SR 06:247 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT She had watched the September 19,2006, City Council meeting and had tried to understand the situation between the two neighbors, She had attended the open house, and it was not her understanding that anyone thought the house was for sale. She noted that she had asked many questions about the structure and garage in the back and about the neighbors' homes, She believed the plan was attractive and supported its approvaL Stacey Wright, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 50 Fremont Street, San Francisco, noted that she was the attorney representing Grace Lutman, She submitted a letter from Scott Sturuner and pointed out a typo in the first sentence, She noted that Ms, Lutman's address was actually 4524 Second Street She noted that paragraph 8 in the Draft Conditions of Approval stated, 'The proposed driveway paving and mow strip shall be located fully on the subject property with the concrete wheel tracks sited in a manner so that vehicles using the driveway do not encroach in any manner upon the neighboring property," After reviewing the staff report and the presentations, she did not believe that had been adequately demonstrated in the staff report, She displayed a photo and noted that the wheel tracks were not centered so that they were up against Ms, Lutman's property line, which left the possibility of a large vehicle overhanging onto her property, She disagreed with Mr. Boyce's comment that a fence built by Ms, Lutman would preclude them from getting into and out of his car; she noted that the applicant's statement could be seen as seeking to obtain a part of Ms, Lutman's property at that location, In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin regarding the definition of prescriptive easement, Ms. Harryman replied that an example was a path through a homeowner's property used by people to get to the beach, albeit without permission, for a number of years. It created "open and notorious" public use of the private property, and gives the beachgoers a prescriptive easement Peter MacDonald, attorney representing the applicants, noted that they had set up a meeting with Mr. Boag and believed they had his agreement to the redesign to lower everything by four feet Mr. Boag had wanted story poles for the back and displayed the level of the eave and rooflines, He acknowledged that two-story houses did affect other people's privacy, which was a common and expected occurrence in the city, He described the steps taken by the applicants following the complaints ofthe neighbors, He noted that both the Boag and the Boyce homes would be essentially the same height, and both were well within the Code, He noted that the heritage trees would probably survive the remodel process and noted that the special consideration for the trees stemmed from the fact that the Boyces were applying for City approvaL He disagreed with Mr. Bourg's comment that reducing the size of the garage would restore the original roof pitch, He noted that much of the Downtown designs would be illegal to build today and noted that this was a difficult process for citizens to go through. He added that the applicants had worked in good faith with the City and neighbors to accommodate their growing family, and that they had tried to have as little impact on their neighbors as possible, He added that the garage would get their truck off the street THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding whether a shadow study had been considered, Ms. Decker replied that there had been some discussion of it Staff had required a EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, September 27,2006 Page 6 of8