Meeting Date: 07/12/11 06:30 PM

Meeting Type: Regular

Location: Will & Ariel Durant Library, 7140 W. Sunset Blvd. at Detroit


Joint Meeting of Areas 6, 7 and Housing

Call to order


1. 1400 – 1414 N. Fuller – Developer Presentation
Proposed new small lot development consisting of 20 single family homes with rooftop decks. Representative present to answer any questions or concerns you might have. Possible motion and vote.

Q & A

2. 2144 Nichols Canyon Road (above Nichols on Castair)
Proposed new free-standing single story 1,690 sq. ft. structure for a media room, rec. room with a rooftop pool and deck. Applicant’s representatives will present details of project and answer any questions or concerns you might have. Possible motion and vote.

Q & A

Public Comments


Minutes from HHWNC Area 6, Area 7 and Housing Committees’ Meeting
Area 6 Chair and Acting Area 7 Chair Dietrich Nelson called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. There were 40 stakeholders present, including six board members.
Housing Chair Marcello Robinson introduced developer Peter Lauener, Regional President, Intracorp, who presented plans for a proposed small lot subdivision at 1400 – 1414 N. Fuller in Area 7. Lauener presented plans for a 20 single family home development. Each home is three stories with rooftop decks and two car garages. Each home will range from two bedrooms and a den to three bedrooms. He advised that preliminary plans are for three aisles of homes separated by two driveways with a 15 foot setback from Fuller, six inches of air space between each home. No dedicated guest parking is planned. Existing Sycamore trees are proposed to be incorporated.
During the questioning period stakeholders raised the following questions and concerns:
          Access and staging/parking of service vehicles concerns since the driveways are deemed fire lanes
          Parking on Fuller is presently in demand therefore guest parking in the new development is essential
          Rooftop deck fireplaces are a concern as is noise generated from people on the decks (response: fireplaces might be optional)
          Where central air units will be positioned and how they will impact adjacent properties (response: not determined)
          Concerns about potential fire hazards from homeowners’ grills on rooftop decks
          Concerns of no common areas at ground level in the development
          Rear barrier between development and dwellings on Poinsettia (response:  a possible six foot wall)
          Unit prices (response: estimated $600,000 – $700,000 per unit but no price point has been determined)
          Security gate to the property (response: no)
          Would developer consider building fewer units to allow for guest parking (response: yes)
Lauener stated the company would advise the community of future hearing and asked to come back to a future meeting of Area 7 and present revised plans based on stakeholder input. No vote was taken and Intracorp was invited to come back to a future Area 7 meeting to present its revisions.
Dietrich introduced CD4 Field Deputy Sharon Shapiro.
After a short break Randall Ackers, advisor for the homeowner at 2144 Nichols Canyon Road in Area 6 presented plans for a detached accessory building. The construction, on a bluff overlooking Nichols Canyon, is a 1,023 square foot addition containing a recreation room and media room with a rooftop deck and swimming pool.  The addition will require variances on building separation to 8 feet in lieu of 10 feet and height requirements due to the steep typography.
Questions and concerns by stakeholders included:
          Invasion of privacy to homes adjacent and across from the proposed addition
          Having a hillside development “overhanging Nichols Canyon Road”
          Construction impact including grading, debris and falling rock protection for Nichols Canyon Road, haul route, number of trucks and equipment, storage of construction materials and equipment, mitigation to protect neighbors during and after construction (drainage and runoff).
A motion was called to reject the project as presented and seconded. Discussion ensued regarding landscaping as a privacy measure (response: planter boxes could be installed to assist in privacy). A stakeholder questioned the precedent of cutting and reshaping the hillside and its subsequent impact.
A vote was taken on the motion with 5 voting to reject the project as planned, 4 votes opposed to the motion with two abstaining. The homeowner stated he would like to meet with those opposing the construction and to present more details at a future meeting of Area 6.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.