PC 08/25/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Sullivan stated that he understands the Lavers wanting to stay in their home and expand their house by building an addition. He noted that from a design perspective it looks fine. He noted that he has a problem in that he has very strong feelings about neighborhood support of any changes that happen in a neighborhood. He stated that part of the planning process is determining the impact development and changes will have on existing neighbors. He noted that the fact that all the neighbors are strongly coming out against the application, makes him say the Planning Commission should not support it. He stated that there is a clause in the General Plan about maintaining existing neighborhood character. He advised that while there are some two-story additions that have been built (the last one over objections of the neighbors) the neighborhood was built as a one-story neighborhood. He commented that he wants to do what he can to uphold that part of the General Plan. Commissioner Roberts noted that she agrees with Commissioner Sullivan, particularly regarding the community character element of the General Plan. She noted that the neighborhood is very comfortable because there are single-story homes. She said that because there is a clot of two-story homes on this court it almost seems top-heavy. She noted that she agrees with Mr. Sundell that the character of the old Rosepointe community is definitely a single-story neighborhood. She stated that she feels the trees are out of character with the neighborhood, and that she believes if there had been a homeowners' association they would not have been allowed. She suggested that if the application is approved, the five trees to be added should be a different species, because birds tend to be specific to different kinds of trees. She advised that because of the neighborhood character and the objections of the neighbors she cannot support the application. In response to a question from Chairperson Kumaran, Mr. Plucker advised that there are a number of types of smaller evergreen trees that have reasonable growth rates that do approximately the same thing. He noted that the applicant had expressed concern about changing the type of trees. Mr. Plucker commented that different types of trees attract different types of birds. Commissioner Kameny stated that he sympathizes with the applicant, and staff has indicated that the proposal meets all the code requirements related to setbacks, height, and floor area ratio. He noted that there are no view easements in place that were guaranteed to the adjacent neighbors. He noted that it is a predominately one-story neighborhood. He concurred that the Cypress trees look out of place. He stated that he agrees with the neighbors that the addition is not appropriate and he does not believe the addition as proposed would look that well and that it would be top-heavy. Commissioner Maas stated that she empathizes with the Lavers and she understands the position of the neighbors, yet the addition fits in perfectly with the Code requirements. She stated that she feels if the Planning Commission is going to take the position of denying these types of applications because of it not fitting into predominantly single-story home neighborhoods, the Commission needs to amend or rezone these areas (i.e., Val Vista). She noted that because of the way the Code reads, she would support the Lavers' application. She stated that she would like them to go back and sit down with the neighbors one last time in an attempt to mitigate the tree issue. She advised that she realizes this is not the main issue, but with some compromise this would soften the effect. Chairperson Kumaran noted that the owner has the right to build and the neighbors' have their rights in terms of what they see as being an intrusion to the privacy of their existing lives. He stated that he feels PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 9 August 25, 1999