14 ATTACHMENT 4-5 - Laserfiche WebLink

believed that the stucco work and roofing completion could be completed rapidly and did not believe that will be a lingering situation. He added that if Mr. Smith received approval, he would be able to move forward. He further believed the interior could follow a timeline that can easily be finished in six months. He had done custom projects of similar size over the past 25 years, mostly in Orinda, Lafayette, Danville, and some in Pleasanton. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether the interior had been demolished, Mr. Evans confirmed that had occurred and that the house was down to bare studs. Plumbing and most of the wiring was already in place, with the exception of lighting and the extension of wiring into the new areas. He believed the plumbing could be completed in two weeks or less and the electrical in ten days. He added that much of this work could be done in parallel, such as plumbing and electrical, and that interior and exterior processes may take place concurrently. Chairperson Fox invited comment from the previous speakers. Ms. Morgan noted that the quality of the work had never been in question and that the construction itself did indeed meet Code. She realized that the projects took so long because Mr. Smith's standards exceeded that of the Code. The neighbors were very concerned because the construction violated the section of the Code that ensured a safe, attractive, and tranquil environment. She did not believe the appellants' concerns had been accurately reflected and believed that the Building and Safety Division had been aware of Mr. Smith's unpermitted work and had done nothing about it. She added that the neighbors were concerned that concrete would need to be poured and construction continued after the six months had expired. They were very concerned that the construction would not stop. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Fox advised that the Planning Commission's decision may be appealed to the City Council within 15 days. Chairperson Fox recalled a similar situation in 2002-2003 with a prolonged construction project and inquired about the outcome of that hearing and other similar situations such as one she recalled on First Street. Ms. Decker noted that if she had more specific information, she could report back to the Commission as to the outcome. Regarding the Chatelain house, she advised that it was built similarly, which staff had supported. City Council further supported the second-story addition to a garage, which prompted a policy discussion about second-story additions to garages. The Code required a variance process because of height limitations for accessory structures. Direction was given by City Council to consider amending the Code. She emphasized that this did not set a precedent for future projects and that no project approved by the Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, or staff would create a precedent for subsequent applications. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 26, 2007 Page 9 of 12