Laserfiche WebLink
feet into the ground and the soil would hit the fence and rot it up within a short period of <br />time. <br />Commissioner Olson inquired if the fence is now on the soil. Mr. Besso replied that the <br />batter boards are on the soil but the fence is above the soil. <br />Commissioner Narum asked Mr. Besso to point out on the diagram where he proposed to <br />have Mr. Spencer's hot tub relocated. Mr. Besso pointed to the proposed location noting <br />the proximity of the spa to the door of his entertainment area. He noted moving the spa <br />would get it away from his house and the next door neighbors' entertainment area and <br />would put the spa closer to the Spencers and give them more privacy. <br />Chair Blank requested clarification from Mr. Besso that from his perspective, moving the <br />pool five feet toward the Spencer's house would be an acceptable compromise and that <br />he was not asking for a 15 -foot or 20 -foot setback. Mr. Besso said he would be <br />comfortable with a 10 -foot setback as well as having the spa moved. <br />Mr. Kee Yun Hwang, attorney representing Mr. Spencer, stated that some of the issues <br />raised by the Commission have already been addressed by the ACC. He explained that <br />this matter came before the ACC in June or July of the past year, which is approximately <br />ten months ago. He stated that the Spencers submitted their pool plans, and based on that <br />submittal, the ACC visited all the neighbors, consulted with some of the experts, and <br />decided that the Spencers' request was satisfactory and approved the plan. He added that <br />since that approval date of June 12, 2007, the Spencers have communicated on a regular <br />basis with Planning staff. He noted that on one of those conversations, the issue of global <br />modification to reconsider setback requirements arose because houses in the development <br />were built too large and the yards were too small, making some of the current setback <br />requirements infeasible for some of the homes in the subdivision. He stated that the <br />Spencers' request is reasonable and that after speaking with the neighbors, the ACC <br />approved the specifications based on the factors the Commission was considering at this <br />present time. He stated that the ACC should be deferred to because it was there, the <br />members had the opportunity to speak with the Spencers and all the neighbors, including <br />the Bessos, and there were no objections raised at that time. He noted that when the <br />Spencers first filed the application for their modification setback, the Bessos raised their <br />objection based on the noise level. He indicated that he did not understand the noise <br />issue since what the Bessos are asking for is to have the Spencers move their spa closer to <br />where the Bessos' spa is. With respect to privacy reasons, Mr. Hwang noted that there is <br />no visibility with respect to whether the Spencers could see the Bessos or vice versa. He <br />noted that the Spencer property is approximately three to four feet above the Besso <br />property and that the photo shows that above the fence, the Bessos' roof is what is visible <br />from the Spencer's home while the second story of the Spencer's home that is visible <br />from the Bessos' home. He indicated that there are no privacy or noise issues in <br />question. He added that this issue has been ongoing since May 2007, now 11 months <br />since the initial application. He stated that the Spencers respectfully request that the <br />Commission approve the modification request. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 9, 2008 <br />Page 24 of 33 <br />