PC 092607 - Laserfiche WebLink

Scott Smith, applicant, 3496 Whitehall Court, hoped to find a resolution that would satisfy the City and the neighbors. He understood his neighbors’ concerns and hoped that those topics had been previously addressed by him and the City. He noted that the staff report outlined the specific areas of concerns and noted that he had been cooperative in trying to resolve them. He had attempted to establish and continue a dialogue with the neighbors and noted that his effort to complete the project had been hindered by the appeal process. Since the July 20, 2007 hearing, he had made considerable progress toward completion of the project. They planned to plant non-required landscaping along the neighboring fencelines and had removed the approved half-moon windows as well as the storage shed. He had completed the pre-deck inspection and poured the concrete for the decks and the pool. He had installed the pool equipment in the non-integrated areas and had completed the preplaster inspection and plastered the pool and filled it. He noted that he had installed the stucco foam trim around the doors and windows and applied finish coats to the stucco. He distributed photographs of the progress to date. He noted that the construction was of high quality and craftsmanship. He believed this home would be an asset to the neighborhood and wished to break the counterproductive cycle of distrust and complaint. He believed he had been very cooperative with the neighbors and City staff and added that he would continue to do so. He agreed with the findings and recommendations of the staff report and believed the timeline and limitations were reasonable. He stated that he could complete the project as outlined in the staff report. He noted that his contractor, Steve Evans, had reviewed the staff report and affirmed that the project could be completed within the City’s proposed guidelines. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Olson regarding whether he had been a licensed general contractor in California at one point, Mr. Smith replied that at one point, he had been a partner with a licensed contractor. He would not have been considered to be licensed under that partnership. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Olson regarding the timeframe of the construction, Mr. Smith agreed that it had been an extensive process. He added that they applied for the addition in 2001 and started the project in August 2002. As they received contractors’ proposals, which were fairly expensive, they decided to do the work themselves with subcontractors. He noted that he became overwhelmed by the project as time went by. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Olson regarding the amount of time they had not lived in the house, Mr. Smith replied that when the Morgans approached them about completing the project about a year ago, he told them he wanted to complete the project very much and that it was their highest priority. He offered to show them the plans and noted that the addition over the garage was integral to the entire project. He recalled that the Morgans stated that they did not want to see the plans and that they wanted to project to be completed. They had stated that they were not trying to stop the construction efforts but that they were eager to see the completion of the project, ideally within six months. Mr. Smith realized at that point that they would have to move out in order to tear out part of the home’s interior and accelerate the construction process. He noted that they had plans and structural calculations and believed that since they had the Morgans’ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 26, 2007 Page 11 of 20