PC 061406 - Laserfiche WebLink

(1) relocating the master bedrooms windows to the east and west elevations; (2) adding /1 trees to soften the appearance of the addition and mitigate privacy concerns; and 3) moving the stairway farther to the east, which in turn would decrease the square footage and eliminate a small portion of the second-story addition. After the third meeting, the applicants were the only ones supportive of the proposed mitigation measures, with the exception of moving the stairway. The applicants believed their request was consistent with other City approvals in their zoning district. Following the Zoning Administrator Heazing, staff worked with both the applicants and the appellants to find mitigation measures that would be acceptable to both parties; that mediation process was unsuccessful. The appellants would prefer that the applicants build aone-story addition, believing that asecond-story addition would devalue their home. If the Planning Commission were to approve asecond-story addition, the appellants would like the following to be included in the conditions of approval: 1. Replace the existing four-foot-six-inch fence along the rear of the applicants' property line with aseven-foot fence (six-foot solid and one-foot lattice) to be paid for by the applicants; 2. Use only non-deciduous trees that would not grow to a height above the elevation of the second story so there is no blocking of additional skyline; 3. Eliminate any new windows on the reaz elevation; and 4. Relocate the stairs towazds 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 aseven-foot tall fence on the appellants' property line, if the appellants allow the originally proposed reaz-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 tc 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 14, 2006 Page 4 of 18