|
Mayor Swegles asked if Council had any disclosures regarding this item. Councilmember Chu disclosed that he visited the site to review the property and layout. Mayor Swegles disclosed that he had visited the property and viewed the area proposed for the new garage.
Associate Planner Kuchenig presented the staff report.
Mayor Swegles noted that the staff report indicates that the proposed garage location will significantly block the view to the Heritage Resource, but that when he visited the site it did not appear that the garage would totally block the home. Associate Planner Kuchenig stated that was correct, only a portion of the view of the home would be blocked; however, nothing would be blocked by the alternate location proposed by staff. Mayor Swegles verified that one location proposed by staff would require a curb cut and rerouting of the driveway to the garage.
Mayor Swegles asked if the garage (as proposed by staff) would block the front entrance of the home and Associate Planner Kuchenig stated that staff’s proposal for the garage could be positioned beyond the entrance with some slight modifications to the side of the home. Mayor Swegles questioned the ability to make modifications to the home due to its historical significance. Associate Planner Kuchenig defined the historical significance associated with the front of the home and its visual presentation to the street, but not the side of the home.
Councilmember Moylan referred to Attachment I on page 2 (letter from appellant’s attorney) which stated, “…Federal standards are in use by the City and are the controlling authority in this matter.” He asked City Attorney Kahn, to explain the relevance of this reference. City Attorney Kahn stated he would have to take a look at the provisions in order to offer an opinion on their applicability; however, his initial opinion is that federal standards would not take precedence over the City’s authority in this matter.
Mayor Swegles opened the Public Hearing at 8:27 p.m.
Doron Ohel, Attorney for Mildred Citraro, stated three issues for Council to consider:
- The appellant states the City’s proposal has a greater visual impact than the appellant’s side garage proposal;
- The City’s garage proposal includes a few stair steps to the residence; whereas, the appellant’s proposal does not have stair steps which are a concern to the appellant for health reasons; and
- The house is not designated under any registry and this matter is really about concerns over appearance.
Joan Hill, neighbor, spoke against the appeal. She prefers grass to pavers in the front yard.
Maxine Freeborn, original resident of 1029 Ranere Court, opposed the appeal. She stated Mrs. Citraro (appellant) will not be living in the home so the garage stairs would not be an issue. She thinks that the entire front yard will be covered with pavers and all grass would be removed. Councilmember Chu stated the plan calls for pavers from the driveway to the garage, but does not encompass the entire front yard.
Mike and Nancy Skidmore, neighbors, urged Council to deny the appeal. They are concerned that cars will be stored in front of the house once the garage is built, obscuring the view of the home. Mayor Swegles confirmed that Mr. and Mrs. Skidmore would approve of the appeal if a condition were included to prohibit cars parked in front of the garage; however, they do not believe the appellant would adhere to this condition.
P.E. Merritt stated his concerns over changes to this Historical Resource and is against the appeal. Mayor Swegles confirmed that Mr. Merritt would approve of the appeal if the appellant kept any changes or additions within Historical Resource Guidelines.
Gene Meunier stated concerns over enforcing conditions on the appellant and is against approval of the appeal.
Mr. Ohel gave closing arguments. He suggested that the remaining Councilmembers visit the property prior to making a decision. He directed Council to the exhibits (proposed garage site) included with his October 16, 2006 letter to Council.
Councilmember Moylan disclosed that he visited this property a year ago when it came before the Planning Commission with an appeal to remove it from the Heritage Resource List.
Councilmember Moylan questioned Mr. Ohel’s letter of September 8, 2006, which indicated that a driveway garage would be an invitation for auto theft because the garage could be seen from the street. He stated a garage in the front of the house would also be visible from the street and asked Mr. Ohel if he believed that all cars parked in front of houses are subject to auto theft; therefore, leaving the entire community at risk. Mr. Ohel stated the concern is the location of the cars. The garage proposed by the appellant would allow for the cars to be stored inside the garage. He stated the cars are very valuable and more prone to theft than the average vehicle.
Councilmember Moylan asked Mr. Ohel (based on September 8, 2006 letter) why a garage in the back of the home would cause cars to congregate around the entrance to the home, and a garage built in the front would not. Mr. Ohel stated there are currently vehicles in the back of the house and placing the garage in the back would require that those cars be moved to the front of the home.
Councilmember Spitaleri asked Mr. Ohel about his contention that the home is not historical and asked why he did not first pursue that issue. Mr. Ohel stated the Historical and Architectural Evaluation (page 14 of attachment D) states, “The subject building and the associated buildings on the site are not designated on any federal state registers, or local registers.” He stated this is different than a municipal historical resource.
Councilmember Chu verified with Mr. Ohel that the area in front of the fence would be landscaped.
Councilmember Chu asked Mr. Ohel about the alternative proposed by staff to have the garage face the street from the south side of the lot with a curb cut for a new driveway. Mr. Ohel stated having the garage face the street is not a preferred alternative for the appellant. Councilmember Chu asked what the specific objections are to the garage location as proposed by staff. Mr. Ohel stated the location/orientation of the garage would create a visual nuisance; a nuisance for neighbors; and using stair steps to and from the garage would be debilitating and painful for the appellant.
Mayor Swegles stated that when he visited the site he noticed a covered square in the ground which could be an old well or septic tank. He stated building something to the side of it would not be conducive to having heavy traffic on that area. Mr. Ohel stated there is an assumption that it is an old well or septic tank but he does not have any data pertaining to that area.
Mayor Swegles closed the Public Hearing at 9:06 p.m.
Councilmember Spitaleri asked if staff’s proposal would require any changes to the existing house, such as removing a balcony. Associate Planner Kuchenig stated that he was not sure if removal of a balcony would be required. Alternatives proposed by staff could lead to a plan with a detached garage or a garage area attached at the side of the home. Associate Planner Kuchenig stated slight modifications to the side of the home would not be considered a significant change to the historic value of the home per the Historical and Architectural Evaluation (attachment D).
Councilmember Chu asked staff if there is adequate room to put the garage on the side of the home in addition to the laundry room. Associate Planner Kuchenig stated an oversized garage at this location is possible, but the garage and laundry room would require a different layout than proposed by the appellant.
Mayor Swegles stated that when he visited the site, he noted that the balcony would definitely have to be removed in order to fit the garage into that space. He asked why it is allowable to modify the home on the side by removing a balcony; whereas, no modifications are allowed to the front of the home. Associate Planner Kuchenig stated it was staff’s determination that any modification to the front would be considered a significant change to the Historical Resource, but that staff could consider a modification to the side as noted in the Historical and Architectural Evaluation (attachment D). Robert Paternoster, Director of Community Development, verified the historical evaluation placed emphasis on the front of the home.
Mayor Swegles verified the garage would be built with similar materials as the home with the same roof slope and design.
Councilmember Chu stated he had not heard anything that would persuade him to vote differently than the Heritage Preservation Commission.
MOTION: Councilmember Chu moved and Councilmember Moylan seconded to approve Alternative No. 1: Council denies the appeal and upholds the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission to deny the Resource Alteration Permit and directs appellant to design a garage on the south side of the property to preserve visibility of the Heritage Resource and determine that these alternatives are categorically exempt from CEQA using Categorical Exemption #3.
Councilmember Spitaleri stated the report talks about the balcony as part of the history of the unique design. The side of the house and front of the house are historical and if the appellant attempts to put the garage on the side as proposed by staff, they may still raise historical concerns.
Mayor Swegles stated he had similar concerns as Councilmember Spitaleri. He stated nothing would be disturbed by placing the garage in the front of the home as proposed by the appellant. He stated Council could impose conditions to alleviate any concerns and Neighborhood Preservation would enforce any violations.
VOTE: 5-1 (Mayor Swegles dissented and Councilmember Hamilton absent)
|