PC 08/25/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

homeowners' association. He stated that he believes if there had been a homeowners' association, the Lavers' addition and the height of the trees would not have been allowed. Commissioner Maas asked if it would be acceptable for Cypress trees which abut the Sundell's property to be topped or ifa different type of shrub or trees be acceptable. Mr. Sundell responded that a 25-foot hedge is too tall, when what is allowed is a five- or six-foot fence, he indicated that if they were topped at about 15 feet it would help. He noted that topping the trees would be nicer, but it would not resolve the issue of the addition. Dan Bartholomew, 446 Arlington Court, stated that he appreciates the fact the Laver have made some attempts to soften the blow of the addition and they do not deny them the right to build on their property. He advised that he is requesting the Planning Commission deny the application and he is also requesting support of Commissioner Maas and Roberts' recommendation to hear all the neighbors, in that all of the adjacent neighbors have issues both from a view and an aesthetic perspective on this proposed addition. He advised that they bought their home because of the view of the foothills and that the addition would eliminate this view. He commented that the trees are an incredible nuisance and that they have made many attempts to find a way to alleviate the birds. He advised that there are a lot of days his children cannot use the pool until a considerable amount of time is spent cleaning it. He stated that the addition of more trees is not a good option. He noted his concern with the window. Mr. and Mrs. Laver stated that they would like to spend more time trying to find a way to ward of the birds, noting that it is a problem for everyone. Mr. Laver noted that it is important to distinguish the bird issue from the addition. He stated that they empathize with the neighbors, because they experience the same problems, but they enjoy the trees during the rest of the year. He advised that tree trimmers have recommended not topping them, and it will not resolve the problem of the birds nesting there. In response to a question from Chairperson Kumaran, Mr. Plucker advised that the purpose of adding five trees was to block the addition. Mr. Laver commented that the view from the Bartholomew would be blocked from the left window were there is currently a window seat. Mr. Laver advised that it is his opinion that they would have the same view from the right window and if a window seat was built in the right window (which they would entertain sharing the cost) it may help with the view they are looking for. He noted that there is no other location where an addition could be built on their property. Mrs. Laver advised that the only other neighbor who has a problem with the addition, as far as she is aware, is the Sasses. She noted that staff has spoken to the Sasses and they have written two letters, so she does not understand why the item should be continued. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Chairperson Kumaran asked if the commissioners have enough information to rule on this application this evening. Commissioner Roberts noted that they have the letters from the Sasses stating their concerns. The Commission agreed to continue their discussion and take action on the item. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 August 25, 1999