15 ATTACHMENT 4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Balch stated that what he would really like to see is if the Commission can address the neighbor's concerns. He noted that one of things he noticed from the slide showing the Monzo house is that this is kind of a double-edged sword: the Monzo house does not appear to be oriented towards the street as well either, so it is almost like both houses are oriented the wrong way, so they are more impactful to each other than would be typical with the other photos shown earlier. He concluded that the house is a good design for the lot, and he just wished it could address the neighbor's concerns. Commissioner O'Connor stated that it looks like both homes are oriented perpendicular to the slope to reduce grading. Commissioner Balch added that they look right at each other's windows through the front door. Chair Allen stated that she thinks the design of the house is consistent with the neighborhood and feels the size and the massing are appropriate. She noticed that some of the houses are a full two stories, others are fully terraced and look more like a one-story, and the proposed house strikes her as being in the middle. She indicated that as she was reading the staff report and thinking about Commissioner Nagler's comments, she also struggled with that same question of whether there is another option, whether there is some slight work, creative work that a good architect can do to just see if there is a little more of a win-win situation. She stated that she feels this is like the project that came before the Commission a few months ago involving the Schmitt second-story addition on Hamilton Way off Arlington Drive impacting Ms. Bengtson's view of the Ridge. She explained that one of the things the Commission has to consider is the appropriate relationship of the proposed building to its site, including other sites next to it, and the impacts it will have. She indicated that in that particular case, the Commission chose to not take a vote and asked the architect and the two parties to try to come up with some creative alternatives that might be a closer win-win. She continued that they brought it back to the Commission with enough information to take a vote, and she thought the Commissioners all felt that it was a stronger vote, and both parties, whether they agreed or disagreed, probably felt like it was a fair decision and each party got to vet pro's and con's. Chair Allen stated that the downside of this is that it would involve more cost, time, and energy for the applicant, who has already spent a long time working on this project and making changes. She added that looking at the building footprint, she now sees and understands the challenges. She noted, however, that while part of her is asking if this is a waste of time, she thinks it is important enough; and if she were living next door, she would hope the Planning Commission would decide to get the best architect and, together with the landscape architect, see if there were some modifications that can be done to arrive at a compromise. Commissioner O'Connor noted that in the case of the Hamilton Way property, off Arlington Drive, after the applicant redesigned the house and came back to the EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, March 25, 2015 Page 8 of 12