Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves second‑story addition at 206 William Avenue with FAR and parking variances
Summary
The Planning Commission approved a second‑story addition and related variances at 206 William Avenue, allowing the property owner to add living space while requiring submission of final permits and standard conditions including tree protection and landscape review.
The Planning Commission unanimously approved design review, a floor‑area‑ratio exception, and parking and setback variances for a second‑story addition at 206 William Avenue on Jan. 28, allowing the owner to add roughly 930 square feet of second‑floor living area above the existing footprint.
Because the project converts an existing rear accessory structure to an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), city code allows a modest FAR bonus; staff nonetheless calculated that the proposed addition would yield a final FAR of approximately 0.54, higher than the nominal 0.40 base. Staff recommended approval subject to findings and conditions; commissioners discussed tree protection, driveway/parking configuration and neighborhood character before forwarding a unanimous approval.
Owner Brett Ashworth said the project keeps the same building footprint and retains existing materials, adding that the family plans to house aging parents for extended stays. "We like the trees. We want them to stay," Ashworth told commissioners when asked about two nearby trees; he said the larger oak that straddles the property line will not be removed and only minimal pruning is anticipated.
Staff noted that, as designed, the project proposes 1 uncovered parking space where the municipal code requires a covered space plus a guest space; staff supported the variance on the basis of plentiful on‑street parking at the site and the small lot size. The commission discussed whether to require the applicant to step the second floor back to avoid needing a front‑setback variance; commissioners ultimately agreed the project fits the pattern of Heather Gardens houses and approved the requested variances. The motion included removal of a condition directing a change in the setback and instead memorialized the decision as discussed in the hearing.
The motion carried by unanimous roll call. The approval is subject to the standard 10‑day appeal period and to any additional public‑works or building‑permit conditions that may arise during plan check. Staff told the owner to coordinate with public‑works and building staff on foundation and structural work before permits are issued.
