Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Board of Zoning Adjustments Regular Meeting, July 20, 2006 <br />Excerpt of the Minutes item PLN2005-00063 <br /> <br />Page 80f8 <br /> <br />Chair Raposo agreed that the top of the building, according to the story poles, would not <br />affect the view of the bay and airport. However, it would affect the view of the canyon <br />below the street. The size of the house and the additional residents and vehicles did not <br />compare to what it would be if six houses were built on the same property. Excavation <br />would also be more extensive with six homes. <br /> <br />Member Sidari suggested that the developer meet with the neighbors to try to devise a <br />solution that all would be happy with. <br /> <br />Chair Raposo added that he would also like to know the results of the City Council <br />meeting concerning "monster homes." <br /> <br />Planning Manager Pollart stated that City Council had heard the appeal for the Neptune <br />project that had been approved by the BZA a few months ago. The Council had asked <br />staff to "look at" the issue of monster homes. The city had no definition for a monster <br />home; no maximum size permitted in the city had been decided upon. Some jurisdictions <br />required that the size of the house had to be in conformance with the size of the lot. The <br />city's definition of a "large home" was anything over 4,000 square feet, which required <br />site plan review and a zoning permit if more than 10 adults were to reside in it. <br /> <br />Vice Chair Goldt noted that the monster home issue could take years before it was <br />decided. She was not certain that any different conclusion would come about if the <br />neighbors were consulted. A very good point had been made that six houses rather than <br />one could be constructed on this property. This project would only upgrade the <br />neighborhood. She was in favor of the project. <br /> <br />Member Pearson agreed that a fear of 20 people living in the home was a real one. <br />However, regulations restricted adults to ten. Given the proportions of lot, the height was <br />appropriate. Soils was not the responsibility of the BZA. <br /> <br />Motion to Approve PLN2005-00063 <br />with all recommended conditions. <br />(Pearson/Goldt; 5 Ayes, 2 Noes- Eliason, Marr) <br /> <br />Planning Manager Poll art announced that the Board of Zoning Adjustments decisions <br />were final and could be appealed to the City Council by filing a form with the City Clerk <br />within 15 days of the approval. The form shall specifically state the reason for the appeal. <br />An appeal fee was required. <br />