10A Action 2011 0718 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Board of Zoning Adjustments Regular Meeting Minutes June 2, 2011 Agenda No. 11-06 Page 7 of 8 raising window sill heights a bit on the second story of the proposed addition might allay one of the neighbor's concerns. It may not be required, but being a good neighbor is part of what San Leandro is about. Member Palma said that she's found tacked -on additions rampant in the Davis West neighborhood and some were quite ugly. In this case, she said, the applicant's design isn't distasteful, but she's concerned about serious impacts on the appellant, and has observed a number of other objections being made in a short timeframe since the story poles were erected. She said that she'd like to see an alternative design considered that has less impact on the appellant. Chair Daly asked staff if there's a process by which sill height could be reviewed. According to ZEO Schock, the applicant has been asked to come back with a revision to the windows to address the privacy concern, and ZEO Schock will review it then to decide whether it satisfies the requirements. For the record, ZEO Schock added that while the appellant suggests that as ZEO he has the power to direct applicants to do an addition the way he wants it done or to explore alternative designs, in reality, the Zoning Code does not give him that authority. He is charged with determining whether a project comports with requirements. In this instance, he said that the Zoning Code permits this structure by right. While he doesn't dictate design, ZEO Schock continued, the code does give him a say about whether the design is architecturally cohesive, but that authority wasn't codified at the time second stories were added to some of the houses mentioned in many parts of San Leandro including the Davis West neighborhood. In response to a question from Chair Daly, ZEO Schock explained how the daylight plane is determined on the basis of a ratio between side yard setbacks and building height. In the case of the 908 Dowling Boulevard proposal, he said it is well within the guidelines and the proposal would still have met daylight plane requirements with taller walls and a higher roof with a steeper pitch. Vice Chair Houston asked whether the 30 -foot maximum second -story height that Planner Hamer mentioned earlier applies to the wall or the topmost point of the roof. Planner Hamer said that the maximum height would be the height of the roof at its tallest point. Member Mendieta said that he is torn. On the one hand, he said, staff has considered all of the requirements and determined that the application is in compliance with regulations. He also understands the economic realities of expanding a home and the need to keep costs under control. On the other hand, he found Mr. Metaxas very persuasive in addressing the problems from his perspective via the model he built and the Photoshop picture he showed. Vice Chair Houston, alluding to the same appeal that Member Makin mentioned, said that among the most difficult tasks the BZA faces are situations such as this one. It's very difficult because homeowners have both emotional and financial investments at stake. Under the circumstances, she said that the BZA has to go back and examine the Zoning Code for compliance because the Board is chartered with executing according to the Code. Chair Daly said that one of the problems is being asked to second-guess the ZEO and to find that he abused his discretion. He said this project is well within the confines of the Zoning Code especially the height limits and daylight plane requirements. He also appreciated the ZEO's observation that the Zoning Code limits what he is authorized to do. Member Palma said that if we go with strict interpretation of the Zoning Code, how much weight goes on [Section 2-580] H(4)? Chair Daly asked legal counsel to respond. Ms. Lintvedt said that the BZA and the ZEO are bound by the language of the Zoning Code. Section 2-580 (H) is entitled, "Physical impacts to neighbors are minimized" she stated, and the section goes on to say that "the proposed addition does not substantially impair the privacy or access to light of