PC 092706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Boyces. He noted that privacy issues were a fact of living in a Downtown area. He complimented staff on a job well done, and believed their recommendation should be upheld. Commissioner Fox noted that this was the second variance she could recall regarding a Downtown neighborhood. She believed it was important to examine the character of the surrounding houses and added that the Boag issue before Council regazded an FAR of 26 percent. While she did not oppose the sideyazd setback variance, she did oppose a project over 40-percent FAR. She would support a project of about 2,700 square feet, which would be around the squaze footage of a 40-percent FAR as well as consistent with the squaze footages that were the maximum for the FAR vaziances in the surrounding neighborhood presented by staff in the hearing.. Regazding privacy issues on First Street, staff had previous recommended that the windows of the gazage that comprised the second unit be reconfigured and suggested elements like stained glass instead of regulaz glass. With respect to the garage, she could not support an accessory structure that would be wider than the regular house. She suggested reconfiguring the gazage to accommodate two cars with a reduced roofline height with an appropriate pitch. She could not support staff s recommendation to increase the FAR but could support the other variances. Commissioner Blank noted that this application was a challenge because he did not believe a view easement existed in this case. While he was sensitive to the privacy issue, he did not believe it was watershed event that created an implied view easement.. He would have liked to see this project as a workshop first. He believed the gazage roof was higher than it should be, regardless of the presence of a variance. He would like to see atandem-like garage that could accommodate three cazs, but not expand the footprint. He noted that there was a lot of room in the hazdscape azea that could be utilized. Commissioner Peazce thanked staff for their hazd work and effort on this application and noted that neighbor disputes were especially challenging. While she appreciated the Boyces' desire to expand their house to accommodate their Family, she needed a compelling reason to give a variance. She could make the findings for the sideyazd vaziance but did not know what the possibilities were with respect to the gazage. She believed the reaz neighbors would be most affected by the gazage but that they did not hear from them. She would like the Boyces to get the FAR below 40 percent. Chairperson Arkin appreciated the difficulty of this application and understood the privacy issues. He believed the height was not unreasonable but believed the garage was slightly too big. He had difficulty with the proposed FAR and believed that the public testimony was very compelling. He expressed concern about many additional smaller lots going to larger FARs and could not support this application for that reason. He believed the proposed house was too big for the lot. Commissioner O'Connor believed the gazage was too big. He noted that if the applicants did not excavate and built a gentle slope to the gazage instead, it would be 25 feet high; the peak would be 25 feet high above the existing driveway. He suggested replacing some of the attic windows with skylights to mitigate the privacy issues. He suggested that moving the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 27, 2006 Page 13 of 17