3A Public Hearing 2008 0707 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Excerpts of Board of Zoning Adjustments Regular Meeting March 6, 2008 Minute No. 2008-OS Page 4 of S existing home and it did not extend to behind the existing house where the addition would be constructed. The view from the applicant's property to the neighbor's property at 74 Williams was screened by huge trees. Other than actually physically walking into their back yard, you would not be aware of anything being back there. This long, narrow building was designed to accommodate the access to the covered and uncovered parking as was required by the City. Motion to Close the Public Hearing (Sidari/Shields; 5 Ayes, 0 Noes, 2 Absent-Harr, Pearson) Member Sidari asked if staff had studied how sunlight, or lack of sunlight, would flow across the neighbor's property from this project. Secretary Penaranda replied that two-story development was not prohibited on Williams Street, so no formal solar study had been performed. Member Shields asked if the same kind of sunlight situation would result from atwo-story addition across the City. Was it comparatively unusual for a second story to be added in this area of town? Secretary Penaranda stated that the process was the same throughout the City. Flat roofs were not encouraged, although roofs were required to have a shallow pitch to avoid the boxy look of the 1960s. Two-story structures that faced Thornton Avenue were similar to what was proposed here and could be seen in the aerial photo. Member Sidari asked if the story poles were meant to show if light or air would be taken away from the neighbors. It seemed that the poles did not mean anything if the addition could be built anyway. Secretary Penaranda stated that he was correct. However, the addition could be built only if the BZA agreed with the project. Member Gilcrest knew that the Council had adopted new codes regarding shapes, planes and 45-degree angle limitations on roofs and setbacks. Did these drawings predate or post-date that and was this project in compliance with those new Zoning Codes. Secretary Penaranda replied that the daylight plane rule applied to residential districts and it did not apply to the DA, commercial mixed-use, Downtown Area, North Area and South Area zoning. Member Daly remembered how the neighborhood looked in the 1960s. He worried that if this project were approved, potentially in the future there would be no more single-family homes in the neighborhood. Duplexes were allowed on lots that were a minimum of 50 feet wide. This lot was 40 feet wide, which was 20 percent too narrow and that was very significant. A 5,200 square foot lot was, primarily, asingle-family lot. His concern was parking, if the property ever changed hands. Chair Goldt suggested tabling the project to allow time for the applicants and their architect to make some changes. Member Gilcrest felt that the single-family nature of the neighborhood had been negated when the Council decided to change the zoning of some districts to DA Districts where increased