PC 072606 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ (3) Mr. Aldrich objects to the two windows on the west elevation of second unit due to their proximity to the railroad tracks. Staff has included a condition that requires the project to meet the City's noise standazds, which may require the windows to be double-paned or removed to be in standazd conformance with the Building Code. Ms. Mendez noted that a neighbor supported the project as it would upgrade the neighborhood. She added that the proposed project is attractively designed and is appropriately sited in amulti-family zoning district. She recommended that the Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision, subject to the Conditions of Approval as shown on Exhibit B of the staff report, with the modification that Conditions Nos. 3 and 4 regazding the two-foot planter strip be combined and the addition of new conditions that one unit always be owner-occupied and that the northernmost pazking space be reserved for the sole use of the second unit. Commissioner Fox noted that the property owned by the appellant to the north has two addresses and inquired if he had a second unit. Ms. Mendez replied that the property is zoned for multi-family consisting of apartments as well as a detached rental second unit. Commissioner Olson inquired why one of units is required to be owner occupied and asked if the current unit is not owner-occupied. Ms. Mendez replied that the applicant recently purchased the house and is building the second unit for his mother-in-law. She explained that second units aze mandated by State Assembly Bill 1866 and, while municipalities cannot disallow them, they can regulate the design and include site development standazds. She continued that it is the City's policy to require one of the units to be owner-occupied to ensure that homes in single-family zoning districts do not turn into rental properties. She added that second units may be rented out as affordable housing. Commissioner Peazce requested confirmation from staff regazding her understanding that the appellant is requesting two pazking spaces for the main unit and one for the second unit; further, that one pazking space for the main structure is sufficient since no changes were being made to that structure and that a second space is being added for the second unit to comply with Code requirements Ms. Mendez said yes. She explained that the existing structure has anon-conforming pazking situation like many of the older homes in the Downtown residential azea and that staff is requiring the availability of one continuous unobstructed pazking for second unit as required by Code. . Commissioner Peazce inquired if the windows for the second unit were facing the railroad tracks. Ms. Mendez said yes. She added that the appellant's opposition to the windows results from his claim that he was required to remove from his building those windows facing the railroad tracks because of the noise. Ms. Mendez added that she was not certain if the Building Code has been changed in this regazd or if newer technology ~ has since developed windows that provide better noise protection. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 26, 2006 Page 12 of 24