Laserfiche WebLink
the houses to meet the noise standards of a multiple family dwelling unit to <br />reduce noise impacts. <br />iii. Consider 22' -0" overall height. <br />E. The applications were again considered by the Planning Commission on June 28, <br />2006, which remanded the applications to the Development Review Committee for final action <br />with the following directions: <br />The house on Lot 1 shall be one story. <br />ii. The height of the house on Lot 2 shall be reduced by 1.5 feet. <br />iii. The roof color on Lot 2 shall be darkened to ensure it is not a red clay tile <br />roof. <br />F. The applications were considered by the Development Review Committee on <br />September 26, 2006, which acted to approve the proposed plans based on the finding that the <br />applicant's revisions met the direction of the Planning Commission. This decision was appealed <br />by a neighboring resident. <br />G. An appeal of the Development Review Committee's decision was considered by <br />the Planning Commission on October 25, 2006, which acted to grant the appeal to deny the <br />applications. The Planning Commission based its decision on the finding that its intention from <br />the June 28, 2006 hearing was to reduce the square footage of both houses to the 2,200 -2,400 sq <br />ft. range as well as reduce the height of the house on Lot 1 to one - story. The requirement to <br />reduce the size of the homes was not in their motion. <br />E. The applicant /appellant claims that the Planning Commission erred or abused its <br />discretion in that the houses are compatible with the neighborhood in terms of the proposed <br />square footages, number of stories and that the subject lots are among the larger lot sizes in the <br />neighborhood, which allows a larger floor area ratio (FAR). <br />