PC 111214 - Laserfiche WebLink

that it appears the neighborhood might have enough to do it privately, which was a particular option that staff mentioned, or, if not, it obviously appears that the staff or the City has a wealth of knowledge that could be used to assist, if that is what the residential neighborhood wants. Commissioner Balch stated that he is of a similar opinion to those of Commissioners Piper and Ritter that this is an allowed use with no per se restrictions, and while he is disheartened that Mr. Schmitt did not reach out from the first meeting to this one with as many neighbors as had come, he understands the difficulty in doing having a conversation with others about something at your house or your residence. He indicated that he does not consult his neighbor every time he chooses to do something with his home. He noted, however, that a second -story addition in a single -story residential neighborhood is obviously a little more egregious or different. He pointed out that the applicant tried to mitigate the views, which was the most significant issue at the first meeting. He stated that he thought the first home was nice and the second home was nice as well, and that the second -floor was modest. He indicated that he would support the application but is concerned about the two windows. With respect to the two windows, Mr. Dolan stated that he does not think it is a big issue. He indicated that if opaque and inoperable windows is a requirement of the application, and if they ever were changed and staff heard about it, staff would make them change it back. He added that it can be made even stronger by including a condition to that effect so everybody is aware of it. Commissioner Piper stated that she is still unclear as to which plan would be best. Chair O'Connor stated that Ms. Bengtson preferred the original plan. He indicated that he would re -open the public hearing so Ms. Bengtson can clarify for the Commission what her preference was. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE- OPENED. Ms. Bengtson stated that as Chair O'Connor mentioned, she would prefer to lose her view and save her privacy. She added that she would prefer the first submittal and that she appreciates the Commission's consideration of allowing her to speak again. Chair O'Connor asked Ms. Bengtson if she would rather have a better view with the revised plan if the Commission modified the Conditions of Approval to make sure that the window could never be changed out to anything other than opaque. Ms. Bengtson replied that she would select the original plan. She indicated that she has no assurance that unless she becomes the main person here to appear before the Commission to complain about the windows, that those windows will not be changed. She reiterated that her privacy is important because she will lose her pool, her backyard, and anything in her yard. She noted that her house is faced directly at that wall, so she would much prefer the original application. She then expressed her appreciation for the Commission's consideration. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 12, 2014 Page 20 of 35