CCMIN071790 - Laserfiche WebLink

353 only for emergency purposes. Mr. Henry Hatton, 3963 Fairlands Drive, owner of the property at the rear of the project, pointed out that Exhibit "B" (Conditions of Approval) of Measure "X" indicated that the development should conformwith the plans on file with the Planning Department, which plan shows a rear elevation of 21.5 feet. He stated that in some locations, the project is anywhere from 25 to 29.5 feet high and as close as seven feet to the neighbors. He inquired why the developer was allowed to build as high as 29.5 feet and suggested that the building be torn down and built according to the provisions of Measure "X", as approved and accepted by the voters. Mr. James Miller, 3633 Camelot Court, owner of the property behind the development, concurred with Mr. Hatton regarding the height of the building. He indicated that he had informed City officials about this variation and inquired why the City waited until the building was almost completed before taking any action. Mr. Thomas reiterated that the project architect and engineers had conferred with City staff regarding modifications to the project and that City staff approved the plans. He added that he has incurred substantial obligations and leases and that making any changes at this time would be greatly detrimental to the project. Ms. Mohr asked Mr. Thomas if the three feet between the soundwall and the property line would be deeded to the property owners or left abandoned. Mr. Thomas replied that that piece of property would be his from the standpoint of taxes and lending purposes, but that of the property owners from that of use and enjoyment. Mr. Richard Dobbs, 3616 Portsmouth Court, commenting on the statement "...height had never been expressed as a major issue during the PUD approval or initiative process..." on page 2 of the Staff Report, stated that all the arguments for or against the project during the initiative process, Measure "X" and the PUD did not address the plan but only the presence or absence of the retail center because the plans on file indicated an acceptable 21.6 height limitation. With regard to the statement on page 3, "...The proposed project was originally approved by a city-wide ballot initiative...", he pointed out that Measure "X" was a vehicle of the gas station owner and that the opponents were concerned about alcohol and excessive traffic. Finally, in connection with the statement on page 4, "...staff checked the height of the building against both the approved PUD plans and the 7-17-90 - 5 -