PC 032311 - Laserfiche WebLink

applicant was aware of the privacy issue at this time, he went ahead to get a permit and start construction in total disregard of the neighbor's concern for privacy. Mr. Tiu then distributed pictures demonstrating that the sideyard setback of the applicant's two -story home is far greater than that of his one -story home, which is the basis for his privacy issue. He stated that raising the window by two feet is intrusive and looks into his bedroom window. He added that he does not trust this proposal and does not feel secure about what any future homeowner might do with the window. He indicated that he would rather not have the loft there in the first place, but if the loft remains, then he does not want the window there. He stated that he was willing to compromise but the applicant gives him no choice to trust him at all, even though they are neighbors. Chair Narum asked Mr. Tiu what he thinks the best scenario would be in terms of how the window privacy issue could be addressed. Mr. Tiu replied that at this time, his trust for Mr. Pangali has been shattered. He stated that Ms. Amos' assessment proves that the applicant cannot be trusted. He indicated that he agrees with Ms. Amos' proposal and is the compromise he is willing to deal with. Chair Narum asked Mr. Tie if that compromise was the non - operable window with view - obscuring glass. Mr. Tiu said yes. He disagreed with the applicant that film is the same as glass. He indicated that film is not permanent; it is glued together and can be removed. He add that the applicant has all the controls in his property; for example, the tree can die and not be replaced, and the window film can be removed. He reiterated that he cannot trust the applicant to comply with these requirements. Chair Narum asked Mr. Tiu if he wanted the tree planted on his property. Mr. Tiu said no, because that is the applicant's responsibility. He indicated that he would prefer permanent, opaque window that is not filmed. He added that Ms. Amos had informed him that the City would not approve the film. Commissioner Blank asked Mr. Tiu when he first became aware that the loft was there. Mr. Tiu replied that he knew of the loft when it was constructed in 2005. Commissioner Blank asked Mr. Tiu if his goal is to have the glass be permanently obscured, whether by film or some other method. He indicated that the method of obscuration does not really matter if the Director of Community Development confirms that a certain method is a permanent way of obscuring glass and cannot be undone. He asked Mr. Tiu if his intention is to dictate the method of obscuration or to get results.. Mr. Tiu replied that his intention is that the obscuration be permanent. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 23, 2011 Page 18 of 21