PC 031203 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Grider advised that he and the Johnstons had reached an agreement with respect to construction hours. They agreed that quieter interior work shall be $om 8c00 a_m_ to 5=00 p.m. on Saturdays, once the shell addition was completed. Mr_ Grider noted that everything else in his draft was the same as the City's Exhibit C, with the exception of. 1 . Item 5: "A sample o£ view-obscuring glass shall not he required for approval by the Planning Department." He noted that the agreement with the Johnstons was made, and they were aware that they would use stained glass. 2_ Item 8: The final colors and materials shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to installation. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sedlak, Ms_ Grider replied that the glass was clear but she was unable to see through it. She noted that it was in both families' best interests to not see into the other's house. Robert Sweeney, project contractor, 1469 Naples Way, Livermore, noted that the field inspector will verify the setbacks, to ensure that they were in compliance. He believed that the height could be field measured as well. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin, Mr_ Iserson replied that the Building Department determined that they were not equipped to do height verifications. John MacKay, 927 Montevino Drive, noted that he was also expressing the concerns o£ Mike Baldwin <2916 Amoroso Court, who is currently out o£the country. He expressed concern about the total height of the addition. He noted that the proposal as determined in the February meeting with Planning staff was acceptable, and he recognized that some of his view would be lost. He noted that the plantings at the west side of property were required to provide privacy to the homes o£ Vintage Hills I. He noted that his landscaping will grow taller, and he planned to perform normal yard maintenance on those trees. He strongly disagreed with the applicant's contention that they would grow enough to obscure his view, and he intended to pay for maintenance to preserve that view. Mr. MacKay noted that with respect to the plate heights and the gap, every inch of view that he loses is lost forever. He believed that the inconvenience of routing duct work was a short-term impact on the applicants, and that the impacts on his and the Baldwins' views were permanent. He noted that the applicants' increase in property values was estimated at $40,000, and he estimated the loss of his views at $ 1 00,000. He did not believe that asking fora 6 inch tolerance was acceptable, and noted that it was an unreasonable request, given current construction techniques. He offered to pay for a survey by an outside agency to verify that what was built was represented to him in this process. Nancy Millho££ 949 Montevino Drive, expressed concern about the construction noise levels on Saturdays, and agreed with the John stops that as little exterior construction be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 12, 2003 Page 9