Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A <br />Page 56 <br /> <br />Mr. Mehra referred to Janet Borgens' 2 concerns one being termites. He posed the <br />question to a building inspector as well as the chief Building official and asked when <br />there is a demolition is there a likely hood of termites flying out of that structure and <br />going to another structure. The answer was that it is highly unlikely, usually during the <br />demolition stage termites die. Another concern had to do with a design issue and it the <br />balconies possibly be relocated to the front elevation (driveway side) for the units that <br />abut the Kentfield Manor Townhomes, units 11-15. The answer to that is that the <br />applicant looking at the floor plan it can be done. <br /> <br />Chair Radcliffe asked if termites swarm at a certain time of the year and if so what time. <br /> <br />Mr. Mehra replied that he wasn't sure and would check with a local termite inspection <br />company. <br /> <br />Commissioner Seybert would like a mitigation added that the house be tented before <br />demolition. <br /> <br />Commissioner Seybert referred to the setback of 11-15 and asked how that setback is <br />consistent with the decision the City has made on Planned Developments in this area <br />and maybe even recently the Planning Commission has made with regards to Oakwood. <br /> <br />Mr. Jany replied that they are very consistent; the overall project has good setbacks for a <br />Planned Development. <br /> <br />Commissioner Seybert asked about the comparison to Oakwood because it was <br />essentially a couple of big lots in a residential neighborhood that were combined to then <br />do a land recycling project and what were the setbacks there alike. <br /> <br />Commissioner Holt referred to the Oakwood development and the first property directly <br />to the right of it was a single family home and single family homes behind it as well. <br /> <br />Mr. Mehra replied that there were apartments directly to the rear of Oakwood. The <br />setbacks were reduced because both of the projects Oakwood 1 and 2 were developed <br />with Planned Development Permits and the rear setbacks were reduced to 8 feet or less <br />and the side yard setbacks were reduced. <br /> <br />Commissioner Seybert stated that this project is consistent with all the other Planned <br />Developments that this Commission has seen in recent history. <br /> <br />Commissioner Smith stated that they have to consider the amount of housing towards <br />RHNA numbers. Concerns are valid and can be addressed with minor changes, some <br />of the balconies on 11-15 may need to be considered for some privacy and some <br />architectural elements thought about/changed/addressed and the shadow studies as <br />well. How can they hold a developer to the sustainable building practices? <br /> <br />Mr. Mehra replied that the City is in the process of developing a Green Building <br />practices, whatever statements the applicant has made are in good faith and there is no <br />way to controi it if they do or not. <br /> <br />Mrs. Ekas stated that what the developer proposed to the Commission tonight in <br />following the Build It Green checklist is in line with the County's Green Building <br />Ordinance for residential development. The City's Green Building Ordinance plans to <br />Page 9 of 13 <br />