PC 110911 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Amos agreed and replied that it would be correct from this perspective; however, it may seem more visible from other perspectives on the property. inquired if landscaping will be added in the back of the property but there is actually no proposal to add from that side of the home. Ms. Amos replied that the windows will be changed and a balcony will be added. She noted that the depth of that balcony will not be more than 12 inches but will have doors that open into the bedroom and will have more of a view than what it has now. Commissioner Olson noted that one of the neighbors, Don Errigo, had send staff an email on September 13, 2011 with some suggestions. He inquired if the current set of conditions incorporate these items. Ms. Amos replied that she talked to Mr. Errigo regarding the items he was requesting. With respect to the oak trees, she clarified that there is no construction occurring in the back of the property where his existing oak trees are, and, therefore, there is no nexus for staff to require a tree report. In regards the property lines and retaining wall, a survey was conducted and provided to Mr. Errigo, and the retaining wall was constructed on his [Mr ] property, and again there is no nexus for the City to do anything about it. She added that this would be a matter between the two property owners. Regarding the landscaping, the applicant is agreeable to what is being proposed; however, staff would like it installed prior to construction and that the trees be more mature and dense in those areas. Commissioner Pearce inquired if it is accurate to say that the original application proposed to add 3,100 square feet, and this application adds almost 4,300 square feet. Ms. Amos said yes. Commissioner Pearce continued that the applicant is, therefore, not only moving it around but is also expanding it by another 1,300 square feet. Ms. Amos said yes. Commissioner Pearce noted that the staff report references the roof height and a couple of different ways it could be measured with regard to the Overlay District or regarding zoning. She requested Ms. Amos to address these two different ways as she did not see their definitions in the report. Ms. Amos replied that this property in a PUD that has no established development standards; however, it is in the West Foothill Corridor Overlay District which has height requirements. She indicated that this is explained in the footnotes that for the Foothill Road part, the height is measured vertically from the lowest point of the structure to the highest point; and for a straight zoning district, it is measured vertically from the average PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 9, 2011 Page 3 of 29