14 ATTACHMENT 4-5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Blank would like the word "noise" to be inserted between "construction" and "and" to clarify the intent that neither the traffic noise, nor the construction noise itself, may make noise. Ms. Decker noted that the language could be inserted. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Pearce regarding how this item had come to the attention of the Planning Department, Ms. Decker replied that it was through Code Enforcement via complaints from the neighbors that the additions were being constructed without the benefit of permits. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Dennis Long, 3651 Manchester Street, appellant, presented a series of photographs of the applicants' site from the time prior to construction to date. He inquired how a construction site may continue to be unfinished for so long. He believed the current structure deviated significantly from the applicant's original plan, leading him to believe that the current application for the new structure would also deviate from the submitted documents. He noted that the applicant finally attempted to respond to their recent recommendations to eliminate the windows facing his house and to accelerate completion of the exterior finishes. He noted that he had to tolerate extensive construction noise and added that the applicant also took on the roles of owner, designer, and builder and hired help as needed. Although the Code stated that the owner may build up to a 40-percent FAR, the original buildings of the tract did not approach the maximum permissible building size. He did not want to live in a neighborhood of monster homes. He was concerned that the applicant rarely communicated with him with respect to his building activities and that he had witnessed only small, incremental progress in the construction over the years. He noted that the incomplete project was unsightly and detracted from his ability to enjoy quiet time in his yard. He noted that other neighbors had completed their construction process in a timely manner. Frank Morgan, 3502 Whitehall Court, noted that quality of life was very important for homeowners, as was responsibility to surrounding neighbors. He noted that in 1992, he and his wife supported the applicant's efforts even as the project timeline became more extended. He noted that in 2001, Mr. Smith had presented his expansion plans to him, which ultimately strained their tolerance and friendship as the house increased in size closer to their house. They reviewed the plans and expressed their concerns, which led to statements of minimal impact to the Morgan family as well as speedy completion of construction. He was concerned that the construction was not completed in a timely fashion, which led to another meeting in 2006. Mr. Smith then assured the Morgans that he would redouble his efforts and that he anticipated finishing in a few months. He noted that while the original project was not completed, a second-story addition appeared which was not in the original plan. He then called the City Planning Department, which revealed that it was being built without permits. He believed the unpermitted addition was being built quickly in order to garner forgiveness from the City and the neighbors. He noted that he had been tolerant of construction lasting 15 years and objected to the disregard of City procedures and regulations. He requested that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to remove all unpermitted structures, which were also built without neighborhood input or approval. He requested that the City Planning Department place a EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 26, 2007 Page 5 of 12