PC 061406 - Laserfiche WebLink

size of his addition, in order to maintain the good will of the neighbors. He encouraged the Conmiission to provide leadership on this issue and to deny the project. Erin Murphy, 778 Mirador Street, spoke in support of the project. She noted there were no privacy or view easements in this neighborhood. She took exception to the characterization of the supporters of the project as biased and noted that everyone who had an opinion about this project was biased. She stated that the view from the Mirador Court homes would also be impacted, but the residents were still not presenting any objection. She believed that the architecture is very attracfive and in character with the neighborhood. She noted that there were several second-story homes in the Court and azound the site and that while the addition would increase the value of the homes, it should not be a defining factor as the City does not have a guarantee for property values. She added that the zoning of the property was provided through the City process in determining the growth of the City and shaping its future, and noted that the opinions from the East Angela Street residents seem to override the community goals as reflected in the Zoning Ordinance. Dan Georgatos, 790 East Angela Street, noted that he was the son of the appellants and spoke in opposition to this project. He requested that the Planning Commission act in accordance to the City's stated goals as a Community of Chazacter and to act responsibly in this matter. He stated that he was distressed that the family's privacy and property value would be negatively impacted and that they would lose the view that they presently enjoy. He would like the applicants to re-examine their plans and to downsize the addition. Peter Shutts, project architect, 4133 Mohr Avenue, noted that he would be available to answer questions about the project. He noted that the roof pitch was within the City's requirements and did not believe the view was a significant issue. He noted that the trees had a minhnal impact on Mrs. Wensel's views. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether the extended front yard was an issue, Ms. Giffin replied that in this case, no variance was required for the project. Mr. Knight, the applicant, noted that they designed their addition so the four bedrooms could be located together. He conceded that they had made some mistakes in the beginning of the process but believed that their requests were reasonable. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regazding the roof type, Ms. Giffm replied that it was Presidential Shake "Weather-Wood." She added that there were two panes of glass in the windows that face Mrs. Wensel's home. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether there were other 3,000-squaze-foot homes in the neighborhood, Ms. Giffin replied that she did not know. She added that staff tried to pull that information and that some homes were built many years ago with no public records of the additions. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 14, 2006 Page 10 of 18