PC 031203 - Laserfiche WebLink

believe that was the ideal solution, and tried very hard not to use that kind of glazing on a bay window in the front of the house. Staff did not believe that any other mitigation was possible for that view problem. Landscaping did not seem to be effective, given the height of the window. The Somersetts were concerned about the sun-blocking effects of trees. Staff examined the use of a pop-oui window, instead o£ a bay window; the difference would be the lack of side panes. The pop-out windows would provide design significance, as well as nice views into and out of the house. The applicants noted that they wanted the bay window, and a compromise was suggested regarding the partial glazing of the bay window. Staff suggested that the Commission discuss this issue, and revisit the pop-out design as opposed. to a bay window design. Staff did not believe this was a perfect solution to the problem. Mr. Iserson noted the City normally allows construction hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m_, Monday through Saturday, providing the adjacent neighbors don't object. In the past, weekend hours have been eliminated. Because the Johnstons objected to early weekend hours, the Saturday hours were modified to 10:00 a. m. to 5:00 p.m_ Staff received a communication from the applicant which suggested that they would agree to a compromise of 8:00 a. m. to 5:00 p.ni_ Monday through Friday, and 10:00 a.m. to 5.00 p_m_ on Saturdays for exterior work, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday for interior work. That compromise would be acceptable to staff. From a design point of view for these kinds of additions for single-family homes, staff mainly examines the architectural style in terms of compatibility with the character of the neighborhood. Height and massing were the potential issues raised by some of the neighbors. Staff believed that the conditions in terms of reducing the height and the mass would work. Staf£ and the neighbors believed that the house pushed the envelope in terms of the size of other homes in the neighborhood. Staff wished to provide the applicants with their desired floor area and floor plan, and tried to work within that. Staff was not able to obtain colors or material boards from the applicant, which was a standard condition when a change of those elements were considered_ It is important that any changes in colors and materials blend with the other homes in the neighborhood. The applicants submitted an initial appeal letter, listing the conditions they were appealing, as well as a revised appeal letter, outlining potential compromises_ The revised letter outlined the agreement between the Griders and the Johnstons; the other neighbors did not sign it, and Mr_ Iserson was unsure whether they were aware of it. There was an agreement to reduce the roof pitch as conditioned by the Zoning Administrator, as well as an agreement to construct the hip roof. There was no mention of reducing the second floor plate height, and staff interpreted that as not being acceptable to the applicant at this point. There was discussion of reducing the gap between the existing first-floor ceiling and the bottom of the new second-floor floor joist. The other issue of the appeal was the condition that the two bonus room windows on the north side be non-operable and of view-obscuring glass, or that the sill height be 6 feet PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 12, 2003 Page 4