3A Public Hearing 2008 0707 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Excerpts of Board of Zoning Adjustm ents Regular Meeting May 15, 2008 Minute No. 2008-10 Page 4 of S believe that Ms. Johnson would not have bought her property if this addition had already been constructed at the time they considered buying their home. She did not know what else to say or do. With her brother-in-law living in the existing home and her son living in the new duplex unit, they did not plan to sell the property. Ms. Collier closed by stating they had originally proposed a design that was very similar to this one and staff had required atwo-story design to achieve covered parking. Every permutation had been gone through and here they were back with close to the original design. A lot of money and time had been spent revising the design. She did not know of anything else they could do. She had a house that was twice as large as her neighbors, and they came over to take advantage of whatever she had to offer. She had never received any complaints. She believed the neighbors will not be as unhappy as they think they will be when the project is finished. Lou Filipovich, 15376 Laverne Drive, stated the dilemma was that two people believed they were righteous and right as they could possibly be with what they want to do on an individual site. Looking at the minutes that had been included with the report, he asked if the height of the addition would be 16 feet or 22 feet. Questions were asked, according to those minutes, which were not asked at this meeting. What he did not like about this project was that the city would have to live with it and other property owners would expect to do the same. "One picture is worth a thousand words." He suggested that every property owner should speak with his insurance agent to discover what kind of insurance was available for his property in today's market. "San Leandro is not a city you want to live in to get insurance. You're way down on the list." Motion to Close the Public Hearing (Marc/Shields; 7 Ayes, 0 Noes) Member Pearson had difficulty understanding the shade issue, since the homes were the same length at this-time. He could not see that the addition would make any difference with regard to the shade. It seemed that the house was already shaded by the existing house. Member Shields asked the following questions: • Was length of the redesigned house the same length as it would have been in the former plans? Planner Penaranda replied the length of the house was longer by approximately two feet. • Would the original two-story addition have extended past the neighbor's rear property line? Yes, it would have. • Could the roof of the addition be redesigned to make it flatter to lower the ridgeline? Chair Goldt asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing again. Motion to open the Public Hearing (Daly/Sidari; 7 Ayes, 0 Noes) Could the roof of the addition be redesigned to make it flatter to lower the ridgeline? Ms. Collier stated that the Building Department did not like flat roofs. In fact, they generally did not like roofs designed with less than a 2:12 pitch. With most of her projects, the Building Department wanted the existing ridge and roof line to be matched. If the pitch of the roof were lowered, would it lower the roof about another foot? Yes.