Laserfiche WebLink
<br />PLN2006-00074 (Appeal of the BZA Approval ofPLN2005-00063) <br />4 <br /> <br />September 5, 2006 <br /> <br />As part of his presentation to the Board of Zoning Adjustments on July 20, 2006, the applicant <br />stated that they would be willing to eliminate the tallest portion ofthe proposed main dwelling - the <br />circular tower element - to mitigate the view concerns of the neighbors on Vistagrand Drive. With <br />this modification to the plans, the overall livable building area would be reduced from 8,002 square <br />feet to 7,683 square feet. The average roofheight would be approximately 26 feet, reduced from an <br />average of approximately 30 feet. The overall roof line of the stepped building at its ridges exceeds <br />the 18-foot height limit by a range of 4 to 12 feet. Staff has prepared a sketch of the average slope <br />and maximum height of 18 feet, overlaid on the applicant's building section, to show the difference <br />in proposed roof heights (see Attachment 24) The revised, lower profile elevation and plans are <br />attached to this report in the exhibits in Attachments 8 through 16. <br /> <br />After the Board of Zoning Adjustments closed the public hearing, the Board discussed the size and <br />hill stability issues. Staff noted that the number of adults allowed in the home is governed by the <br />Building Code and that the conditions of approval included the requirement of a Zoning Permit. <br /> <br />The majority of the Board members noted that the scope of the project was appropriate for the <br />large, 1.5-acre site and felt that the alternative of several homes on this large lot would have a <br />greater impact both in terms of traffic and site disturbance. A minority opinion expressed its <br />disapproval of the height of the structure and the size of the home. Based on this discussion the <br />Board of Zoning Adjustments approved the application with a vote of 5 ayes and 2 noes. <br /> <br />The Findings of Fact for Approval for the Height Exception and Major Site Plan ReviewNiew <br />Preservation included, but were not limited to: that the physical impacts to the neighbors, in terms <br />of light and air, are minimized due to the proposed deep setbacks for the structures which exceed <br />what is required for the RS- VP District; that the proposal will be compatible with existing adjacent <br />development of larger homes in the immediate neighborhood on Darius Way; and that the primary <br />views of the neighbors will not be adversely affected with the approval of the project due to the up <br />slope position of the Vistagrand Drive lots and eastern orientation of the home and in-law unit; and <br />that the proposal meets the goals and policies in the General Plan, particularly as relates to the <br />provision of executive housing in appropriate locations. Staff believes that the approval of a height <br />exception for this proposal would not set a precedent for other projects, nor would it lead to <br />approval of other large homes. This project is reviewed in the context of its unique site as a large, <br />1.5 acre lot, set into the easternmost lot of the Darius Way subdivision. <br /> <br />The appellant provided photographs ofthe story poles for the proposed project, taken from the back <br />yard of his home on Vistagrand Drive. These poles show that the roof line of the main dwelling <br />does partially encroach on the views ofthe hillside and the homes in the unincorporated areas to the <br />south of the Bay-O-Vista neighborhood (views looking down the hill), but do not obstruct the <br />longer views of the San Francisco Bay or the southern horizon. These photos are in Attachment 23. <br /> <br />One Boardmember, while not concerned about the overall square footage of the dwelling, <br />expressed a desire to have the home spread out and not exceed the 18-foot height limit. The <br />applicant has indicated that the amount of dirt to be excavated and filled ("cut and fill") required to <br />place the structure as it is proposed to be stepped up the hill would exceed that of the current <br />proposal. It is staffs opinion that this alternative would be more geotechnically disruptive <br />compared to the current proposal. <br />