PC 082510 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Persin stated that the appellants have provided the City with a list of the 12 two-story homes of the 939 total residences in the Val Vista development, attached to their letter as Exhibit C. He noted that the list shows that the applicants' proposed project would result in the largest two-story home in the entire development. He indicated that they are not arguing that the applicants should not be allowed to build the largest two-story home in the neighborhood simply because it would be the largest in the neighborhood, but rather, because, based upon the applicants' lot size of only 6,521 square feet and the unusual configuration of their home in relation to their neighbors’ homes, the proposed addition is too large and impacts the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Persin then referred to page 13 of the staff report which states that with the proposed addition, the house would be 2,607 square feet and would reach the maximum 40 percent FAR permitted. He noted that while it is quite obvious what it means to maximize the permitted FAR from a mathematical perspective, it would be all the more impacting from the perspective of the surrounding neighbors when a 2,607-square-foot house, which was configured in an unusual way when it was originally built, is crammed to capacity on a relatively smaller-sized lot. He added that when the applicants are unable or unwilling to increase their home size through a first-story addition, the only course is to build up, which creates more of an impact to the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Persin then referred to a section on page 12 of the staff report: “The appellants’ letters state square footages of the other two-story homes in the Val Vista neighborhood and indicate the proposed addition would make it the largest two-story home in the Val Vista neighborhood. Staff has evaluated the sizes of homes in immediate vicinity of the subject property. There is no standard radius in the ode that defines the 'vicinity' or 'neighborhood.' In order to incorporate a reasonable number of properties, staff has used a 300-foot radius.” Mr. Persin noted that staff then analyzes 40 properties in a 300-foot radius of the subject property and concludes that the square footage of the subject property would be within the range of the other homes in the vicinity of the property. He stated that staff’s analysis and conclusions are entirely irrelevant because the issue under appeal is not whether the subject home at a proposed 2,607 square feet would fit within the square footages of all of its neighboring properties, but rather, whether or not there is too much additional home being built on too small a lot and in too impacting a fashion, especially in light of the non-conforming, to today’s standards, way in which the home was originally built and positioned on the lot. Mr. Persin noted that the planner acknowledges on page 9 of the staff report that the existing configuration of the subject property is non-conforming to current zoning standards, with the rear portion of the home constructed with only a seven-foot, seven-inch rear yard setback at its closest point. He stated that although the subject property was conforming to then zoning standards when originally built in approximately 1968, its proximity to both rear neighbors’ yards clearly exacerbates the impact of the proposed addition on his wife and himself and his surrounding neighbors. He added that, in fact, looking in more detail at staff’s use of the surrounding property numbers, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 25, 2010 Page 6 of 38