AgdaPkt 2002-01-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

/2.A..Z. Required Proposed Height 30 f. max. 29 ft. Rear distance between homes 40 ff. Approx. 60 ff. Note that the proposed second story rear yard setback exceeds the required 20 ft. distance. Also the actual total distance between the rear elevations of the two homes is approximately 60 ft., greater than the required 40 ft. (See attached exhibit). Section 45.3 of the Zoning Ordinance specifically states that Architectural Permits shall only apply to: 1) portions of structures facing upon a public street; 2) portions of the sides of a structure, and rear in the case of a corner lot; and 3) roof overhang, roofing material, and siding material only. Thus the rear elevations and resulting privacy and sunlight issues are not specific factors in reviewing Architectural Permits, except only as they relate to minimum yard raquiraments. Mediation The Planning department referred this matter to the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center in the hope of having both neighbors reach a compromise. Staff also spoke with the parties about some possible ideas to make the situation more acceptable (moving windows, planting tall trees, etc.). The applicant would agree to add more landscaping along the rear yard fence, but would oppose moving any of the windows due to the cost related to the structural engineering. Even with the landscape improvements, the appellant was still concerned about the loss of privacy and sunlight, and wanted to proceed with the appeal hearing. Planning Issues In determining the appropriateness of the appeal, the City Council may want to ask the following questions: · Does the proposed second story addition meet all City requirements? Yes. · Does the addition actually result in some loss of privacy and sunlight? Yes, the addition actually results in some loss of privacy and sunlight. Yet, there will always be some loss of privacy and sunlight anytime a second story is built. (What aggravates the situation is the fact that the lot at 907 Pleasant Hill Road is higher than the 908 Glennan property). The intent of the Zoning Ordinance is to provide reasonable development standards that try to take into consideration adequate protection of privacy and sunlight. It would be very difficult to have different setback standards for each and every situation. Such a policy would be difficult to administrator. The owner of 907 Pleasant Hill in good faith conformed to these rules and therefore the City approved the project. Again, there are no provisions in the Zoning Ordinance other than the standard setbacks that deal with privacy and sunlight issues. Regarding the loss of sunlight, the impact would be the greatest during the late afternoon of winter months, when the sun has a lower trajectory in the sky. · Are there ways to allow the addition and minimize this loss of privacy and sunlight?