PC 032311 - Laserfiche WebLink

new window location. He added that the neighbors commented that they were not concerned about him but about what might happen in the event the house is sold and the future owners create a nuisance from the window. Mr. Pangali stated that the loft comprises only five percent of the area of the entire house and that 95 percent of the time, his family would be elsewhere in the house and not in the loft looking out the window at the neighbors' property. He noted that they looked at seven other properties that have undergone the same renovation, whose neighbors had the same privacy issues as theirs, and they were all approved; some had smaller windows, larger windows, sliding windows, and windows that can be opened. He indicated that they designed their window to conform to what was existing and already approved by the City, as recommended by City staff, rather than try something new and unique and set a precedent. He stated that in the interest of coming up with a solution, they are willing to accept the restrictive covenant, provided that the covenant expires when the neighbors move or sell their property. He pointed out that they would not want to restrict all successive owners of their property to that covenant because doing so does not make sense. Mr. Pangali then stated that they also met with the Les Lyons, City Senior Building Inspector, and explained to him that one of the ways they could render the window opaque is by applying a film. He noted that Mr. Lyons indicated that he knows the film is permanent, but many people do not know this and have an issue with it. He added that Mr. Lyons mentioned that he has successfully been able to argue that applying an opaque film to the glass is just as effective as putting in an opaque glass. He asked the Commission, if it decides not to grant them the option of having clear glass and remediation through vegetation, to consider the alternative of rendering the glass window opaque or etched because there are beautiful designs available which would enhance the value of their house and look very attractive, rather than their trying to find an affordable opaque glass that would make it look like a big shower door. Mr. Pangali stated that they are reasonable people who never received a complaint for 16 years. He indicated that it would be a travesty if the official record reflected that he just showed up on February 1, 2011 with the intention of concealing that the loft was constructed without a permit. He stated that was never the case and reiterated that he wanted to be in full disclosure and to have the loft area permitted, as anything less than that does not make sense. He emphasized that he would like to revisit and fix the factual record because this report goes on the Internet, and he does not want anybody googling his name and discovering that he tried to hoodwink the Planning Commission. Chair Narum asked Mr. Pangali what his first choice was to address this problem. Mr. Pangali replied that he would like a Building Inspector to come to his home; the carpet has been removed and the floor has been exposed to show the beams that were laid and the construction that has been performed. He indicated that Mr. Lyons has seen that, had looked at his submittals and drawings, and had said there would be no problem. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 23, 2011 Page 16 of 21