Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Thorne opened the public hearing. <br /> Terry Townsend, architect representing the applicant, asked that the Council deny the appeal and <br /> uphold all previous approvals of the application. He reviewed the existing site structures, noting that the <br /> home and garage were constructed in 1993 with an addition for an office, bathroom and garage <br /> extension in 2007. The garage and parking amenities are accessed via Amber Drive, a private drive at <br /> the intersection of Sycamore Road and Pioneer Trail Place that is shared with the 3 single family <br /> homes located to the south. In addition to the one parking spot required for the second unit, the project <br /> offers a 20 foot driveway that could accommodate 2 guest parking spaces for the unit. When combined <br /> with space for 3 vehicles in front of the existing garage and 4 vehicles in the swing drive, the site can <br /> accommodate up to 12 additional vehicles and far exceeds the minimum requirements for a single <br /> family lot. <br /> He stated that while the basis of appeal has varied with each appeal, 2 themes seem to remain <br /> constant — the location of the access off of Pioneer Trails Place and construction traffic and parking. <br /> The appellant has proposed moving the structure closer to Sycamore Road and providing access there, <br /> extending the swing driveway across the vineyard to provide access to the second unit, and/or <br /> requesting a variance for an additional driveway access off of Sycamore Road. However, these options <br /> do not account for the required setbacks, variance approvals, preservation of open space, the increase <br /> in impervious surfaces, or the continuity of the existing vineyard. At its proposed location, the second <br /> unit sits 20 feet off the nearest property line which exceeds the side yard setbacks of the 3 individual <br /> lots located to the south. The appellant has also objected to construction traffic on Pioneer Trails Place, <br /> citing parking concerns and stating that the street is not adequately designed to support the traffic. The <br /> applicant has proposed to make the swing drive and driveway of the existing garage available for the <br /> parking of small pickup trucks, with a gravel base on the proposed driveway for offloading materials. <br /> Additional parking can be accommodated on dirt areas around the site. Pioneer Trails Place is built to <br /> city standards, designed to support a broad range of vehicles including heavy trucks and emergency <br /> vehicles, and was in place during construction of and improvements to the 3 single family homes to the <br /> south of the project site. <br /> Mr. Townsend stated that moving the location of the proposed unit makes little practical sense and <br /> compromises the intent of the North Sycamore Specific Plan. <br /> Councilmember Olson asked and Mr. Townsend confirmed that the applicant has purchased another <br /> home in the Callippe area. He asked if it is also true that the applicant intends to reside there. <br /> Cynthia Rocha, applicant, explained that the Callippe home is one of over 60 investment homes owned <br /> by her and her husband. While they currently reside at 547 Sycamore Road, they may ultimately <br /> choose to reside elsewhere. She acknowledged the condition requiring that the property owner reside <br /> in one of two units but said she also understood that it was possible to rent the entire property to one <br /> family. <br /> Mayor Thorne noted that that appellant was not present and closed the public hearing. <br /> Vice Mayor Brown thanked Mr. Townsend for his presentation and expressed regret that the appellant <br /> was not present to speak on their behalf. She said she felt the project provided sufficient parking and <br /> she could support the Planning Commission's approval. <br /> Councilmember Pentin said he is always disappointed to see situations where neighbors are pitted <br /> against one another and is always hopeful that a resolution can be reached before escalating to this <br /> point. He also expressed disappointment that the appellant chose to pursue it as far as he has and then <br /> decline to be present for the hearing, which results in a waste of time for staff, the applicant and the <br /> Council. He said he could easily support a project that has already been approved by the Zoning <br /> Administrator and unanimously supported by the Planning Commission. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 12 of 13 May 5,2015 <br />