This document summarizes a community development project proposing a new single-family home on Oakview E between Broadway and Vanderhoeven. The proposed home would be 25 feet 4 inches tall with stucco and metal siding and a metal roof. It would cover 37% of the 10,100 square foot lot and have a floor area ratio of 47%, exceeding the maximum allowed. Fourteen nearby property owners opposed the project while none supported or remained neutral. The Architectural Review Board recommended approval but City Council tabled a decision and asked the applicant to discuss concerns further with staff.

1. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Presented by:
Lety Hernandez
Director
ARB CASE NO. 853F
164 OAKVIEW E
ITEM # 7
SEPTEMBER 13, 2021

2. PROPERTY
 SF - A
 Oakview E
 Between Broadway
and Vanderhoeven
 New Single-Family with
detached accessory

3. EXISTING SITE PLAN

4. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS  Proposed height – 25ft 4-inches
o Stucco and wood look metal siding
o Standing Seam Metal Roof

10. POLICY ANALYSIS
Lot Coverage Existing Proposed
Lot Area 10,100 10,100
Main House 0 2,521
Front Porch 0 144
Side Porch 0 158
Rear Porch 0 339
Carport w/Storage 0 616
Lot Coverage / Lot Area 0 3,778/10,100
Total Lot Coverage 0% 37%
Floor Area Ratio Existing Proposed
Lot Area 10,100 10,100
Main 1st Floor 0 2,860
Main 2nd Floor 0 1,258
Carport w/Storage 0 616
FAR / Lot Area 0 4,734/10,100
Total FAR 0% 47%
(Max – 40%)
(Max – 45% or 50% with Bonuses)
*.02 bonus for single story accessory structure

11. POLICY ANALYSIS
 Architectural Review Board heard case at the July 20,
2021 meeting
 Recommended approval of design as compatible
 City Council heard case at August 23, 2021 meeting
 Voted to table the case for the September 13, 2021
 Staff met with the applicant and owner on August 26,
2021 to discuss concerns of the surrounding property
owners and city staff related to completion of the latest
proposed project.

12. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
 Postcards - mailed to property owners within a 200-foot
radius
 Notices posted - City website and on property
 Responses received:
 Support: (0) Neutral: (0)
 Oppose: (14)