PC 08/25/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Plucker presented the staff report. He noted that in response to the notice of this administrative design review application, three neighbors expressed opposition to the project and it was determined that the application should be referred directly to the Planning Commission for review. He reported on the history of the development of other second-story homes in the neighborhood. He noted that the concerns were related to privacy issues and visual impacts. He noted that staff has made recommendations to lessen the impacts, including the additional Italian Cyprus trees to provide screening. He reported that while staff believes the additional trees would lessen impacts, the condition was not a welcoming resolution, as the neighbors consider the existing trees to be a nuisance. He advised that staff is recommending approval of the application, as conditioned, in that the proposed addition meets all Municipal Code requirements for setbacks, height, and floor area. In response to a question from Commissioner Roberts as to why the addition is not considered a second unit, Mr. Plucker advised that the addition does not have the apparatus that would qualify it as a full kitchen, and, therefore, staff could not make that determination. Discussion was held regarding the interpretation and definition of a "view." Mr. Plucker noted that it means different things to different people and it is very difficult to define. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED The applicants, Mike and Sharleen Laver, 6446 Arlington Drive, stated that they did not expect this much opposition to their application. Mr. Laver reported that when they purchased their home they always intended to add on to it. He noted that they want to start a family and that their home is currently 1,830 feet. He advised that the Bartholomew's home next door which has a second-story addition was the inspiration for their plan. He reported that their roof needs to be replaced and that it makes sense to do the addition now and replace the roof in the process. He stated that he believes they are meeting all of the ordinances and setbacks. He noted that they look at the addition as an investment for them, in light of the sale prices of other homes with additions that have sold in the neighborhood. Mr. Laver advised that he understands that the Bartholomews are objecting to the addition because it blocks the view of the mountains that they see from their addition. He noted that this has a certain amount of hypocrisy because they feel they are entitled to build the same thing that the Bartholomews have. Mr. Laver advised that the addition was designed, intentionally, with high windows on one side so that the view from the windows did not look into the Bartholomew's windows and property. He noted that it does block the view of one of their addition's windows, but he noted that their addition was allowed. He commented that the proposed balcony ties in with the required design of the interior stairway. Mr. Laver noted that the Sasses' property is six to eight feet above the Laver's house. He noted that the 32 Italian Cypresses were installed prior to the Laver's purchasing their home and that some of the neighbors requested that they be removed. He noted that it would be a significant effort to remove them and that they enjoy the trees. He commented that it would destroy their back yard to remove them. He noted that they cannot even see the Sasses' house, even if they stand on the roof of their house. Mr. Laver commented that the trees are messy in the spring for one to one-and-a-half months. He reported that they are looking into ways of discouraging the birds from nesting in the trees, but there are some legalities with which they must contend. He noted that they have no plans to remove the trees. PLANNING COMMISSION MiNUTES Page 6 August 25, 1999