3A Public Hearing 2006 1204 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Board of Zoning Adjustments Regular Meeting, July 20, 2006 Excerpt of the Minutes item PLN2005-00063 Page 60f8 Dave Sequeria, 2474 West Avenue 133rd, stated that the monster home issue would be corning up. He worried about his brother's home, which was the house on Vistagrand with the swimming pool. He also recalled the two homes lost in the landslide mentioned by another speaker. Planner Barros stated that the hillside instability, mentioned by two of the speakers, was caused by the excavation of a basement for the Vencor hospital. The city records show that it was the hospitals error, not the City's. Mr. Sequeria continued with the opinion that further excavation at the base of the slope could possibly damage his brother's property. With 10 to 20 adults, not to mention teenagers, driving in and out of the area, traffic would be impacted. He wondered if a "compound or estate" would fit into the neighborhood. Richard Sequeria, 4777 Vistagrand Drive, stated that it was his home that had a swimming pool. He welcomed a new house that would be built on that site. However, he was concerned about the construction, because of past experience. He knew that the City Council would be reviewing "monster homes," homes over 4,000 square feet. His home was not on the edge of a hill when it was originally constructed forty years ago. About 15 years ago, the hill was cut away to within three feet from his fence. He asked if the city would "take care of us" if shaking and vibrations from the construction damaged the homes above the project. John Manuel, 13122 Neptune Drive, recalled a recent BZA hearing on a project on Neptune Drive where the monster home concept had been discussed. This project was overwhelming. It was important that people from all over the city express their opinions, along with the neighbors who would be affected by a particular project. The issues he had planned to speak about had already been covered. Member Pearson asked if the landscaping could be limited to trees that would not restrict the views of the homes above the project. Mr. Glaudemans agreed that no views would be blocked by landscaping. Soils studies had been performed that indicated the hillside was very stable. Motion to Close the Public Hearing (SidarVChin; 7 Ayes, 0 Noes) Member Eliason found that the site plan was deceptive about how much room was available for construction. She believed that the height requirement could be adhered to by redesigning the home to cover more of the site. A height exception was usually required when the slope was so steep that the exception was needed in order to construct. This plan was design arrogance. It was insensitive to the neighbors below and above the site. It was possible to design an equal sized residence that was more sensitive to the neighbors and it would not require a height exception.