PC 08/25/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Laver advised that the yard of Don and Muriel Sundell, which is directly behind them, is void of trees. He stated that they have a spa and gazebo and utility shed in that area, and there is no room to plant trees without removing the gazebo and some cement. He noted that they would be willing to do this, as they are also concerned about the ability to see into the Sundell's back yard. He noted that they enjoy their neighborhood and would have to move if they cannot build the addition, because the recreation area of the house is too small. With regard to the Sasses' request for a continuance, Mr. Laver advised that they submitted their application in April or May and that this delay has kept them from putting on a new roof before the rainy season. In response to a question from Commissioner Kameny, Mr. Laver advised that the balcony is not meant for daily use, they would like to be able to overlook their pool if children are swimming. Commissioner Kameny asked if the balcony could be built with windows replacing the slider, therefore making the balcony non-useable. Mr. Laver advised that this would not be preferable, because this was one of the nice features that was designed into it. He noted that they are willing to install the trees, and, therefore, the balcony should not be an issue. He stated that ifa window is installed, rather than a slider, he doesn't believe he should have to remove the gazebo and concrete in order to plant the trees, in that there would not be any visual impact. Discussion ensued regarding possible alternatives related to the balcony and the slider. Mr. Laver noted that they intended to build the balcony with a removal railing to allow for moving furniture into the addition, and also to provide a fire exit. Mr. Plucker advised that staff is concerned about the use of the balcony by future owners, and is recommending removal of the balcony and sliding glass door and replacing them with a window to mitigate privacy and noise impacts on the neighbors to the rear. Mrs. Laver commented that whether there is a four-foot balcony or a window the visual and noise impact would be the same. Commissioner Maas asked if high windows would be an acceptable alternative to the Lavers. They responded that they want some kind of view into their own back yard. Donald A. Sundell, 430 Hamilton Way, stated that his home is on the south side of the Laver's home. He requested that the Commission reject the application for the Laver's two-story addition. He noted that the staff report states his concerns related to privacy. He noted that staff's recommendation for conditions of approval for the addition would be his second choice, in that in time the planting of the Cypress would remove his privacy objections, in that it takes time for the Cypress trees to grow. He noted that when a second-story addition was built at 446 Arlington Court, the neighbor where the Lavers now live, objected to it. He advised that block glass was installed in the window o£the addition to distort the view in the Laver's residence. The property owner of Laver's residence then planted the Cypress trees along the property line of 446 Arlington Court and half-way along the Sundell's property line. He advised that no one has topped the trees, and consequently there is now a 25-£oot hedge along the area, which the Sasses don't like because it blocks their northwest area, and which the Sundells don't like because it blocks half o£their northern view, and also because it is a nesting area £or blackbirds, which are very dirty. He noted that this causes a mess in their pool for 2-1/2 months out of the year. Mr. Sundell reported that the Rosepointe area was built by individual contractors and there was no PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 August 25, 1999