PC 032906 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Blank disclosed that he received a phone call from Mr. Choy, but he was r'' not available at that time; neither did he speak with him in person. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. David Choy, applicant, detailed the background of this application and noted that he and his wife bought the house because it had a large lot that backed up to the green belt, and there was room for addition onto the property. They had always intended to build an addition to accommodate his mother-in-law. He noted that he had been a planner for 14 yeazs and checked with the City to ensure that any proposed addition could be accommodated on that property. He believed there had been sufficient room to put an addition on that site and that their proposed addition conformed to the City's guidelines and regulations. He noted that many new additions had been proposed throughout the City and within their neighborhood. He noted that of the 22 approved second-story additions, 19 were approved as submitted. He displayed a series of slides of homes in his neighborhood. Wendy Sommer, applicant, believed the appellants' objections were based on the wall and view, as well as the fact that they did not want staze into a big stucco wall. She noted that the walled-in view resulted from the dense planting in the adjacent properties, not on their own property; she considered that an existing condition. She displayed the proposed site plan and noted that their setback of 20 feet exceeded the required setback of five feet. The existing stucco wall was part of the original home built 37 yeazs ago. She believed f.-. that a requirement to mitigate existing conditions were punitive and unreasonable. She believed the addition of three trees would worsen the walled-in condition. She had been upset by the suggestion that she and her family move out of the neighborhood. She noted that the addition was designed thoughtfully and in compliance with Code and would be built green. James Janisen, appellant, distributed the text of his PowerPoint presentation and noted that he and his wife wished the addition to be built on the side not adjacent to their home. He noted that the Planning Department files contained precedents for that change and also expressed concern for a negative impact on his home, especially in comparison to the lazger homes. He pointed out that a proposed addition on Stanton Court was unanimously denied by the Planning Commission after approval of many other similar additions in the same neighborhood, stating that the design was inappropriate relative to the site and the adjoining azeas. The Planning Commission stated that the design was too massive, and design alternatives such as ground floor expansion existed. He believed the applicants had room to build an addition on the other side of the home without affecting the neighbors. He noted that the neighbors who supported the addition had not seen the home from his yazd or his bedroom. He added that their house had the smallest backyard in the neighborhood, and there was no expanse as featured in the other neighbors' yards. He cited a precedent for mitigation regazding Peaceful Lane, where the City Council approved a similar permit to remove a 47-foot by 4-foot existing concrete pad in order to plant six trees where the neighbors' view was impacted. He cited a home behind the Choys, 3615 Manchester Street, where an addition was proposed and appealed by the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 29, 2006 Page 4 of 25