PC 092706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commission's approval for this application. He was concerned that if they had to reduce the FAR, they would have to remove more than five feet from the back of the two-story element, which would break up the design of the rooms on the back of the house. He noted that would have no impact on the view of their home from Second Street. Mr. Boyce noted that their neighbors, the Boags, who objected to the 45-percent FAR, just built a home addition that was seven feet from the property line, was three feet above his own proposed second-story addition, and whose height was 37 feet above his back yard. The Boags had requested and were granted a vaziance on that sideyazd setback. Mr. Boyce noted that he had removed asecond-floor master bedroom popout on the side bordering Ms. Lutman's property at her request to protect her privacy. He noted that some neighbors objected to the original design of the second-story element, which was set back 45 feet from the curb, beyond the historic one-story element. When the second-story element is completed, it will be approximate three feet below the height of the Boags' addition. He noted that the original second-story addition met the height requirements of the zoning district; however, in an effort to gain their neighbors' support, they changed to a dormers to the roof on the second-story element and lowered the roof by four more feet, which cost them eight windows on the second floor. Mr. Boyce was concerned that these changes did not garner the support of all their neighbors, although some of the neighbors and Planning staff did support them. They provided an azborist's report from one of the City-approved azborists, but the report was not available when the staff report was published; he distributed that at this meeting, and noted that the report concluded that all of the trees will probably survive. He believed that the impact of one party's heritage trees upon a neighbor's property was subject to the rule of reason. He noted that they sincerely tried to get their neighbors' support and held an open house to show the plans and answer questions. He noted that the fence along the property line would make it extremely difficult to open a caz door within the driveway. He noted that his neighbor, Ms. Lutman, originally agreed to them being able to use their property as it had been used for many years, but later changed her mind. He believed that her actions of wanting to install a fence along the property line, where it had never existed before, had forced them into litigation. Mr. Boyce noted that three new sets of plans had been submitted to the Planning Department and questioned the objections based on the original plans. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regazding the number of people who signed his petition of support versus those who attended the open house, Mr. Boyce estimated that approximately 35 to 40 people showed up at the open house. He noted that only one person who attended opposed the project, and the rest did not oppose it. Some people did not wish to sign their name at all. He confirmed that no Commissioners who attended ventured an opinion and merely gathered information. A discussion of the size of the garage ensued PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 27, 2006 Page 7 of 17