PC 10/11/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Earnest rebutted comments from the Cravottas at the Zoning Administrator's meeting that the gazebo would decrease the neighborhood property values. Ms. Earnest noted that all neighbors who can see the gazebo believe it is attractive and conforms to the neighborhood. The light beige color conforms to their house color. Ms. Earnest does not believe the finial is ugly or obtrusive. He went on to speak about a good neighbor fence with the Cravottas. Ms. Earnest feels they have shown consideration to the neighbors in the design and location of the gazebo and asked for the Commission's denial of the variance appeal. Commissioner Barker ascertained from staff that the Eamests could have built the gazebo five feet further back from the front property line and as close as five feet to the adjoining property line and not have needed a variance. The Cravottas rebutted the applicant's comments. They stated that they have never called the gazebo ugly; their opposition to the gazebo centered around its impact to their view of the ridge line. They do not believe the requested evergreen pear tree would reach 50 feet. Ms. Cravotta stated that they were never approached regarding a neighbor fence, furthermore, she does not believe it is pertinent to this discussion. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Hovingh commented that variances are not granted or disapproved based on the structure's "beauty," but rather on points of law. He feels there is sufficient area on site to accommodate the gazebo, and if the applicants had sought a building permit before construction, this situation may not have occurred. He cannot make the first fmding of special circumstances. Commissioner McGuirk commented that the applicants' yard is quite large and does not understand why the gazebo was so located. He cannot find for a variance based on the size and shape of the property. Commissioner Wright does not agree, noting that the applicants previously obtained a fence variance to delineate the front yard versus the back yard. He also believes that if the applicants initially went through the Building Department, they would have located the gazebo near to its present location and nearer to the Cravotta property. Commissioner Wright upholds the Zoning Administrator's decision. Commissioner Barker understands how the applicants thought that after getting a fenceline variance, the front yard was that in front of the fence. Commissioner Barker also is inclined to leave the gazebo where it is. She can find for the special circumstances. She would agree to a condition requiring more trees. Chairman Lutz noted he can also agree to the variance findings. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 October 11, 1995