3A Public Hearing 2006 1204 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PLN2006-00074 (Appeal of the BZA Approval ofPLN2005-00063) 4 December 4,2006 height of 28 feet for the main home, which is reduced by two feet from the plans as approved by the BZA. The original plans for the carriage house show a roof height of24 feet. Staff notes that a question was raised during the August 31, 2006, meeting with the appellant and interested neighbors regarding the need for a variance for the placement of the in-law unit in front of the main dwelling. Staff review of the pertinent Zoning Code section on secondary dwelling units, Section 2-518, revealed that in-law units must follow accessory structure rules on setbacks but are not required to abide by the location requirements. As the in-law unit meets these setback requirements of a minimum 5- foot setback, the structure does not require a variance. Environmental Review This item is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Section 15303. A Negative Declaration and Initial Study was prepared and adopted by the City Council in approval of a Tentative Map for the l2-1ot subdivision in December 1989. This property was designated as Lot 9 in this subdivision. Staff has reviewed the original Negative Declaration and the Tentative Map that was approved by City Council in 1989. The proposed new home and in-law unit are in general conformance with the placement of the building pad approved for Lot 9. In addition, all conditions of approval for the Tentative Map have been completed by the subdivision developer. The discussion of moving the house toward the front of the property, mentioned in the appeal letter, was not supported by the Planning Commission in their review of the proposed Tentative Map in 1989, and no conditions of approval on the Tentative Map directed the applicant to modify its proposed lot configuration for Lot 9. The minutes from the 1989 Planning Commission and City Council hearings on the subdivision Tentative Map are attached to this report. Code Compliance Review Not applicable Board/Commission Findines The proposed dwelling and in-law unit would comply with the RS- VP District development standards for lot coverage, building setbacks and parking requirements. The main dwelling roof height of 28 feet and the in-law unit roof height of 24 feet both exceed the l8-foot height limit in the RS- VP District and as such require the Height Exception. On July 20, 2006, the Board of Zoning Adjustments conducted a pubic hearing on the Height Exception and Major Site Plan ReviewNiew Preservation. Staff provided a presentation of the project and recommended that the Board of Zoning Adjustments approve the project subject to conditions. During the hearing, comments were made by members of the public, both in favor and in opposition. The comments focused primarily on concerns about the size of the home, the building height and its placement on the hillside and the number of persons to be living at the home (minutes for the BZA meeting are in Attachment 6).