15 ATTACHMENT 4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commission, both parties accepted the original design. He pointed out that the difference between the two is that the design guidelines in the Arlington area had expired and created some controversy; but Golden Eagle Farm has design guidelines that have not changed, the HOA has approved the plan. He added that the Arlington case was fairly quick, and in this case, the applicant has been compromising and re- drawing and re-submitting for over two years now, and he would rather not extend that any longer. Commissioner Nagler clarified that he is not suggesting that the Commission revisit the fundamental architecture, size, and configuration of the house. He noted that it is terrific that the applicant is willing to compromise on the colors to satisfy other neighbors, and for his part, he thinks that enough work has been done and in fact the HOA does approve it for the very reason that it is appropriate for the neighborhood. That said, he stated that everything is a trade-off, and boiling it down to the fundamental issue, the trade-off seems to be between the amount of grading that would be required and the desire of the one contiguous neighbor to have his views protected and to have, at least as a matter of aesthetic and site, this house sited in a way that is less obtrusive to them; between coming closer to a greater satisfactory, end-result for the neighbor versus how much grading is required. He pointed out that it is obvious that the HOA has a lot of influence and that it is important what the HOA believes, but in the end, the Commission has the ability, the authority, and the position to be able to make that kind of a trade-off decision if it desires to take some very specific factors into account. He stated that for his part, he is just suggesting that it would be helpful if the Commission had more clarity about what the implications of that choice would be on those two specific factors. Commissioner O'Connor stated that the Commission does not have that carte blanche authority because if the house were rotated and pushed it up against the backyard, more grading in the backyard would be required, and there would be a less desirable, smaller backyard. He further stated that the HOA may not approve the design because of the amount of grading, and without the HOA's approval, the application would not come back to the City as an approved HOA plan. Commissioner Nagler agreed and added that the Commission would have to take that into account. Chair Allen asked staff if it would be possible to make a motion that the Commission would ask that the house be rotated and then re-look at the design, with a caveat that it assumes the HOA would be willing to approve the house if more grading were required. Ms. Wallis replied that ultimately, the HOA would have to approve the final design. She indicated that there are a lot of stipulations here that the home and grading have to be approved by the City and the HOA; that within the design guidelines, if one does not approve and the other does, or if one is more strict, the City would most likely have to go with the lesser; and within the grading specifically, the City cannot allow more than what the HOA allows. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, March 25, 2015 Page 9 of 12