Laserfiche WebLink
3. MEETING OPEN FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE TO <br />ADDI2_CSS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ANY ITEM WHICH IS <br />NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA_ <br />There were none. <br />4. REVISIONS AND OMISSIONS TO THE AGENDA <br />Mr. Iserson advised that Item 6.d. would be continued to the Planning Commission <br />meeting of June 1 1, 2003 _ <br />5. MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION <br />There were none. <br />6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS <br />a_ PADR-776, Steven and Laura Siner <br />Application for adn-tini strative design review approval to construct an <br />approximately 258-sq. R. first-story addition and an approximately 1,338-sq. ft. <br />second-story addition to an existing single-family residence located at 6599 <br />Stanton Court. Zoning for the property is R-1-6,500 Single-Family Residential, <br />Minitrium Lot Size of 6,500 sq. ft.) District. <br />Mr. Iserson summarized the staff report, and described the proposed addition. He noted <br />that when the item was noticed, staff received several communications from neighbors, <br />stating that the house was not in character with the Rosepointe neighborhood. Other <br />issues cited included loss of privacy, sunlight, view impact, and property value impact_ <br />Mr. Iserson noted that in such additions, staff tried to identify the particular issues, and <br />work with the property owner and the affected neighbors to come to a design solution_ In <br />this case, staff realized that the issue was more fundamental, and centered around the <br />appropriateness of a second-story addition in this neighborhood. He noted that at one <br />time, the Rosepointe neighborhood did have C=CBcRs that precluded second-story <br />additions, but that preclusion has since expired. He added that the City did not enforce <br />CCB~Rs. <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Mr_ iscrson noted chat the CCBc.Rs <br />could be reinstated, but that the homeowners would be required to approve them <br />unanimously. Staff felt that no action short of removing the second-story addition would <br />be satisfactory to the neighbors. <br />Staff believed that the neighbors' concerns about property value impact was a debatable <br />issue. The Commission packet included two letters addressing that issue: one supporting <br />and one opposing that notion. Staff did not rely on those assessments as a foundation for <br />its deci sions_ <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2003 Page 2 <br />