3A Public Hearing 2008 0707 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Excerpts of Board of Zoning Adjustments Regular Meeting Minute No. 2008-10 Member Sidari's questions were as follows: May I5, 2008 Page S of S • Could the addition be put on a slab-on grade foundation to lower the roof height? Ms. Collier stated that it would bring the roof height down about one and one-half feet. • How much did the four-story apartment building shade those adjoining backyards at a certain time of day? It was about 20 feet from the rear fence and it was jogged. There were many trees in the backyard, so it was difficult to see the apartment house. The ground was in shade at all times on both 74 Williams and the apartment house. Only 78 Williams had a little bit of sun during the middle of the day. Motion to Close the Public Hearing (Shields/Gilcrest; 7 Ayes, 0 Noes) Member Gilcrest agreed with other Board Members who doubted that the shade impact would be greatly enhanced, since there was already an existing building due west. The configuration with the least impact would have been a detached two-story, second unit that was located all the way to the rear and past the neighbor's rear property line. However, that was not allowed in this district. Having attended all three hearings concerning this project, this design would clearly impact the neighbors the least, and it was 20 percent less in size than was originally proposed. Was it out of character with the surrounding buildings? In terms of square footage of lot coverage of other parcels in the neighborhood, existing covered garages and other buildings existed in most of the back yards to the west; there was a mix across the street and on the street behind Williams. However, it was larger than were the adjoining homes. This was the first project within the new zoning district. The Council clearly wanted not only the 39 specific project sites that were mentioned in the TOD, but they had passed the general areas that were expected to accommodate increased density throughout the downtown area. The character of the neighborhood would inevitably change as the new zoning was complied with. Was this too drastic a change and would it impact the neighborhood too much? Since this project was equal to a house addition that staff would approve, then he would support the application. Member Sidari concurred. Since the Zoning Enforcement Officer would approve this addition as asingle-family home, there was no difference in approving it as a duplex. Motion to Approve PLN2008-00003 with all recommended conditions (Pearson/Shields; 7 Ayes, 0 Noes) Secretary Penaranda announced that the Board of Zoning Adjustments decisions were final and could be appealed to the City Council by filing a form with the City Clerk within 15 calendar days of the approval, which would be the end of the business day on Friday, May 30, 2008. The form shall specifically state the reason for the appeal. An appeal fee was required. END OF EXCERPTS OF MINUTES