PC 032311 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pangali stated that his priority would be to have clear, non - operable glass windows and a tree planted on his side of the property. He indicated that he has vertical blinds in the window which are constantly drawn at some angle. He noted that privacy is a two -way thing and that he wants his privacy too. He added that he would like an option to use a film applied to the glass that renders the window opaque, and they will attest and certify that the opaqueness achieved in this way is permanent and comparable to that achieved by using opaque glass. Chair Narum asked Mr. Pangali if he wanted to use the same window but relocated. Mr. Pangali said that was correct but that the window has actually been relocated. He noted that construction was started two weeks after they were granted the permit, and they received a "stop work" order due to the neighbors' complaint. Commissioner Blank noted that Mr. Pangali had mentioned the use of etched glass as an alternative. He clarified with Mr. Pangali that he really did not want to use that. Mr. Pangali replied that it was an option that was presented by staff but that he did not want to use it. He indicated that they could get the same look and feel of etched glass by using film. Commissioner Blank inquired what loft is used for. Mr. Pangali replied that it is a retreat that is currently being used for meditation in the mornings. He added that his wife also uses it in the evening to check her email. Commissioner Blank requested verification that it was not an office. Mr. Pangali confirmed that it was no longer an office. He indicated that he used it as an office for several years and sat at his desk with his back to the window. George Tiu, neighbor, stated that the staff person who approved the window was Natalie Amos, who also made the assessment in the staff report regarding what transpired and the conversation that took place at that time. He indicated that he totally disagreed with Mr. Pangali that the report was fabricated and questioned how the applicant was able to receive approval to move his window without having the neighbor contacted. He stated that he believed Ms. Amos stated the facts that are basically in the report that Mr. Pangali did not mention the neighbor's objection to the window and that the loft did not have a permit. Mr. Tiu stated that Mr. Pangali's wife had approached him about moving the window and signing an agreement to that effect. He indicated that he informed the applicants that he did not have any privacy issue with respect to the original location of the window but that he objected that it had been moved. He added that the applicant did not talk to him regarding privacy issues when the loft was constructed in 2005; and although the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 23, 2011 Page 17 of 21