SR 06:245 - Laserfiche WebLink

special rules and that staff always looks at mitigations such as a solid fence, trees, and opaque and stained transom windows. Commissioner Blank requested verification from staff regarding the accuracy of the line drawing exhibit showing the extent of the addition and the view from the Georgatos family room. With respect to the shadow study, Commissioner Pearce inquired if there was any shadowing from the existing trees located on the east side of the property. Ms. Giffin provided photographs depicting the existing shadowing experienced by Ms. Martha Wensel, the east property owner, and presented staff's belief that the shadowing from the proposed second-story addition was negligible. Commissioner Blank requested looking at the view from the Georgatos rear bedroom window. Commissioner Fox requested clarification of the privacy issues lmd how they were addressed. Commissioner Pearce discussed the proposed window changes and asked how the requested changes might impact the rear neighbors if three feet were added to the Georgatos fence. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Dennis Georgatos, appellant, 790 East Angela Street, expressed concern that his property value and quality of life would be diminished by the proposed addition. He believed the second-story design was intrusive and that the architectural plans for the addition were drawn without consultation with them or their neighbors to the rear on East Angela Street, who would bear the impact of the addition. He stated that they discovered the scope of the project via noticing by staff related to the Zoning Administrator action. He pointed out the support that the applicants had gained were from Mirador Court residents, who would not have the privacy and view impacts they would have. He added that there was disregard for Ms. Wensel with respect to the significant shadow impacts. He then indicated that he wished to correct the record related to inaccuracies in the staff report. He noted that on page 11, the staff report indicates that they negotiated to have and requested to increase their fence to seven feet. He stated that he did not want the fence and that noted that Ms. Amos had asked them what they would like to have to mitigate their concerns should the project be approved. His response was that if the alternatives were either to live with the second-story addition or having a seven-foot tall fence, he would prefer to have a fence; however, he unilaterally preferred the status quo. He noted that Ms. Decker also presented the same hypothetical discussion at the time of a site visit. Mr. Georgatos stated that he objected to three of the conclusions presented on page 11 of the staff report, stating that the request for a fence is contradictory and does not accurately describe the situation. There was never an agreement that if the Knights paid for a fence, then they could have their rear windows. They did not negotiate for this and do not want any windows on the south elevations facing their backyard as it is an intrusion to their privacy. He noted that the Knights are unjustly preventing the neighbors from having their privacy and that their right to add on should be tempered by the impacts the neighbors believe they will be burdened with. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 14,2006i Page 3 of9