PC 072606 - Laserfiche WebLink

'~ probably one chair. He added that the balcony comes out of the master bedroom, not the bonus room, and would serve as a private retreat rather than a place for a lot of people. Commissioner O'Connor requested Mr. Sweeney to explain how the balcony would be looking out on the trellis than on the backyazd. He inquired if the trellis is below the balcony. Mr. Sweeney replied that the trellis is located below the balcony, eight feet out from the building, and the balcony is four feet away from the trellis, which blocks the view downward from the balcony. Commissioner Fox inquired how high the turret was. Ms. Mendez replied that the peak height of the turret is 31.5 feet; however, per Code, it is measured from the medium ground level to the midpoint of a hipped or slanted roof, in which case, the height of the turret would be 28 feet, which is two feet under the 30-foot height limit. In response to Commissioner Fox's inquiry if the height is not measured from the lowest to highest point, Ms. Mendez replied that that is done for accessory structures but not for primazy structures. Commissioner Fox noted that she had not seen a remodel with a balcony in past applications and inquired about the appropriateness of a balcony as well as volume in relation to other remodels and other issues. ~"~ Ms. Mendez replied that she would not address the appropriateness of a remodel with a balcony as that requires a judgment call. She explained that applications for second-floor i balconies that meet site development standazds and have no neighbor concerns aze approved on the Zoning Administrator level. She stated that staff has received several of these applications in the past years and they were not brought before the Planning Commission because they were not appealed. Commissioner Fox inquired whether applications for balconies aze more common in residential-zoned azeas similaz to this case or in low-density residential sites where there aze larger distances between houses. Ms. Mendez replied that the two applications she had processed were located in an R-1-6,500 zoning district, which is a smaller lot size than the R-1-7,500 zoning district of this case. Mr. Stanton stated that the tower is unique in the whole tract and is out of place. He pointed out that it is higher than the normal roof and that the peak is directly in view from their backyazd. He reiterated his concern regazding the location of the balcony, which would look directly into their "U"-shaped backyazd and living azea, and his suggestion that it be moved to the side. He added that the swimming pool next door would naturally generate noise, which would echo back off the two-story house and into the cove of their living azea. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 26, 2006 Page 16 of 24