My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
3A Public Hearing 2008 0707
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2008
>
Packet 2008 0707
>
3A Public Hearing 2008 0707
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/3/2008 4:49:18 PM
Creation date
7/3/2008 4:49:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Staff Report
Document Date (6)
7/7/2008
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2008 0707
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2008\Packet 2008 0707
MO 2008-020
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Minute Orders\2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Excerpts of Board of Zoning Adjustments Regular Meeting April l7, 2008 <br />Minute No. 2008-08 Page 4 of 7 <br />Motion to Close the Public Hearing <br />(Marc/Shields; 4 Ayes, 0 Noes, 3 Absent-Daly, Pearson, Sidari) <br />Member Shields asked how to handle the fact that the Board was still not in full attendance. <br />City Attorney Stuart replied that a quorum was present and the Board could make a decision <br />tonight. <br />Member Gilcrest asked if four votes were still required to pass a motion to approve this project. <br />If the vote was three to one, would the motion would fail? <br />City Attorney Stuart stated that he was correct. <br />Member Marr stated that she had been absent from the last meeting. However, this project was <br />very large; it was twice the size of the original home. She needed to be convinced that this <br />project was good for this neighborhood. <br />Member Gilcrest noted that City Council had voted to change the character of this <br />neighborhood when they included it in the TOD District. At some paint, when San Leandro <br />became denser, some projects that had never before been allowed in this neighborhood would be <br />permitted. At some point, the decision would be which more-dense-project would be allowed in <br />this neighborhood. Was this the one? Given there seemed to be a split opinion about this project, <br />did the Board want to ask the applicant if they wanted to defer this project again or would they <br />prefer this issue to be resolved. <br />Chair Goldt noted that there was always the appeal process. She pointed out that this <br />neighborhood had established density with many four-plexes and apartment buildings <br />surrounding this property - on the same street and abutting. She felt it was rather daunting to see <br />the rendering, as seen from the neighbor's dining room window, during her Power Point <br />presentation. <br />Member Marr asked if the Power Point renderings could be brought up again that showed that <br />rendering and the shadows across the backyard. <br />Ms. Johnson, brought up the renderings. <br />Chair Goldt pointed out that these renderings showed how important story poles and netting <br />were, which allowed the visualization of a project. <br />Secretary Penaranda wondered when Ms. Johnson's photo was taken, as the photo he took at <br />3:00 p.m. did not show a shadow. <br />Motion to reopen public hearing <br />(Marr/Shields; 4 Ayes, 0 Noes, 3 Absent-Daly, Pearson, Sidari) <br />The photos that showed the shadows made by the story-poles and connecting lines were <br />discussed by the Board, staff, Ms. Johnson and Mr. Woolston. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.