PC 012600 - Laserfiche WebLink

f' the project design. He commented on the considerable amount of time and money spent on the project and requested that the Commission deny the appeal. He informed the Commission that the architect miscalculated the height of the foundation because the addition was tied into the existing foundation. He noted this was an honest mistake. He stated that the architect could not be present at tonight's meeting to provide testimony; however, he suggested that Mr. Chestnut go through the appeal process rather than lower the roof due to the house being built so well. f' Philip Ciesielski, 4160 Stanley Boulevard, noted this property has been in his family for over 30 years and that when he renovated his house, it was restored to the house's previous state. Mr. Ciesielski noted that he does not agree with Mr. Chestnut's statements and that he was not present at the meeting with the neighbors due to a death in the family. He commented on the application process, including previous Commission and Council meetings. He noted that he compromised on issues with Mr. Chestnut and that he requested that he be provided written notice of additional work performed on the barn, utilization of tarps for work performed on the barn , and appropriate disposal of debris. He noted that debris is being disposed of onto his property. Mr. Ciesielski noted he did not receive Mr. Chestnut's letter dated January 12,2000 and that he did not agree with the statements contained in the letter. Further, he did not have a fair opportunity to rebut the statements. He noted that it was agreed upon between the neighbors and Mr. Chestnut that the house should be 14 feet tall. He noted that rules are to be followed and that he has made plenty of concessions and that the design should not be changed for convenience purposes. In conclusion, he requested that the Commission uphold the original findings of December 1998 and deny the Chestnuts' applications. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan relating to the meeting with Mr. Chestnut and the neighbors, Mr. Ciesielski noted he was not at the meeting but later heard that the neighbors left the meeting very upset. Further, he noted he has never been in favor of a two-story home. Tom Dear, 4120 Stanley Boulevard, noted that his house was restored to the original condition. He noted that the neighbors have worked very hard with the Chestnuts to reach a compromise on the design of the house. He stated he opposed the original design of the house. He stated he never was in favor a two-story addition, but conceded it was Mr. Chestnut's legal right to build this house. He stated he has made it clear that the size of the house and orientation on the lot were objectionable. He noted that his position has not been accurately depicted on the meeting of December 9,1999. He stated he did agree initially with all aspects of the design of the house. He expressed concern with the height of the bungalow and its being rebuilt wall by wall. He requested that the original plans for the bungalow be retained and that the height be corrected to what was previously agreed upon. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Roberts, he noted that he was in favor of the second plan for the house and that the plans were submitted to the neighbors for a general overview. He stated that if the neighbors cannot rely on the original agreements now and draw the line, the neighbors would have no way of knowing that the house would be constructed according to the original agreements and plans. Discussion ensued relating to the design agreement, the height of the roofline, the different orientation of the roof line, and whether there was a written agreement between the neighbors and staff relating to roof line. o The contractor provided an overview of how the height of the roof was miscalculated. He noted that the architect drew the fmished grade a foot lower due to there being an existing foundation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 26, 2000 Page 11