3A Public Hearing 2008 0707 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Excerpts of Board of Zoning Adjustments Regular Meeting May ~S, 2008 Minute No. 2008-1 D Page 3 of 5 parking be handled? Would he have to put up with vehicles shuffling in and out of the driveway? Adding this duplex would change the affordability of the housing on this lot. The Housing Plan and the TOD specifically targeted 39 sites in the downtown area for higher density housing, and this parcel had not be identified as vacant or under utilized. He questioned building an addition that was much larger than the existing house for just two people. The General Plan talked about maintaining views, property values and, in his opinion, this project was similar to a tear-down, which was also prohibited by the Genera] Plan. He wanted something smaller than was currently planned and something that was in the character of the neighborhood. Julia Johnson, adjacent neighbor at 74 Williams, stated that she lived with Michael Cordero and her daughter. She gave a presentation similar to what she had given during the April 17th meeting. She agreed with the staff report that the occupancy of the addition would not have an impact on traffic, parking or create public health or safety risks. Her photos showed the interior of her home and the light that came through the windows. She showed how the angle of the sun, as it moved through the day, would affect the light that came into her kitchen from the windows on that side of the house adjacent to the proposed addition and how her kitchen and dining room, deck, and the back yard would be obstructed by shade after 4:00 p.m. The addition would extend 12 feet beyond the end of her lot, which would impede any breeze for her and other neighbors. According to the Zillow web site, property values in town had decrease almost 25 percent. Her mortgage broker told her than her home had already dropped almost 20 percent. Building a 16- foot high, 50-foot long structure four feet from her property line would not help her property value, as well as the property values of the surrounding neighborhood. She would not have bought her house last September, if this addition had been completed beforehand. Member Sidari asked if the addition was the same, but was not a duplex, would she still be opposed. Ms. Johnson replied that it would depend upon how far to the rear the construction was. Member Sidari asked, if this was just an addition and it was heard by the Zoning Enforcement Official (ZEO), would he approve it. Planner Penaranda stated that he had spoken with William Schock, ZEO, and he had stated that he would probably approve this project as an addition. Member Pearson asked to see the speaker's site plan to compare the two properties. Ms. Johnson pointed out where both houses ended, which was approximately the same. Sharon Christian, 78 Williams Street, stated that she was the applicant and she was before the Board for the third time. She stated that the Woolstons had a tandem garage and their vehicle was parked in front of their house. Ms. Johnson had atwo-story home with an avocado tree that covered the whole back yard (photos had been provided at the last meeting in April). They had no light in their backyard at the present time due to the tree and mature landscaping. She preferred to have the addition constructed as a duplex to avoid conflict between the two tenants about their utility charges. The first plan was what the city had requested and the neighbors complained. A second plan was created and the neighbors complained. This was the third time the design was drastically changed and the neighbors were still complaining. She had done everything she could to satisfy the city and the neighbors. The Johnson's two-story home shaded their neighbor's property and the whole street was a mix of duplexes and apartments. She did not