SR 06:245 - Laserfiche WebLink

Page 1 of3 Natalie Amos From: Jerry Iserson Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 5:06 PM To: 'Ron Imperiale' Cc: Donna Decker; Natalie Amos; . Subject: RE: Planning Commission hearing Mr. Imperiale, Thank you for your note. When you originally e-mailedmeonApriI3.ldid offer to become directly involved with this project and suggested at that time that you work with Natalie to set up a meeting with all of the parties involved so that I could participate with the neighbors and applicant before the Zoning Administrator hearing. Unfortunately, that did not happen, so instead the Zoning Administrator hearing was held, the project was approved, and an appeal was filed, After that, you wrote an e-mail to Natalie suggesting a compromise consisting of a fence extension along the rear of three of the East Angela Street properties: Your property line shared with the Martha Wensel, the Georgatos' property line shared with the Knights, and the Bennett property line shared with the Zevanoves, I was hopeful that if a compromise could have been arranged, we could have reconvened the Zoning Administrator hearing and approved the addition with the fence extension condition. However, I have been told that not all parties have agreed to this potential compromise, Regarding the shading analysis, during the review process, Ms, Wenzel was the only neighbor who had expressed concerns about shadow impacts resulting from the addition, and a shading study addressing her lot was performed by the Knight's architect, Peter Shutts, and reviewed by staff. Now there is a request to have another shading analysis conducted for all of the potentially affected properties, Moreover, you have requested that this be completed by a neutral party. First, the Planning staff did consider shadow impacts and concluded that the addition woutd not have a significant shading impact on the surrounding properties since the Knight's house is to the north of and lower in elevation compared to the lots on East Angela. Regarding the issue of who conducts technical analyses in general, it is the City's practice to allow such work to be conducted by the applicant's consultants, of course subject to review by staff, I am pursuing the possibility of an expanded shade study for the proposed addition if I determine that it would add to the analysis already done, I would also like to clarify that the City always tries to balance the requests of an applicant, in this case a property owner and City resident, with the concerns of neighbors, With our experiences over the years, this is not always easy, but the City's practice has been to allow reasonable, well-designed home additions that take into account neighborhood concerns to the maximum extent practical. However, the City avoids the property tax issue as there is no conclusive evidence that well-designed additions impact property values in the neighborhood one way or the other, and we certainly avoid implying that residents must mOVE! out of their neighborhood in order to get a larger home. In short, I'm not sure how my direct involvement could facilitate the situation at this point. I believe the Planning staff has done a thorough analysis of the project and has tried to facilitate a reasonable outcome. If you have any further suggestions, I would be open to them, but it seems like most suggestions for a compromise have not be effective. Please note that Planning Commission meetings are held on the 2nd and 4th Wednesday evening of the month, and the date of June 14 is the correct date the project will be heard, unless there is an agreement to continue, Regards, Jerry Iserson -----Original Message----- 6/9/2006