3A Public Hearing 2008 0707 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Excerpts of Board ojZoning Adjustments Regular Meeting May 15, 2008 Minute No. 2008-IO Page 2 oj5 one-story design however made it impossible to construct the required two covered parking spaces. Therefore, two uncovered spaces at the rear and the long driveway could accommodate many more vehicles than was required. Member Daly asked what the ridge height of the existing roof was. If the applicants had planned to just add onto the existing home, without making the addition a duplex, would they have had to come before this Board for approval? Planner Penaranda replied that the ridge was approximately 16 feet high. The average height was 14 feet. No, if the design was just an addition to the existing home, it would have undergone a Site Plan Review by the Zoning Enforcement Official. Member Sidari asked if three parking spaces would be provided for two families. If there were a car in the driveway, could some other car parked at the rear get out? Planner Penaranda stated that up to seven vehicles could be parked off street on the long driveway. The parking would be a tandem arrangement. Member Daly asked how many spaces could be parked in the rear without blocking the driveway. Planner Penaranda answered that two spaces would be available. Member Shields asked how far the two parking spaces were from the rear property line. Planner Penaranda stated that about three feet would be left over to the property line. Esther Collier, Contractor, stated that she had drawn the plans and was happy to answer questions. She agreed to comply with all conditions. Member Sidari asked if three vehicles were parked in the driveway, would all three vehicles have to be moved in order for the vehicles parked in the rear to leave the property. Ms. Collier did not believe that would happen, since just one person would live in each unit. However, since the two people were relatives, there should be no problems if one of them had a party and parking occurred in the driveway. The driveway would be 10 feet wide, so it would not be difficult to back a vehicle out. This kind of parking was common in other areas. Chair Goldt opened the Public Hearing. Peter Woolston, adjacent resident at 82 Williams, gave, essentially, the same arguments as he had presented at the April meeting. This addition would be larger than his house and the two units would be about twice the size of his house. He agreed that this addition was allowed in this district, but this was not the place to do it. This was a substandard lot. If the lot was 50 feet wide it would be very different from the actual lot width of 40 feet. The distance from either side of the addition to the property lines on each side would be much greater and there would not be the problem with air and light blockage. The ridgeline would block the morning light in his backyard. In his opinion, 70 percent of the lots on the street had single-family homes on them and the character of the single-family neighborhood would not be preserved, as required by the General Plan. He wondered what would happen if the duplex were sold and haw would the