PC 09/23/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

homes are always subjected to either being viewed by someone else, r being able to view another's home. A homeowner should be aware of that when they p rchase the site. In this particular case he leaned more to the neighbors' point of view as far as mitigation was concerned, but felt it could be worked out compatibly for each party ,- Commissioner Wright stated he had looked at the structure and felt i definitely encroaches on the neighbors' privacy. He felt something should certainly be do e to insure some privacy for the Bottorffs. As the entire project was done without a rmit, he felt that the m~ority of the responsibility laid with Mr. Salmon. However, he fi t that a solution might be to take the pavilion off the deck and still have the trees installed t gain some privacy. Commissioner Mahern thought that a person buying a hillside lot mu t always realize some privacy must be given up. She felt that Mr. Salmon should have more sensitive to the neighbors, and that a solution would be to remove the pavilion, but 1 t the spa remain, with the landscaping installed as recommended. Commissioner Michelotti stated that she was troubled that if the pavi ion had simply been 9' 11" it could have been built by the applicant and the neighbors wo Id have had no recourse for complaint. She felt that the Bottorff s and Ben's privacy was ce . nly hurt by the pavilion. She supported removal of the pavilion, but thought it migh muffle the noise somewhat if perhaps two of the sides were left intact. ~ Commissioner McGuirk said he would favor taking the structure do n to the deck or a point where it is not invading the privacy of the neighbors; he would still ave the trees planted for noise mitigation once the pavilion is removed. Discussion ensued as to whether the pavilion should or should not be removed. Mr. Swift reminded them that if the pavilion is removed, Mr. Salmon could 10 er the height to below ten feet and put it back. The only other choice would be for the PU on those hillside lots to be reviewed again. Further discussion ensued as to whether the smoked glass windows s ould be removed and clear glass put in; whether black plastic should be put on the inside 0 the windows; or whether it should go back to staff to come back with something mor pleasing. A motion was made by Commissioner Wright, seconded by Co issioner Michelotti to deny the appeal for Case AP-92-13, upholding the Design Review Board approval of Case Z-92-49, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit C, with t e following modification: o That Condition 4 shall be amended so that the smo ed glass windows facing Orofmo Court shall be replaced with an opa ue material compatible with the rest of the architecture; the r of the windows shall be replaced with clear glass, Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 1992 Page 7