Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Cummings stated that it all comes down to a privacy issue. He indicated that he <br />does not feel that under any circumstances, any balcony back there will provide any <br />remediation with screening and privacy and would make them feel absolutely <br />comfortable. <br />Commissioner Balch stated that looking at the slide with the view of the mulberry tree <br />taken from the applicant's window, noting that going down the road, that heritage tree <br />could be diseased and changed out or trimmed or thinned, it appears that there would <br />be a pretty significant view of the Cummings' backyard, with or without the balcony. He <br />asked Mr. Cummings if he would agree. <br />Mr. Cummings agreed. <br />Commissioner Balch then asked Mr. Cummings if the balcony presents a problem <br />because it extends out a little farther. <br />Mr. Cummings replied that that was part of the problem. He stated that having a <br />balcony facilitates the ease of privacy violation by having a comfortable place where <br />one could sit and just be there, but nobody would sit at a window to peak into the <br />neighbor's backyard. He noted that whether that tree is there or not, there would be a <br />place that facilitates that type of activity, and it would make them feel way more violated. <br />Commissioner Nagler commented that obviously a lot of work on everybody's part, <br />including staff, has gone into trying to solve this problem, with a lot of good will on both <br />sides: the appellant would like to see the house remodeled to have the neighbors get <br />what they want, and the applicants are trying to mitigate the neighbor's issues and <br />would like be able to do construction as they want. He noted that everyone has come <br />up with a number of ideas from putting a wall on the side of the balcony to screen the <br />view to some sort of lattice work screen to these trees. He asked Mr. Cummings if, in <br />the course of all of that, none of those came close to solving his privacy issue. <br />Mr. Cummings replied that none of them worked because, if for some reason, he <br />missed something, the balcony cannot be undone. He stated that it is really a matter of <br />avoiding this problem altogether. He noted that it sets a bad precedent for other <br />neighbors to have the ability to build a rear - facing balcony on another house and create <br />an additional amount of City workload to solve this problem for somebody else. He <br />added that it would not be consistent with what the residents are used to in the Birdland <br />neighborhood. <br />Commissioner Nagler stated that it is possible to say in theory that something may be <br />unanticipated and, therefore, what was intended to have happen does not in fact <br />happen; and major buildings are engineered on paper with calculations, and one could <br />say the calculation could be wrong but the building gets built. He added that he does <br />not candidly know, from his perspective, if simply saying "it may not be what it looks to <br />be or what it is intended to be is the sole objection" is reasonable, as opposed to saying <br />it is not adequate for these specific reasons. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 27, 2015 Page 6 of 18 <br />