DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. Steinert Residence. Belinda Ann Deines, Planning Technician (949)

Transcription

1 CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: July 12,2012 TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CASE: Design Review Coastal Development Permit Revocable Encroachment Permit APPLICANT: Gregg Abel (949) OWNER: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENT AL STATUS: Steinert Residence APN In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 (a) (New Construction) that allows construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone. PREPARED BY: Belinda Ann Deines, Planning Technician (949) REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant requests design review and a coastal development permit to construct a new ~ 3,597 square-foot single-family residence and attached two-car garage in the R-1 zone. Design review is required for the new structure, elevated decks, grading, retaining walls, spa and landscaping. A revocable encroachment permit is required to allow enhanced paving within the public right-of-way. BACKGROUND: The Design Review Board initially heard the proposed project on May 24, Board members were supportive of the overall design with some minor modifications. The Board continued the project to address issues related to mass and scale, plate and roof heights, volume, retaining walls and impervious surface area. STAFF ANALYSIS: Revised plans include a living area addition of 23 square feet on the upper entry level floor to relocate the door that internally connects the house to the garage. Footings and retaining walls on the main level have been redesigned with an addition of 93 square feet of mechanical area. Void areas are proposed to remain as fill, enclosed and unfinished.

2 DR 12-7/:'1ICDP REP July 12,2012 Page 2 of3 In order to address the Board's concerns for volume and scale, plate heights have been reduced from 9'-8" to 8'-11" on the main floor and from 9'-5" to 8'-10" on the upper floor. All finished floors have been lowered 12 inches with the exception of the garage (in order to maintain an average driveway grade of 10 percent). Retaining walls along the north and west elevations have been reduced by lowering the finished surface elevation of the terraces relative to new landscaping. Additional plantings replace areas previously proposed as decomposed granite. Impervious surface area remains unchanged at 62.9 percent of total lot area. No changes lighting plan are proposed. Coastal Development Permit: The proposed project constitutes development for which a Coastal Development Permit is required since the improvements result in a new structure within the coastal zone. The Design Review Board may consider the following findings for approval: Finding 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the General Plan, including the Certified Local Coastal Program and any applicable specific plans in that the alteration of natural landforms has been minimized due to the building design which is within the allowable height limit, cut into the slope and stepped to follow the contours of the slope (1 E); Finding 3: The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act in that the proposed project is in compliance with the applicable rules and regulations set forth in the Municipal Code and will not cause any significant adverse impacts on the environment (3A). Revocable Encroachment Permit: The applicant proposes enhanced driveway pavers within the public right-of-way. A revocable encroachment permit may be granted by the Design Review Board if the improvements will not interfere with the present and prospective public use of a street or right-of-way and will generally conform to the following requirements: a) It should be located in a manner that is not hazardous to the traveling public, including motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; b) It should be sufficiently set back from the edge of pavement or street centerline to provide adequate travel, parking and walking lanes; c) It should not conflict with preexisting public utility structures, especially hydrants, vault and service meters in any manner that necessitates relocation thereof at public expense or causes any other unacceptable interference, including impediments to the maintenance, relocation or repair of pipelines, conduits or substructures of any public utility; d) It will not preclude public access, use or enjoyment of any area that has historically established such access, use or enj oyment; e) It is not precedent setting in nature to the extent that it creates a noticeable projection into the streetscape as established by existing construction and improvements on neighboring properties; and f) It does not create structures of unusual or unacceptable appearance, form, shape or height that detract from the general quality of the streetscape.

3 DR 12-7/7/CDP REP July 12,2012 Page 3 of3 COMMUNITY INTEREST: There have been no letters or telephone calls received by the city as of the date of this report. CONCLUSION: The proposed modifications to the plans appear in line with the direction given by the Design Review Board at the first hearing. The applicant proposes to construct a new single-family residence under 3,600 square feet in gross floor area. The Design Review Board may grant a revocable encroachment permit for enhanced pavers in the public right-ofway, subject to the standard review criteria. ATTACHMENTS: DRB Meeting Minutes and Staff Report - 5/24112 Letter from Applicant

4 VAN DYKE DRIVE, APN (Staf/Assist), CONTINUED TO JULY 12, 2012 DESIGN REVIEW , COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT , REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION The applicant requests design review and a coastal development permit to construct a new 3,574 squarefoot single-family residence and attached two-car garage in the R-l Zone. Design review is required for the new structure, elevated decks, retaining walls, grading, spa and landscaping. A revocable encroachment permit is required to allow enhanced paving within the public right-of-way. Project Representative: Designer Gregg Abel presented the project. He said one of the positive issues of the house is the elevation and the owner lives next door. He said the house will be white. The color on the elevation does not represent the correct color. They are providing parking and great efforts are being made to keep the house energy efficient. The clients are interested in keeping the house sustainable with gardens and orchids. Board Questions: In response to Ms. Zur Schmiede, Mr. Steinle said the Carolina Cherry Compacta grows to around fifteen feet and the Carolina Cherry can grow to twenty-five feet. He said the maximum height of the trees will be maintained at fifteen feet. Mr. Rosenbaum said the only house affected would be 1070 Van Dyke. Mr. Steinle said he would be willing to delete the Carolina Cherry and change them all to the Carolina dwarf. Mr. Abel said the towers and arches will articulate the house. He said he will stay with a cool white and a tri-color on the roof. In reply to Ms. Liuzzi, Mr. Steinle said the lights are on a switch and they are step lights. He would be willing to eliminate ten lights. In reply to Mr. Sadler, Mr. Rosenbaum said the Revocable Encroachment Permit was needed for the fire turn around. The grade drops from the street to the property at ten feet. The asphalt will extend to the planting area. Board Comments: Mr. Wilkes said it is a nice project. His first impression was that it appears larger than 3,600 square feet and realizes it is under the threshold. It steps extremely well and it is well articulated. But it has the appearance of four levels. It does a good job covering an 8, 800 square-foot lot. There are large plate heights and a minimum of open space requirements. The pervious surfaces are 63% on an 8,800 square-foot lot. The retaining walls at certain angles give the appearance of another level. Some of the wall heights exceed five feet. The vaulted ceiling and roof height give it a grander appearance. He thinks the height of the upper level should be addressed and some reductions should be made. It is too high. He suggested additional planting and terracing at the bottom and brake up the larger walls with smaller ones. The lot can support a 3,600 square-foot dwelling but it appears as more. Ms. Lenschow had the same impression as Mr. Wilkes. The lowest floor gives it the impression of a fourth story. The Tuscany style gives it a heavy look. The landscaping will not hide much of the structure. She suggested reducing the height of the structure and landscaping the terraces. It is well articulated. However, it seems too much for the neighborhood. Mr. Sadler said it is well designed and articulated. From the front it appears as a one story structure. It follows the topography and steps with the slope. There are no privacy issues. There are places that larger plate heights are acceptable. He said the impervious services should be improved. The lot can support this size of home with these three levels. He is not proposing any changes to the structure. He is close to supporting the project. Ms. Liuzzi said her biggest issue is the west elevation. She suggested moving the wall at the garage. She likes the style. The archways are adding mass. She suggested bringing the top elevation down. She thinks the massing needs to be worked and bring the height down. She is Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board Agenda -13- May 24, 2012

5 close to approving it. Ms. Zur Schmiede agrees with the other Board members that it is a great location for this house. The house was designed well to comply with all the design guidelines, the size of the house fits on the lot. She concurs with Mr. Wilkes. It is about volume. The lower level has nine foot plate heights; the middle level is nine feet eight inches, the top level nine feet five inches with vaulted ceilings of three feet. This creates a lot of volume. She suggested reducing the plate heights and to lower the volume. There are no neighbor concerns. Ms. Liuzzi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Wilkes, to continue Design Review and Coastal Development Permit and Revocable Encroachment Permit to the meeting of July 12, The motion carried unanimously. Motion CL Seconded MW Grant Deny Cont Y Unan. Y Lenschow Y Liuzzi Y Sadler Y Wilkes Y Zur Schmiede Y SIGN REVIEW , COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTI licant requests design review and a coastal development permit to construct a new 5,363 square oot singlefamily ell ing and attached three-car garage in the R-l Zone. Design review is required to c struct a new structure, s lights, additional covered parking space, air conditioning units, elevated decks, p. I, spa, grading, retaining wall, water feature, landscaping, fuel modification plan and construction in an envi nmentally sensitive area due to open ace preserve and water qual ity. Project Represen tive: Consultant Steve Kawaratani gave a brief histo of the property. He said an extension of. e was denied because a subsequent home was pproved that was lower than the first approval. e said all of the lots had steep topography cept for this one. This lot is level. He asked the board t consider this project as being site spe Iie compared to other lots. Designer Paul McClean direc d the Board to the model presented. He said the model illustrates what happens if you p this house at the sa level as the house next store. It is a bigger and flatter lot. He referred to xhibit "D". It il strates how the topography changes. If you apply the same logic to this lot, al at is visib is a solid wall. It is a transitional lot. He said they moved it to the south creating a rge lic view. It is an IL'-shaped lower level plan that focuses the view to the north. There wi '11 be a wall and the view will be focused to the north. The lower level was pulled back ely inches and the upper level was pulled back sixteen feet. Beebe Parineh, owner, said she has have a home here in Laguna. una most of her life. She is excited to Public Testimony: Ginger 0 orne, Santa Rosa, said th e houses have been built on five of the tract lots fronting Al Laguna. They were carefully constra' ed to preserve views. This is the best view ever. No of the previously built homes extend thre feet above the street. The proposed is eight fee igher than the other homes. She said reversing height restrictions will set a precedent ca g problems when the other home is designed and bui Mark Mani, 3 Bonn, recapped the letter he submitted to the board. He said ree homes have been built aer the current standards of the settlement agreement. He would ha thought that the own s would have known that there were restrictions on the lot. This house is,00 square feet 1 ger than the previously approved one. It is much higher than the existing ho s. He str gly suggests denying the project. arey Strombotny, 2868 Chillon, said this is not a transitional lot. There were five designated 10 Board of AdjustmentlDesign Review Board Agenda -14- May 24, 2012

6 CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: May 24,2012 TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CASE: Design Review Coastal Development Permit Revocable Encroachment Permit APPLICANT: Gregg Abel (949) OWNER: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Steinert Residence APN In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3(a) (New Construction) that allows construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone. PREPARED BY: Belinda Ann Deines, Planning Technician (949) REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant requests design review and a coastal development permit to construct a new 3,574 square-foot single-family residence and attached two-car garage in the R-1 zone. Design review is required for the new structure, elevated decks, grading, retaining walls, spa and landscaping. A revocable encroachment permit is required to allow enhanced paving within the public right-of-way. BACKGROUND: Staff conducted a pre-application site meeting with the owner and applicant on March 16, Preliminary staking was encouraged early on in the design process since the property is vacant and located in a view sensitive area. In 1977, City Council approved Land Division 77-15, which specifies a condition that vehicular turnaround be provided upon development of the site. City Council allowed that the turnaround requirement could be provided within the public right-of-way. The proposed project includes a turnaround design satisfactory to the City Engineer and Fire Department. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject site is zoned R-1 (Residential Low Density) with a General Plan designation of "Village Low Density." The 8,798 square-foot parcel is a located on the north side of Van Dyke Drive toward the end of the cul-de-sac. The topography of the lot is

7 DR CDP REP May 24, 2012 Page 2 of6 relatively steep with a downhill slope of approximately 26.7 percent. The subject site is bound by surrounding properties as follows : Zone General Plan Existing Use North RHP RHP Single-Family Dwelling East R-1 VLD Single-Family Dwelling South R-1 VLD Single-Family Dwellings West R-1 VLD Single-Family Dwelling Project Site R-1 VLD Vacant Lot (proposed singlefamily dwellin~) STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant proposes to construct a three-bedroom single-family residence with three levels of living area and an attached two-car garage. The new residence accommodates 1,696 square feet on the first floor, 1,S29 square feet on the second floor and 329 square feet on the third floor. The project includes a S02 square-foot two-car garage and 774 square feet of deck area. The project has been reviewed through zoning plan check and has completed all applicable department reviews including Fire, Public Works and Water Quality. Prior to completion of this report, staff observed the current staking that appears neighborhood compatible. Property Development Standards and Zoning Ordinance Consistency: Project Summary Tables indicate that the proposed structure is in compliance with all setback, height and lot coverage requirements for the R-1 zone. Property development standards specific to each zone are intended to provide the City with maximum flexibility and discretion in the decision making process. Design Review Criteria: Pursuant to Section 2S.0S.040(H) of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code ("LBMC"), physical improvements and site developments subject to design review shall be designed to best satisfy the intent and purpose of design review. In reviewing the applicant's request for Design Review , staff has conducted a thorough analysis of the proposed project and associated provisions set forth below: Access: Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation. Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes. Access and street improvements will be required for new construction at the subject site. The new driveway conforms at an average 10 percent downward slope. An on-street parking space will be provided with new asphalt street paving within the right-of-way. Minimum requirements for onsite turnaround have been provided in the driveway area. The two-car garage satisfies the parking requirement for a single-family residence less than 3,600 square feet in floor area. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to,

8 DR 12-7 I~"CDP REP May 24, 2012 Page 2 of6 relatively steep with a downhill slope of approximately 26.7 percent. The subject site is bound by surrounding properties as follows: Zone General Plan Existing Use North RHP RHP Single-Family Dwelling East R-l VLD Single-Family Dwelling South R-l VLD Single-Family Dwellings West R-l VLD Single-Family Dwelling Project Site R-l VLD Vacant Lot (proposed singlefamily dwelling) STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant proposes to construct a three-bedroom single-family residence with three levels of living area and an attached two-car garage. The new residence accommodates 1,696 square feet on the first floor, 1,529 square feet on the second floor and 329 square feet on the third floor. The project includes a 502 square-foot two-car garage and 774 square feet of deck area. The project has been reviewed through zoning plan check and has completed all applicable department reviews including Fire, Public Works and Water Quality. Prior to completion of this report, staff observed the current staking that appears neighborhood compatible. Property Development Standards and Zoning Ordinance Consistency: Project Summary Tables indicate that the proposed structure is in compliance with all setback, height and lot coverage requirements for the R -1 zone. Property development standards specific to each zone are intended to provide the City with maximum flexibility and discretion in the decision making process. Design Review Criteria: Pursuant to Section (H) of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code ("LBMC"), physical improvements and site developments subject to design review shall be designed to best satisfy the intent and purpose of design review. In reviewing the applicant's request for Design Review , staff has conducted a thorough analysis of the proposed project and associated provisions set forth below: Access: Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation. Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes. Access and street improvements will be required for new construction at the subject site. The new driveway conforms at an average 10 percent downward slope. An on-street parking space will be provided with new asphalt street paving within the right-of-way. Minimum requirements for onsite turnaround have been provided in the driveway area. The two-car garage satisfies the parking requirement for a single-family residence less than 3,600 square feet in floor area. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to,

9 DR :1/CDP REP May 24, 2012 Page 3 of6 separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of anyone element in the structure may be used to reduce the appearance ofmass. The project includes construction of a new two-story residence with an attached three-car garage. Since the structure is set back further from the street than adjacent properties, it does not significantly contribute to the mass and scale from street view. The structure steps along the lot slope with offset levels to reduce scale and adhere to hillside guidelines. Side elevations include a variety of windows, wall offsets and architectural elements provide visual interest and help break up large wall plane lengths and heights. Plate heights range from 9'-0" to 9' -8" on each level. The design includes retaining walls in the front to allow for additional vehicular back up area in the driveway. Design Integrity. Consistency with the applicant's chosen style of architecture should be achieved by the use ofappropriate materials and details. Remodels should be harmonious with the remaining existing architecture. The applicant describes the proposed structure as Spanish style architecture. In order to achieve this style, the design incorporates curves and arches, tower-like chimney and arcade on the lower level. The color and material sample board includes clay tile roofing, off-white smooth stucco, black wrought iron and wood timbers and trim. Environmental Context. Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city's scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock outcropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized. No environmental constraints are associated with this site. Proposed grading includes a net of 87 cubic yards of fill outside of the building footprint and 287 cubic yards of cut inside of the building footprint for a total of 200 cubic yards of export. The structure appears to blend grading with the natural topography while adhering to grading and hillside guidelines. A preliminary geotechnical report has been submitted and reviewed for peer review. In terms of air quality, the applicant proposes one interior gas fireplace for the living room. The applicant proposes approximately 62.9 percent of the total lot area as impervious surface area. General Plan Compliance. The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the general plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program. The proposed single-family residence is in compliance with the current General Plan Land Use Designation for the subject site under Village Low Density. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part ofthe structure's design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes. View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines

10 DR 12-7/7/CDP REP May 24, 2012 Page 4 of6 contained in the city's "Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document" should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance ofproposed landscaping. The project site is vacant and all existing landscaping will be removed. The subject site is located within the Neighborhood Landscape Area 8 (Diamond/Crestview) as specified in the City's Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. The applicant provided a new landscaping plan and no existing landscaping will remain. The City's landscape consultant concluded that the Ligustrum, Melaleuca, Laurus, Prunus and Ceanothus could exceed hedge height restrictions. The minimum 25.5 percent landscape open space requirement has been achieved with planted areas in the front and rear of the lot. Lighting and Glare. Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, high-gloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties. Sheet El illustrates exterior lighting for the structure, with Sheet L-2 identifying proposed landscape lighting. Lighting should illuminate functional aspects of the project such as safety and pedestrian access while minimizing impacts upon neighboring properties. The following lighting fixtures are proposed for the site: Lighting Type Wall Lantern (maximum 20 watts) 5 Flood down lights on tree strap 6 Copper wall lights 37 Wall fountain down light 1 Quantity Neighborhood Compatibility. Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the city, including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles. Pattern of development along the north side of Van Dyke Drive reflects multiple story singlefamily residences with a one-story appearance from street view. Most homes are concealed by fencing and mature landscaping along the street. The RembrandtNan Dyke/Summit Way portion of the Diamond/Crestview neighborhood is densely developed with narrow streets. Most residences have ocean views, and are a mixture of 1940s-1950s era homes and newer custom houses. Design Review Board should consider new development with visible mass that conforms to the scale of the neighborhood. \ '.

11 DR 12-7 I~IICDP REP Van Dyke Drive May 24, 2012 Page 5 of6 Privacy. The placement of activity areas (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimized. New windows, decks, terraces and outdoor living areas do not appear to impact adjacent neighbors. No other privacy issues have been identified. Swimming Pools, Spas, Water Features and Mechanical Equipment: Swimming pools, spas and water features shall be located, designed and constructed where: (a) Geology conditions allow; (b) Noise produced by circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and (c) Any associated fencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties. An in-ground spa will be centrally located toward the rear of the lot, with equipment maintaining a six-foot side setback in an enclosed vault. The design includes a water feature along a retaining wall in the east side yard. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the city's "Design Guidelines." The "Design Guidelines" are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property. The proposed structure does not appear to impact cross views from neighbors to the east and south of the subject site. Proposed trees may reach a mature height of 1 0 to 25 feet as specified on the landscape plan. Hedges along the side and rear property lines will be maintained at 1 0 feet in height. Staff is not aware of any concerns from neighbors regarding any specific view impacts. Guideline Violations: None. Requested Variances: None. Nonconforming Conditions: None. Coastal Development Permit: The proposed project constitutes development for which a Coastal Development Permit is required since the improvements result in a new structure within the coastal zone. The City'S determination is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission. The Design Review Board may consider the following findings for approval: Finding 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the General Plan, including the Certified Local Coastal Program and any applicable specific plans in that the alteration of natural landforms has been minimized due to the building design which is within the allowable height limit, cut into the slope and stepped to follow the contours of the slope (IE);

12 DR 12-7'I/I~DP REP May 24, 2012 Page 6 of6 Finding 3: The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act in that the proposed project is in compliance with the applicable rules and regulations set forth in the Municipal Code and will not cause any significant adverse impacts on the environment (3A). Revocable Encroachment Permit: The applicant proposes enhanced pavers for the driveway approach within the public right-of-way. A revocable encroachment permit may be granted by the Design Review Board if the improvements will not interfere with the present and prospective public use of a street or right-of-way and will generally conform to the following requirements: a) It should be located in a manner that is not hazardous to the traveling public, including motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; b) It should be sufficiently set back from the edge of pavement or street centerline to provide adequate travel, parking and walking lanes; c) It should not conflict with preexisting public utility structures, especially hydrants, vault and service meters in any manner that necessitates relocation thereof at public expense or causes any other unacceptable interference, including impediments to the maintenance, relocation or repair of pipelines, conduits or substructures of any public utility; d) It will not preclude public access, use or enjoyment of any area that has historically established such access, use or enjoyment; e) It is not precedent setting in nature to the extent that it creates a noticeable proj ection into the streetscape as established by existing construction and improvements on neighboring properties; and f) It does not create structures of unusual or unacceptable appearance, form, shape or height that detract from the general quality of the streetscape. COMMUNITY INTEREST: There have been no letters or telephone calls received by the city as of the date of this report. CONCLUSION: The applicant proposes to develop a vacant building site with a new singlefamily residence for infill development within the existing neighborhood. The project conforms to the required development standards for a single-family residence in the R-1 zone. Building height has been scaled to terrace with the existing grade of the lot. The structure should be designed to minimize the impact upon the existing streetscape and neighborhood. The Board should evaluate the impacts to immediately adjacent properties and determine whether there are neighborhood compatibility, view equity, landscaping and/or privacy issues that have not been addressed. ATTACHMENTS: Project Summary Tables Pre-Application Site Meeting Evaluation Color and Materials Sample Board Vicinity Map Oblique Photo