17 ATTACHMENT 07 - Laserfiche WebLink

HOA, he (Mr. Nguyen) was not able to communicate effectively with the Board. He was concerned when the City approved the second unit because the second unit would block their views. He was very concerned that their issues had not been heard or addressed and hoped this decision would allow future residents to live by the regulations for their community. He stated that he thought the design looked nice and matched the existing home but that he feared it would create more density that was not in keeping with development. Mr. Bawa noted that he had no part in the reviews of their particular case and recused himself as a Board member. He noted that the approvals were done by the Architectural Committee, which was independent of the Board; that committee was run by Ms. Santiago. He believed that the appellants' concerns had been heard and emphasized that they compromised considerably in the design of the unit. Mr. Chen expressed concern that their home's value would be decreased with a second unit next to his yard. He noted that he would seek the recovery of that loss. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Fox inquired whether the FAR would be affected by the enclosure of the front porch. Mr. Otto noted that it would be enclosed space, and without doing the calculations, he believed off-hand that it would be part of the 20 percent. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding the Fire Department's access to the structure with a solid fence, Mr. Otto noted that Clara Lane had a roundabout that may be used by the Fire Department to respond. Commissioner Blank noted that the structure could be sprinklered. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether the Fire Department examined the plans to ensure that emergency access was adequate, Mr. Otto confirmed that was part of the project review. The Fire Department had no comment on this plan. Commissioner Narum inquired whether there had been any thought of relocating the unit to the southeast so it would be off the appellants' property line; she believed that may help the appellant's privacy concerns. Mr. Otto noted that staff did not pursue that possibility with the applicant because the structure was set back ten feet from the side property line where only five feet was required. Staff believed that was an adequate setback for aone-story structure and noted that the rear and side yard setbacks exceeded those requirements. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O'Connor regarding whether the pool was already in place, Mr. Otto confirmed that it had been dug and poured. The applicant would delay pouring the patio until this issue was resolved. Commissioner O'Connor noted that as the house placement was moved away from the fenceline, it would move closer to the house at 815 Clara Lane and negatively affect the view at 815 Clara Lane. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 12, 2008 Page 4 of 7