Laserfiche WebLink
Kimberly Connors, Appellant, stated that their concern at this point is really public <br />safety. She indicated that construction traffic is going to get in and out of here, and <br />there will be workers there every day with nowhere to park their vehicles, neither on <br />Sycamore Road nor on Amber Lane. She noted that what they are really asking for by <br />asking for the variance to add a driveway is also for construction parking as well as for <br />the future residents of that second unit. She indicated that it is really a matter of <br />functionality and public safety to put that variance in or some other form of parking <br />because, otherwise, it will be a situation where if there was a medical emergency, an <br />earthquake, or anything during the day, and there is construction parking that is backed <br />in, emergency vehicles will not be able to get in. <br />Mr. Townsend clarified that there was mention of a1,500- square -foot building; this is a <br />1,200- square -foot home, the maximum allowed for a second unit. He indicated that this <br />is a small project with probably a slab foundation so there will not be any excavators or <br />heavy equipment in there. He noted that it is a flat lot, so there will be these small <br />construction pick -up trucks. He added that there are two driveways and a swing drive <br />already there, which would be additional areas for these small trucks to park during <br />construction. With respect to parking, he stated that the ordinance requires one spot, <br />and the proposal provides for an enclosed and an outdoor spot for the finished unit. He <br />added that there is a lot of off - street parking available on the driveway in front of the <br />existing garage where three cars can park, and a swing drive that can accommodate <br />eight cars. <br />Commissioner O'Connor asked Mr. Townsend to confirm that if this second unit were to <br />be built where it is proposed, there will be adequate space available on -site for <br />construction trucks to be able to park as opposed to on the roadway, such that they <br />would be off the road for emergency vehicle and fire truck use. <br />Mr. Townsend replied that they have 20 feet in front of the entire building adjacent to the <br />driveway, so obviously they will need the road to get there, deliver the materials off the <br />road, and then exit. He added that anybody doing the work would use small vehicles <br />and can park in the driveway in front of the residence during construction and on the <br />garage driveway to the rear, without having to park on Pioneer Trails Place. <br />Commissioner O'Connor asked Mr. Townsend if he has ever needed extra space or if <br />he has seen the owners of the home use their garages and leave space available. <br />Mr. Townsend said yes. He reiterated that there is the 20 -foot setback at Pioneer Trails <br />Place where Mr. Rocha currently has a vegetable garden. He noted that that is another <br />adjacent spot for parking or storing construction materials. <br />Commissioner O'Connor noted that Mr. Townsend mentioned that Amber Lane and <br />Pioneer Trails Place are private streets and that maintenance is shared by the four <br />properties based on ownership to a certain spot. <br />Mr. Townsend replied that is correct. He added, however, that he is not sure if the <br />maintenance percentages among the four owners are an equal split. <br />Mrs. Rocha stated that it is 25 percent to each home. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 25, 2015 Page 18 of 27 <br />