PC 09/23/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

homes are always subjected to either being viewed by someone else or being able to view another's home. A homeowner should be aware of that when they urchase the site. In this particular case he leaned more to the neighbors' point of view as f as mitigation was concerned, but felt it could be worked out compatibly for each part Commissioner Wright stated he had looked at the structure and felt t definitely encroaches on the neighbors' privacy. He felt something should certainly be d ne to insure some privacy for the Bottorff's. As the entire project was done without permit, he felt that the majority of the responsibility laid with Mr. Salmon. However, he It that a solution might be to take the pavilion off the deck and still have the trees installed gain some privacy. Commissioner Mahern thought that a person buying a hillside lot m st always realize some privacy must be given up. She felt that Mr. Salmon should have b n more sensitive to the neighbors, and that a solution would be to remove the pavilion, but let the spa remain, with the landscaping installed as recommended. Commissioner Michelotti stated that she was troubled that if the pa ilion had simply been 9' 11" it could have been built by the applicant and the neighbors w uld have had no recourse for complaint. She felt that the Bottorff's and Ben's privacy was rtainly hurt by the pavilion. She supported removal of the pavilion, but thought it mi ht muffle the noise somewhat if perhaps two of the sides were left intact. ~ Commissioner McGuirk said he would favor taking the structure d wn to the deck or a point where it is not invading the privacy of the neighbors; he would stil have the trees planted for noise mitigation once the pavilion is removed. Discussion ensued as to whether the pavilion should or should not e removed. Mr. Swift reminded them that if the pavilion is removed, Mr. Salmon could 1 wer the height to below ten feet and put it back. The only other choice would be for the P D on those hillside lots to be reviewed again. Further discussion ensued as to whether the smoked glass windows should be removed and clear glass put in; whether black plastic should be put on the insid of the windows; or whether it should go back to staff to come back with something m re pleasing. A motion was made by Commissioner Wright, seconded by Co deny the appeal Cor Case AP-92-13, upholding the Design Revie Board approval of Case Z-92-49, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit C, wit the following modification: o That Condition 4 shall be amended so that the s facing Orotino Court shall be replaced with an 0 aque 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