PC 061202 - Laserfiche WebLink

r- Commissioner Sullivan moved a substitute motion to open the public hearing to hear the appellant's statement, ask for the reasons, and to hear the public testimony. There was no second to the motion. Chairperson Maas asked for a vote on the original motion. ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Arkin, Kameny, Maas, and Roberts Commissioner Sullivan None. None. The motion carried. Mr. Iserson summarized the staff report. He noted that concerns were expressed by Mr. Brian Payne, 4431 Sandalwood Drive, regarding construction issues, as well as privacy issues with the second floor windows looking into his yard. When staff heard those concerns, they contacted the applicant; the applicant agreed to install obscured glazing on the second story as a condition of approval. r- Mr. Iserson advised that another concerned neighbor was Mr. Tony Slimick, 4463 Sandalwood Drive, regarding the massing of the addition, as well as privacy and views in his rear yard. Staff advised him of the obscured glazing that was agreed to by the applicant, and the applicant offered to plant additional landscaping in his yard to mitigate the privacy concerns. Mr. Slimick did not believe that would be effective. Mr. Iserson advised that Dr. Wilson Myers, 4447 Sandalwood, contacted staff with similar issues regarding privacy, massing, and setbacks regarding the addition, and how the second floor blended with the character of the neighborhood. Staff attempted to work with Dr. Myers and the rest of the neighbors, and was unable to resolve the issue. A hearing was held, and Dr. Myers was the only neighbor to attend the hearing. Staff further discussed the issue with the applicant and Dr. Myers at the hearing. Staff noted that the subject house would be setback approximately 83 feet, and that a number of existing trees on the property provided screening. The subject property was approximately four feet lower than the property to the rear, which mitigated the second story compatibility issues. .-- Mr. Iserson advised that the staff report summarized the written appeal concerns. Staff believed that in many cases where a second story was added, landscaping and glazing mitigations have been effective. He added that there were a number of two-story homes in the neighborhood. If this addition were to be built, there would be four two-story homes in a row, which was slightly more than desirable, but there were other areas in the neighborhood where there were five two-story homes in a row. Dr. Myers had suggested that the applicant build the addition on the ground floor, but the applicant wished to build a second story addition in order to maximize use of the rear yard and the open space. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 12, 2002 Page 3