November 04, 2003

Is It A Victory or Just A White Flag?

By Fred H. Arm
Some of you may be pleased to hear that both the applicant, Randy Chandler and the Planning Department have offered to concede on the sub-standard lot issue. I have copied below the verbatim staff recommendation of the Planning Department. (Please note the addition of items 9 & 10 to the original Design Review recommendation to merge the two sub-standard lots). I am also happy to report that the notification process for meetings appears to have been vastly improved. The City ostensibly now gives homeowners the proper notification for Design Review and other hearings.

However, what still concerns me in the Chandler case, is that since improper notice has been acknowledged by the City, the issue of the public attending the Design Review Hearing has been somewhat swept under the rug by the applicant’s and the Planning Department’s concession to follow the proper zoning requirements for the sub-standard lots. For myself, I would like the opportunity to attend the Design Review Hearing for this parcel to provide my own input. In particular, I would like to save the possibly endangered species of Black Walnut trees on the land that the builder plans to destroy. Now that there are two lots to be built on, there is ample room to save the trees and still build the same sized home. It only requires some creative rearranging.

Your input is thus important to me as to how we would proceed. Please let me know as soon as possible, at least prior to the Nov. 6th, Thursday revocation hearing. I have offered to forgo the hearing if the City and the applicant would agree to save the trees. I have yet to receive a response.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Affirm that there are no grounds for revocation, but modify the conditions of approval (conditions 1-8 below) for DR 02 209 by adding conditions 9 & 10 listed below:

1. Development to be in substantial compliance with plans submitted and date stamped 2/26/03 to the Planning Department.

2. A soils report and site drainage details shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Official.

3. Utilities shall be extended at the owner's expense as required by the City Engineer and/or utility service providers.

4. Encroachment permits for driveway bridge structure and driveway shall be obtained prior to issuance of building permits as directed by the Building Official.

5. Final driveway design shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official prior to issuance of building permits.

6. Final landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Superintendent of Parks and Landscaping prior to issuance of building permits.

7. The garage shall have a gable roof.

8. Decorative attic vents or a window shall be added on the gable ends of the dwelling.

9. The applicant shall merge Lot 6 (APN: 556 163 006) and Lot 7 (556 163 007) to form a legal, buildable lot of at least 6, 000 SF and shall submit a record of this merger with the Richmond Planning Department prior to obtaining building permits.

10. Only one single-family residence shall be constructed on Lots 6 and 7 (APNs: 556 163 006, 556 163 007).

Posted by fredarm at November 4, 2003 05:20 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?