PC 072606 - Laserfiche WebLink

'~ Commissioner Blank inquired if staff or another party independent of the applicant and ! appellant verified the floor area ratio and calculation and if this issue was brought up during the initial hearing. Ms. Mendez replied that it is difficult to get the official square footage of any building because the numbers on the building permit records do not always match those on the County Assessor's data. She explained that when an application is submitted, staff requires the numbers to be accurate and to scale and takes the applicant's word for it. She added that staff double-checks these numbers when a neighbor or interested party raises concerns about them. She noted that in this case, staff checked the County records, and the numbers were slightly bigger than what was indicated on the plan which were taken from the building records. She pointed out, however, that the project still meets the required 40-percent floor azea ratio when based on the County records. In response to Commissioner Olson's inquiring regazding whether the balcony was planned to be off of the master bedroom, Ms. Mendez said that it was. Chairperson Arkin moved to deny Case PAP-97, thereby upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of Case PADR-1542, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit B of the staff report, as recommended by staff. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion. ~"~ Commissioner Fox proposed an amendment that the balcony be replaced by a standazd window. Chairperson Arkin stated that the balcony is very small and appears to be more of an azchitectural piece than anything else. Commissioner Olson noted that the Fire Department would look positively at the balcony because it would be easier to get out of the house, particulazly since it would be off of the master bedroom where people sleep. Commissioner Peazce stated that the applicants have mitigated the privacy issues as well as they could be. Commissioner Blank noted that there aze no view easements or documentation of any entitlements and added that there would be more sensitivity to privacy issues if there were a view easement because there would be an expectation of privacy. Chairperson Arkin stated that the Commission is generally more concerned with the view in cases where there is actually a view of the ridge. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 26, 2006 Page 17 of 24