15 ATTACHMENT 4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Dolan stated that the way it would work is if the Commission approves something different, the applicant would have to go back to the HOA. He explained that the Commission does not need to put anything in the motion about how the process would work, but it will add a lot of process. Commissioner O'Connor inquired if there is also the possibility that if the HOA disapproved of what was changed, the applicant would have to resubmit his plan and might not be re-approved because it is over 20,000 square feet of grading. Mr. Dolan replied that it is a possibility, but the HOA might also take the lead of the Commission. He noted that it is impossible to say. Commissioner Nagler stated that he has a procedural question and inquired if Commissioner Allen basically has the prerogative to make the continuance on her own. Mr. Dolan said yes; she can continue an item for one meeting, presumably for the reasons she has suggested. He noted that he is not sure the Commission could achieve the desired outcome in two weeks. He re-stated the point that was made earlier that it is a trade-off: rotating that house would end up with a smaller backyard that requires more grading. He pointed out that if that is not a decision the Commission is willing to make down the road, there is no use exploring it. Commissioner Nagler stated that he believes the house is excellently designed, that the way the house with its backyard looks is great if it were on its own. He noted that his difficulty and only concern is obviously to build a good neighbor relationship. He stated that a continuance will make the parties talk, but that means the house may get re-designed. He noted that the house is what the applicant wants, and he would hate to say the applicant should choose something else. He apologized that he is really struggling with that. Commissioner Piper pointed out that a continuance does not mean they will talk. She noted that in the Hamilton Way case, off Arlington Drive, the Commission directed the parties to talk, but they never did. Commissioner O'Connor moved to approve Case P14-1186, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit A of the staff report. Commissioner Piper seconded the motion. Commissioner Balch stated that he will support the motion from the perspective of the envelope because the envelope was something he was not aware of and the trade-off with grading versus the envelope. He indicated that if a Planned Unit Development were approved and it says a house can be built within the envelope, it should be adhered to. He noted that Mr. Haddad has done that. He added that it pains him to say that he would love to see the Monzos' concern addressed, but he thinks the trade-off is a bit too costly on the grading. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, March 25, 2015 Page 10 of 12