3A Public Hearing 2008 0707 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Excerpts of Board of Zoning Adjustments Regular Meeting March 6, 2008 Minute No. 2008-OS Page 2 of 5 the west, two-story homes and afour-story, 29 unit, apartment building to the rear, and other two-story homes on Williams. Using Virtual Earth web photos, the whole neighborhood could be seen. Photos were also taken from the deck and yard of the home at 74 Williams. Heavy, mature vegetation screened their views, particularly, of the apartment building at the rear. The addition would have an open carport to the rear of the ground floor living room and it would support the master bedroom on the second floor. A driveway was located on the west side of the project next to 82 Williams and afour-foot setback on the east of the site next to 74 Williams was preexisting. The roof would be low pitched, ceilings would be conventional height and the second story would be set back to maintain the single-story and split-level character of Williams Street. Member Daly asked what the average lot width was for the block. What was the zoning history of the neighborhood? Secretary Penaranda replied that most of the lots were less than 50 feet wide. He brought up the Alameda County Assessor's page to illustrate. The neighborhood was zoned Residential/Mufti-Family, one unit for every 1,800 square feet, before becoming part of the Transit Oriented Development Area (TOD) and rezoned to DA Downtown Area District. Esther Collier, contractor, stated the applicants had purchased the property approximately 25 years ago and they had originally planned to build a second home at the rear of the property.. With current zoning changes, they were now allowed to build a second unit that was substantially attached to the first unit. The design had been difficult because it had to meet off- street parking requirements on a narrow lot. The front home was currently occupied by one person and the addition would be occupied by the applicants' son. Member Daly asked when the zoning was changed in this neighborhood. Would the original zoning have allowed a second house to be built? Had there been a restriction on the lot size? Secretary Penaranda stated that zoning had changed just a few months ago. A second unit would have been allowed but not a detached home. The lot would have had to be 10,000 square feet, so a Conditional Use Permit would still have been necessary. Member Shields asked if two parking stalls would be uncovered and two would be covered. Ms. Collier stated that the carport was technically not a carport, because a solid wall would be supporting the master bedroom and bath, which would provide the cover for two parking spaces. A parking pad would be behind to accommodate two more vehicles. Chair Goldt opened the public hearing. Sharon Christian, applicant and owner, stated that her brother-in-law lived in the existing home and her son would live in the new addition. Member Daly asked where the speaker resided. Ms. Christian replied that they lived at 1284 Dutton. When they originally bought the home, it was zoned R7 or R8.