EC 9.8370(2): The proposed modification will result in insignificant changes in the physical <br />appearance of the development, the use of the site, and impact on the surrounding <br />properties. <br />The modification to the final PUD applies to 18 lots on the west side of Lord Byron, which were <br />approved for attached housing. As described in the applicant's written statement, the modification <br />proposes the following: <br />Expand the housing type to include detached homes, thereby allowing the lots to be <br />developed with either attached or detached housing. The number of lots and homes would <br />11 <br />remain the same. <br />Shift the shared private driveway on the rear of the lots to the west by 10 feet, thereby <br />providing more available buildable area and additional opportunities for open space. <br />Establish minimum setbacks and open space requirements for the detached homes. <br />Clarify minimum setbacks for attached homes. <br />Clarify that both housing types have an allowed maximum building height of 30 feet, and may <br />be designed as 2, 2 % or 3 story buildings. <br />Clarify key design elements. (As the Hearing's Official's decision did not rely on the key design <br />elements in approving the townhomes or the rowhouses, a modification is not required to <br />change these elements. However, because they do appear on the approved final PUD plans, <br />the applicant has elected to have them reviewed as part of the modification.) <br />Public testimony raised many concerns that the conceptual designs for these dwelling are not <br />consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The testimony specifically called out the exterior <br />materials, roof pitch, door placement and other architectural details as being inconsistent with the <br />existing development on the east side of Lord Byron. However, as noted previously, neither the <br />tentative nor the final PUD approvals suggested, or prescribed, or otherwise required specific building <br />materials, design elements or architectural style. The approved final PUD plans specifically noted <br />that the elevations were only schematic. As such, specific buildings materials or design elements, <br />such paint color, exterior materials, door placement, roof pitch and window placement, are not <br />subject to this modification or the review by the city. Rather, these are the purview of the Crescent <br />Village architectural review committee. <br />Physical Appearance <br />As indicated on the final PUD plans, the building plans and elevations illustrate.basic unit types and <br />general character, and are intended to be schematic. The final unit designs are required to be similar <br />in form, scale, massing, and building placement on the lots, but other design details, such as room <br />layout, window placement, roof design, porch design and exterior materials, will vary. These <br />qualifications provide context in evaluating whether any modifications are insignificant under this <br />criterion. <br />A comparison of the approved final PUD plans (Sheet A3) with the site plans submitted with the <br />modification (Sheets A3 and A4, submitted August 13, 2012), demonstrates that the modification <br />results in development that is similar to the approved final PUD in form, scale, massing, and building <br />Crescent Village Phase 1 (MDA 12-3) September 2012 Page 12