CCMIN030408 - Laserfiche WebLink

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS 13. Removed from the agenda: (Aspects of this item are currently pending in the Alameda County Superior Court and a decision from the Court bearing on this item is anticipated to be received prior to March 4. The item is being placed on the agenda as a placeholder so that the City Council could take action depending on the outcome of the court case.) Receive the City Clerk's Certification of the Referendum Petition with respect to Ordinance No. 1961 approving the application of James Tong, Charter Properties (Oak Grove Development) for PUD plan approval, as filed under Case PUD-33 and considerer various options/resolutions concerning the petition including whether to rescind the ordinance or call for an election and, if an election is called, to adopt ballot language, request the County to consolidate the election with the State primary election on June 3, and establish dates for arguments/rebuttal arguments in favor of and in opposition to the referendum 14. Public Hearing: PAP-110, Dennis Long, Appellant (PADR-1698, Scott Smith, Applicant) to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of an application for administrative design review to construct an approximately 64-square-foot first-floor addition to the left side and an approximately 273-square-foot second-floor addition to the right side of the existing residence located at 3496 Whitehall Court. Zoning for the property is R-1-6,500 (Single-Family Residential) District Director of Planning and Community Development Iserson gave the staff report, said extensions to the building permits were approved and valid; however, the construction period of the 357 square foot additions was not part of the original approval and was without permits. The City issued a Stop Work notice on that portion of the work and since that time the applicant had submitted a Design Review application. The application was approved by the Zoning Administrator after three hearings and was appealed to the Planning Commission where it was approved and now appealed to the Council by the appellants, who live immediately adjacent to the property. The appellants oppose the amount of time the project has taken to complete, its size, scale and a variety of privacy issues. Mr. Iserson said the additions meet the zoning ordinance requirements, setbacks, FAR, the lot can support a larger addition and it is compatible with the existing home and neighborhood in terms of material, color and style. He said the balcony is not part of the appeal as it had been previously approved. Trees have also recently been installed along the rear property line to satisfy conditions from the 2001 approval to screen the addition from the neighbors. He further discussed privacy issues relating to windows, said the City does not condone the timeframe of project construction and has added special conditions to the application where permits would lapse within 60 days versus cone-year timeframe and no design review approval or permits may be extended beyond that timeframe. If it were to lapse, the applicants would need to file a new application for the addition and if not met, the City would initiate nuisance abatement under the City's property maintenance ordinance. He reported building permit plans have been submitted to the City and if approved, they would expedite plan check and permitting processing. Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and approve the project as submitted, subject to conditions. Councilmember Thorne questioned whether there are penalties for not applying for permits and Mr. Iserson said there were remedies that involve citations; however, in the past, the City has encouraged completion of the project. City Council Minutes 4 March 4, 2008