During the hearing, several issues were raised regarding the architectural design of the project as well as the size of the living space compared to other homes in the neighborhood. A study of the surrounding neighborhood revealed that the square footage of the home and the proposed number of bedrooms and bathrooms was substantially similar to the average for the neighborhood. In response to the architectural design, the elevations were revised to attempt to address the Commissions concerns. On October 22, 2007, the Planning Commission again opened a public hearing for the project. Although the applicant had revised the plans in order to address the Commissions previous comments, the Commission continued to express concerns with the architecture and style of the proposed project. The Planning Commission continued the hearing for an additional month in order to allow the applicant to revise the plans to address the various design issues. 31 B-5