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 7 of 8 Vice Chair Goldt concurred. She was impressed that the applicant wished to build such a home in the city. She was definitely in favor of the project. The design could be slightly modified so that the view of the neighbors was not impaired. Member Sidari stated that he would have preferred that photos had been taken from the top of the hill, so that the story poles could have been seen from that vantage point. Member Pearson stated that when he viewed the site from the street, he believed the 30- foot height was not close to the homes above the site. The story poles were quite a bit below the level of the properties above. Planning Manager PoUart replied that he was correct. Member Chin asked if parking would be restricted along the length of the long driveway. Would fencing and a gate have to meet current codes? What assurances did the Board have that construction would not affect the neighbors, as was claimed by some of the speakers? Six units per acre were allowed in this area, which could be as many as nine houses for 1.5 acres. Six homes would probably total more than 10,000 square feet, and six families would create more traffic. A 10,000 square foot home on a lot ofthis size was appropriate. She wanted to be certain that a soils report showed that there would be no problems for the neighbors. She was not impressed with the chain link fencing. If the design were reconfigured, she wanted to know how the views would be impacted compared with what was being presented tonight. Planner Barros said that parking would be restricted to the spaces that the applicant had shown on the site plan. No fencing or gate was part of the proposal, but they would have to meet codes, if they were added. Planning Manager PoUart stated that a standard Condition of Approval required, prior to issuance of even a grading permit, is that the geotechnical and soils reports had to be submitted and approved by both the City Engineer and the Chief Building Official. Their approval of the reports was the acceptance, from the city's standpoint, of liability. Member Chin asked if there would be other approvals after this hearing. Planning Manager PoUart reminded the Board that they were being asked to approve only the design and the height exception. Member Marr asked if staff had discussed the issue that had occurred in the City of Pittsburg in relation to this project. Planning Manager Pollart stated that she had not heard about the City of Pittsburg issue. She did not know if Engineering had discussed it.