Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
on Building 1 to promote harmony in the neighborhood. He noted that he does not think <br />it is required but that he can see it as a possibility. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that he does not have a problem with the parking either, <br />but wished there had been a little more investigation into preserving the view within the <br />property. He indicated that he understands the applicant meets the requirements but he <br />is trying to be sensitive to the neighbors to keep the views while preserving the same <br />number of bedrooms. He added that he is generally not in favor of continuance for <br />these things but that he would certainly be open to it for this project if it has not been <br />considered. <br />Chair Allen stated that she is exactly in the same place: parking is fine, but clearly there <br />are options that are worthwhile to explore and should be explored. She added that she <br />believes it is worthwhile to take the time to look at other options since there is no <br />precedent of three units on these buildings that she has seen on Augustine Street as <br />she drove by; this is a different design than what the City has had before and potentially <br />sets a precedent that could cause some long -term impacts in other situations. <br />Commissioner Ritter stated that Building 2 looks fine, but he has a little bit of struggle <br />with Building 1 and how it connects or attaches next to the existing house. He noted <br />that it looks like it was not designed together, and from a flow standpoint, it just sort of <br />pops out. He indicated that he wants to support the applicant in getting that space so <br />he could rent it because it is per the Code and they actually have the right to do that on <br />their own property, but he would like to have a little better integration between the <br />existing house and Building 1. <br />Commissioner Piper stated that her thoughts are similar to those of the rest of the <br />Commissioners. She indicated that she would like to see a change on Building 1 to be <br />sensitive to the neighbors and their views for many, many, many years. She added that <br />she was fine with the parking because it is conforming, although she assumes and feels <br />in her heart that parking spaces are being lost, not gained, with this plan, as residents <br />are being added, and with units that small, her experience has been that people use the <br />garage as storage, so they are not actually parking in the garage and but on the street. <br />Commissioner Balch stated that he thought about the garage storage as well and <br />inquired if the garages are all connected. <br />Mr. Weinstein replied that he believes there are no dividing walls. He noted that <br />Condition No. 11 requires that the parking spaces in the garage be maintained for <br />parking and would need to be enforced by the property manager. He added that this is <br />a standard condition that is imposed on projects where there might be a parking <br />constraint and the potential for garages to be used for storage. <br />Commissioner Piper noted that she sees that in almost every CC &Rs that she reads, <br />but it is just not the reality. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 22, 2015 Page 9 of 15 <br />