SR 06:245 - Laserfiche WebLink

4. Relocate the stairs towards the east elevation in order to retain some of the current view. The applicants understand the neighbors' concerns but believe they are exercising their property rights in an appropriate manner, particularly because they have not requested any variances and because no special view easements exist on this property. The applicants have agreed to plant two trees between the addition and the southern property line that will grow no higher than the elevation of the second-story addition. They have also agreed to modifY the second-floor windows facing the appellants' property with transom windows that would have a sill height of six feet or higher to mitigate the appellants' privacy concerns. They have also agreed to pay for a seven-foot tall fence on the appellants' property line, if the appellants allow the originally proposed rear-facing windows that were removed during redesign. The applicants would also provide landscaping on the southwest corner of the subject property to mitigate Mr. Bennett's privacy concerns. They would not, however, agree to pay for an increase in the fence height for Mr. Bennett's existing eight-foot fence nor a new seven-foot solid fence for Mr. Imperiale. Ms. Giffin noted that the Municipal Code does not allow fences in excess of eight feet tall and would not support an increase in Mr. Bennett's fence height. In reviewing the design review criteria, staff believes that the proposed project is a well-designed addition to an existing house and would not negatively impact the natural beauty of the city. Staff believes the house is well designed, with appropriate colors and materials that were consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood. The scale of the addition is in keeping with other homes in the neighborhood, and the proposed height of the addition is substantially lower than the maximum height allowed. Staff believes the project's design preserves and enhances the residential character of the neighborhood by maintaining and supporting the existing character and development pattern of the neighborhood. The Craftsman architectural style allows for features of the existing house to be maintained, and staff believes it was harmonious with other homes in the neighborhood. The rear and side setbacks are more than what is required, and the project adheres to the Municipal Code requirements for the R-I-6,500 Zoning District. The current height of the residence is 15 feet; the addition would yield a maximum 24- foot height, with an average of 21 feet. Although the neighbors would see the proposed project, there are no private view easements granted for the subject property nor the surrounding neighbors. No landscaping was proposed as part of this project, although the applicants have agreed to plant the aforementioned two non-deciduous trees. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Case PAP-93, thereby upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of Case P ADR-14 72 subject to Exhibit A and the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B. Chairperson Arkin noted that the existing livable square footage is within the 40 percent floor area ratio allowed. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether there was anything in the Municipal Code regarding privacy as it relates to this project, Ms. Giffin replied that there were no EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 14,2006 Page 2 of9