PC 04/08/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Wright stated that he reviewed the plans and feels the window would work on the west side of the home. He described his suggestion and stated that it would meet all codes. A brief discussion followed relating to how the window could work on the side elevation. Mr. Heim agreed to re-evaluate the situation, but pointed out that it is the applicant's preference to have the window on the rear elevation. Ray Parodi further stated that he would also agree to plant vines and/or plants along the wood fences that could be placed on top of the retaining wall in order to make it more attractive. He stated that he would have no objection to Mr. Severini planting vines at the bottom of his fence that would grow up onto the applicant's fence. Mrs. Macari noted for the record that she has no personal issues with the applicant, and she denied the allegation made by Mr. Parodi. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Kumaran stated that he empathizes with the existing property owners. He noted that the purpose of the retaining wall is to provide an additional six feet of space that the applicant can use on the side of her home. He will, therefore, support Option 1, with the understanding that it be made as visually attractive as possible. He feels it would be unfair to deny the applicant use of that extra six feet purely for aesthetic reasons. Commissioner Kumaran supports Option 1 with regard to the second-story window with the understanding that the applicant will plant as many trees as possible to protect Mr. Severini's privacy. Finally, he supports Option 2 relating to the construction hours, which allows only indoor construction on Saturdays. Commissioner Barker noted that she understands Mr. Severini's safety concern, but has no problem with the retaining wall. She likes the idea of having it curve and would also like to see the applicant plant some vines in order to make it attractive and lessen the impact. With regard to the second-story window, Commissioner Barker stated that with windows on the side elevations, the applicant would be able to get more sun exposure. She suggested adding a window on the east side, but keeping the window on the south side and making it a little bit smaller. Finally, she supports Option 2 relating to construction hours. Commissioner Wright stated that the retaining wall solves the drainage problem and suggested that split-faced block be used for the retaining wall; he agrees that vines or some other type of planting should be added along the top. He agrees with Commissioner Kumaran that the second-story window should remain as proposed since this is standard practice. He also pointed out that the original house on that property had more glass facing the Severini's than this one. He pointed out that the applicant has tried to appease everyone, and he applauded them for that. In addition, Commissioner Wright supports the applicant's idea of allowing Mr. Severini to place to trees in the yard. Finally, he supports Option 2 relating to construction hours. Commissioner Dove stated that he has no problem with the retaining wall or the construction hours as submitted. He is bothered by the large second-story window and suggested it be made opaque. Planning Commission Page 17 April 8, 1998