Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
evolving, and the only way it can become more vibrant is to have people live closer to <br />the Downtown. <br />Mr. Damireddy noted that Option 2 does not obstruct most of the views and is obviously <br />the best in terms of preserving views because it is set at the rear of the property. He <br />stated that the issue with the existing building is that it is considered a legal, <br />non - conforming structure and a new structure cannot be attached to it without modifying <br />it and making it compliant with existing requirements: it has to have a set of sprinkler <br />systems and its entire engineering component has to be brought up to code. He added <br />that this would help preserve the streetscape desired by Planning staff. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br />Commissioner Piper stated that she does not like three -story structures but likes the fact <br />that it would help preserve the neighbors' views. She noted, though, that based on <br />what staff is saying, it does not sound like a valid option. <br />Commissioner O'Connor inquired how high an office building can be built <br />Ms. Hagen replied that a straight -zoned office area allows up to 30 feet in height, and it <br />could go higher with a PUD. <br />Commissioner O'Connor inquired if the residential zoning on this lot is for 40 feet tall. <br />Ms. Hagen replied that was correct. She noted that the Fire Code does not allow the <br />eave line of the three -story building to be above 30 feet because the narrow driveway <br />does not allow a fire truck access to go on -site. She pointed out that in this particular <br />instance, although the Code allows for 40 feet high, the Fire Code allows the building to <br />go only up to 30 feet high to the eave line because of the site layout. <br />Commissioner Balch inquired if the roofline of Option 3 is Code - compliant <br />Ms. Hagen said yes. <br />Commissioner Balch commented that it is not compliant with exiting for all units, noting <br />that it would have to be re- designed because the third story comes down the center <br />between the two on the edges into the garage, and that is not allowed. <br />Commissioner O'Connor noted that these are unintended consequences of rezoning: <br />some people have lived in these homes for 100 years and there goes their views. He <br />indicated that in the past, the Commission has made recommendations when view <br />easements do not exist on properties, and the situation in the Arlington neighborhood <br />comes to mind. He indicated that when old neighborhoods start to fill up with new <br />buildings, the daylight to the sky is reduced or eliminated. He stated that he prefers to <br />stay with three units, retain the original house and not put in another unit, but he <br />understands the owner's desire to have a separate rental. He added that if that is the <br />direction and there would be a fourth unit on the property, he would rather go with <br />Option 3, which would be a full ten feet under what the zoning allows. He indicated that <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 9, 2015 Page 8 of 17 <br />