PC 031203 - Laserfiche WebLink

above the floor, or that they be eliminated_ The other issue was that the northernmost pane of the bay window be view-obscuring glass. Another issue that had since been resolved was that the master bedroom windows facing the Johnstons would be view-obscuring glass; the non-operable element of the condition was deleted_ A compromise regarding the colors and materials board, and the construction hours seemed to be close, but staff needed to hear from the rest of the neighbors_ The goal of this process was to allow input from neighbors when home additions were built. The impacts are determined, and mitigations to those impacts are sought. Staff endeavored to reach a consensus, and in most cases that is possible. In this case, staff regrets that they were not able to do so. The Code listed specific criteria to consider, and staff tried to reduce the impacts to the neighbors in such as way that would not interfere with the applicant's building program. Mr. Iserson noted that the addition was large, and did push the envelope, making it one of the largest homes in Vintage Hills. He noted that would be fine, as long as the impacts were mitigated, which was staff s focus_ Staff understands that the applicants made some compromises in their latest letter, and believed that was a good starting point for the evening's discussion_ Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions of the staff report, recognizing that the additional compromises put forth by the applicant would be an acceptable place to start further discussions. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Kameny regarding the modified conditions, Mr_ Iserson replied that the applicants appeared to agree to Conditions 3.a., 3.b., and 3_£, and that they were very close to agreement on Condition 4. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts, Mr. Iserson noted that the space between the first floor ceiling and second floor had been dependent on the definition of the space. Staff looked at the actual clear space between the floor joist and the ceiling joist. The applicant counted the joists into the measurement Staff considered it to be one foot, which would be reduced to six inches. Comtrtissioner Roberts noted that the letter that was submitted discussed the Head for 7 8 inches. Commissioner Maas noted that she did not agree, and stated that by reducing the one foot, the gap was reduced to six inches, which would take six inches off the height_ If the floor plate was reduced from nine feet to eight Feet, one foot was removed; 1% feet was reduced by the pitch of the roof; and another 6 inches would be removed by the space between the floors_ She noted that three feet would result from these actions, bringing the height of the roof from 26'/~ feet to 23 i/z feet. Mr. lserson noted that it was explained by the planners involved in the administrative hearing that their interpretation was that the gap was one foot, and the condition was to take it down to six inches and more, if feasible. Part of the goal was to retain the existing first floor ceiling during construction. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 12, 2003 Page 5