COM 0679.000 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

last Commission meeting, came up with a proposal to say, fine, you know, we'll try to restrict all structures to have more of a residential flavor; and then to that extent you would limit the height of structures to a residential height zone, which is 35 feet. You would respect single family residential setbacks and not allow this property owner to develop fully as allowed by the requested commercial zoning. Because if you have the requested commercial zoning, theoretically you could go up to 10 stories; and theoretically also you could have zero yard setback provided that you have a firewall. But that may not be visually compatible with an area in transition. And so to help address those kinds of concerns then you try to come forth with some ameliorative type of conditions as, I think, I believe, what the Director is suggesting. The proposed Condition C requires like all of the structures comply with the height and setback restrictions for the RS district. So, in a sense, in so doing you try to achieve some amount of the visual transition between residential and commercial areas. The other suggestion that was brought up, but it's not incorporated here, is the possibility that, which was absent in the other project that you referred to Commissioner Iwashita, is the possibility of having, you know, prior to the submittal of any new structures on the property that the owner confer with the adjoining single family residential zoned areas, you know, the landowners or their occupants. And it doesn't mean that the single family residential adjoining property owner would have veto power over a person's project, but it's more just conveying a sense as far as like this is what we're proposing, what do you think, you know, can we make some minor adjustments to, you know, to help both sides basically; and indirectly it instills a sense of communication, informal communication between the adjoining property owners. And I've had the discussion with the owner to see whether she would be receptive to being subjected to such a condition if and when there's a new structure being constructed on the property and, you know, she didn't have any problems with that. ALAMEDA: Other Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa. SHZACUSA: Good morning, Sidney, Happy New Year. FUKE: Good morning. Happy New Year to you, too. SIRACUSA: You might want to rescind that at the end of today. FUKE: Rescind what, oh, the Happy New Year? SIRACUSA: The Happy New Year. FUKE: Oh, no, it will still be happy. SIRACUSA: I had a question last time and staff wasn't exactly sure about the answer, but that was when you weren't here. And so I'll ask, I've been holding on to it. And the question was whether either of these houses are presently occupied, and if not, then how long ago was it that they were last occupied, and why haven't they been rented in the interim? Is it because of this pending application or are there other reasons?