CCMIN020712 - Laserfiche WebLink

home only 12 feet away. They believe that his conclusions were based on incomplete and inaccurate information and cited the research to prove this. She continued, stating CEQA allows historic properties to be evaluated for potential preservation. If a property qualifies for the California Register, it is protected by CEQA. Any project that adversely affects it then would have an adverse effect on the environment--In this case, the house and the historic neighborhood. If the cottage at 205 Neal is demolished and replaced by a big new home, the historic 215 Neal home would definitely be adversely affected, making it unlikely to qualify for any historic designation. Councilmember Sullivan asked to display the plan view showing the new proposed house and its relationship to the back yard. He asked if the rear yard setback to the property line is less than code. Mr. Dolan said no, and asked if he was referring to the Bourg's suggestion that a 4`" variance was required. Councilmember Sullivan said yes. Mr. Dolan presented a slide addressing this, stating staff evaluated this issue. There is a depth and square footage requirement and it is based on some mathematics related to the width of the lot. When going through this calculation, this particular lot would require 1,560 square feet which the two lots exceed. Where the Bourg's disagree is essentially that these things are supposed to be connected or unobstructed. So again, staff runs into the problem of checking with compliance and regulations based on the lot as one lot. They believe that as long as this is one lot, this requirement is met. The Bourg's contend there is an obstruction between the two and so they cannot be counted together because it is at a different elevation. And, staff disagrees that it does not technically meet the requirement. Councilmember Sullivan said in further understanding this, the rear yard is to within 15 feet of the rear lot line provided there remains a single, unobstructed open space with an area that goes 120% of the area. He asked if this area is the 65 x 20 behind the proposed new house. Mr. Dolan said they need both pink areas behind both houses to technically meet this requirement for the lot. Councilmember Sullivan asked if it would meet the requirement if the new house were looked at by itself. Mr. Dolan responded that it would not meet the requirement in this case. Councilmember Sullivan said it is not just the distance to the property line; it is providing outdoor living space for the residents. What this sounds like is the way they are getting adequate living space is by going in someone else's backyard to have that living space, which does not make sense to him. Vice Mayor Cook-Kallio questioned the difference in the elevation of the two lots and whether or not the 1,464 square feet on 215 Neal by itself meet this requirement. Mr. Dolan said if they are separated; a larger area could be drawn with the 1,464 square feet, but staff just measured the area in the pink. In terms of the difference in elevation, it is somewhere between 3 and 4 feet difference. Vice Mayor Cook-Kallio questioned if it consistently runs from the back fence all the way to the front, and Mr. Dolan noted the obstruction language is intended to be usable area that does not have an accessory structure in it. He said even if they wanted to interpret it that way, a couple of stairs would easily be connectable. Councilmember McGovern said if there are two homes with two different groups of people living in them, she does not see how one home would be invading the other person's private space. She asked and confirmed that the long line on the plan was representative of a retaining wall which separates the two pieces of properties. She confirmed that its height was between 3-4 feet. Mr. Dolan said he understands the argument, but it is one lot and staff cannot pretend that is a property line to apply zoning regulations, although, one can certainly use the logic to come to a certain conclusion about the project. Dave Cunningham, Applicant, clarified comments made earlier and said the photo montage which was sent was a design they had very early on and is not to scale where they are currently. Regarding tree City Council Minutes Page 11 of 25 February 7,2012