PC 061406 - Laserfiche WebLink

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 aseven-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 reaz windows. They did not negotiate for this and do not want any windows on the south elevations facing their backyazd 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. Mr. Georgatos noted that on page 11, the staff report is incorrect in its statement that the Georgatos would only be satisfied by the elimination of the second-story addition. He stated that his wife actually said that they could support the project if they just downsized the second story or reconfigured the design by moving a room to the first floor. He added that after the Zoning Administrator heazing and the discussion with the neighborhood to downsize the proposed addition, the Knights never followed through or proposed anything else and that the Zoning Administrator mitigated the project with the planting of two trees and the installation of transom windows. He reiterated the windows were not acceptable and did not want them there. He formally registered his complaint about the windows in the stairway on Exhibit 3.1 in that the line of sight drawing does show that the windows do have an impact on their privacy. He stated that comments have been made that there is no view protection ordinances in this neighborhood and that the zoning code allows this addition. He stated that people have purchased their homes with the ~ understanding that they will have a certain view and yet the Knights or anyone else could PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 14, 2006 Page 6 of 18