Laserfiche WebLink
last Commission meeting, came up with a proposalto say, fine, you know, we€ll try to restrict all <br />structures to have more of a residential flavor; and then to that extent you would limit the height <br />of structures to a residential height zone, which is 35 feet. You would respect single family <br />residential setbacks and not allow this property owner to develop fully as allowed by the <br />requested commercial zoning. Because if you have the requested commercial zoning, <br />theoretically you could go up to 10 stories; and theoretically also you could have zero yard <br />setback provided that you have a firewall. But that may not be visually compatible with an area <br />in transition. And so to help address those kinds of concerns then you try to come forth with <br />some ameliorative type of conditions as, I think, I believe, what the Director is suggesting. The <br />proposed Condition C requires like all of the structures comply with the height and setback <br />restrictions for the RS district. So, in a sense, in so doing you try to achieve some amount of the <br />visual transition between residential and commercial areas. <br />The other suggestion that was brought up, but it€s not incorporated here, is the possibility that, <br />whichwasabsentintheotherprojectthatyoureferredtoCommissionerIwashita,isthe <br />possibility of having, you know, prior to the submittal of any new structures on the property that <br />the owner confer with the adjoining single family residential zoned areas, you know, the <br />landowners or their occupants. And it doesn€t mean that the single family residential adjoining <br />property owner would have veto power over a person€s project, but it€s more just conveying a <br />sense as far as like this is what we€re proposing, what do you think, you know, can we make <br />some minor adjustments to, you know, to help both sides basically; and indirectly it instills a <br />sense of communication, informal communication between the adjoining property owners. And <br />I€ve had the discussion with the owner to see whether she would be receptive to being subjected <br />to such a condition if and when there€s a new structure being constructed on the property and, <br />you know, she didn€t have any problems with that. <br />ALAMEDA:Other Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa. <br />SIRACUSA:Good morning, Sidney, Happy New Year. <br />FUKE:Good morning. Happy New Year to you, too. <br />SIRACUSA:You might want to rescind that at the end of today. <br />FUKE:Rescind what, oh, the Happy New Year? <br />SIRACUSA:The Happy New Year. <br />FUKE:Oh, no, it will still be happy. <br />SIRACUSA:I had a question last time and staff wasn€t exactly sure about the answer, <br />but that was when you weren€t here. And so I€ll ask, I€ve been holding on to it. And the question <br />was whether either of these houses are presently occupied, and if not, then how long ago was it <br />that they were last occupied, and why haven€t they been rented in the interim? Is it because of <br />this pending application or are there other reasons? <br />5EXHIBIT A <br /> <br />