PC 092706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Peter MacDonald, attorney representing the applicants, noted that they had set up a meeting with Mr. Boag and believed they had his agreement to the redesign to lower everything by four feet. Mr. Boag had wanted story poles for the back and displayed the level of the eave and rooflines. He acknowledged that two-story houses did affect other people's privacy, which was a common and expected occurrence in the city. He described the steps taken by the applicants following the complaints of the neighbors. He noted that both the Boag and the Boyce homes would be essentially the same height, and both were well within the Code. He noted that the heritage trees would probably survive the remodel process and noted that the special consideration for the trees stemmed from the fact that the Boyces were applying for City approval. He disagreed with Mr. Bourg's comment that reducing the size of the garage would restore the original roof pitch. He noted that much of the Downtown designs would be illegal to build today and noted that this was a difficult process for citizens to go through. He added that the applicants had worked in good faith with the City and neighbors to accommodate their growing family, and that they had tried to have as little impact on their neighbors as possible. He added that the gazage would get their truck off the street. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding whether a shadow study had been considered, Ms. Decker replied that there had been some discussion of it. Staff had required a shadow study of the Boag home because it was higher and set farther east than the proposed home. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regazding whether someone would normally stop in the driveway to open a door, Ms. Decker replied that the intent was to drive the vehicle into the rear area. She noted that question was beyond staff's normal planning analysis and that ten feet was required and provided for in the plans, meeting the requirement of the Code. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether staff had considered a tandem-pazking configuration for the garage, Ms. Decker replied that it had been discussed but because of the limited space in the rear, that it appeazed it would reduce access to the other azeas of the gazage. They had also considered rotating the gazage, but it also appeazed to create difficulties in backing out. The current solution seemed to be the most reasonable possibility. Commissioner Olson commented that the applicants could take the approach that the car doors be opened as they pulled into the driveway off the street or after they have driven down the full length of the driveway. Commissioner Olson noted that he had problems with the fence along the driveway and believed the applicants had cleazed that up for him by operating in such a way as to allow the fence to be there. In his view, privacy was the major issue, and he believed that Ms. Lutman had a point that her privacy would be compromised by this project. He noted that she would also have a privacy issue from the home to the south of the Boyce home, as would the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 27, 2006 Page 12 of 17