pages: PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-06-28 | 5 | Board Member Curtis thanked everyone for the presentation. He felt that all of his questions and concerns had been answered and he could vote for this. Board Member Cisneros felt that after reading the staff report the project had met the fire safety concerns. She also appreciated the public comment about more coordination with the Fire Department. She was also satisfied with how the neighbor's privacy concerns were being addressed and supported the project. Board Member Hom said it was a narrow lot and that the findings for the variance could be made, so that was not the issue. He still questioned why it was either five feet or one- foot setback, nothing in between. He wondered if there could be a discussion about more of a setback that could be provided. He also brought up President Teague's comment on the garage and reducing it by 12 inches to make room for a crawl space and to help maintain the rain gutters. He also questioned if the back wall on the second story could be set back more as well. He agreed there were justifications for the variance and it was just a matter of if there could be more of a setback. He added again that for the removal of the tree, the applicant should reach out to the owner since he did not believe the tenant had the right to approve the removal of the tree. He understood it was a difficult issue and a civil matter. Board Member Ruiz believed the variance was warranted. She concurred with the Historic Advisory Board's comments about needing to review the siding examples and to make the garage treatment more architecturally pleasing. She felt that she could approve this project. Board Member Rothenberg restated her concerns about ensuring when they develop these properties, to meet their General Plan, they don't overdevelop in every lot by virtue of variances. She said they did have an impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the public. The codes were strict for a reason and hoped the applicant could endeavor to make some adjustments to improve the overall massing of the building. She said with all the comments and conditions they had discussed she was prepared to join in an approval. President Teague had looked over the history of the lot to see what had originally been there. He believed in the case for the variance, the conditions had been met. His idea for the garage was because of the house located directly next to the garage and mirroring the setback that the house had on the garage would allow a sufficient area between them to allow for airflow. This was something he would like to see but was not a requirement. He was in favor of this project. He asked counsel about verbiage around the removal of the avocado tree and wanted to know if they needed to clarify anything. Celena Chen, Staff Counsel - City Attorney, said they did not have to specify permitting the removal of the tree. This was a civil matter that needed to be worked out between neighbors. Staff Member Tai asked for a specific dimension in regards to the increased setback for the side yard that had been requested by Board Member Hom. Board Member Hom suggested a two-foot setback, which would not include the roof gutter. He wanted to confirm with the applicant that the one-foot reduction in the garage would not compromise the ability to park two cars in the garage. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 5 of 15 June 28, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-06-28.pdf |