14 ATTACHMENT 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT Mr. Besso noted the Mr. Spencer's pool is five feet from the wall, and the berm wall is approximately one foot thick and with two feet above the ground, the water features would put Mr. Spencer's property six feet above Mr. Besso's property line. He expressed concern that if Mr. Spencer puts landscaping behind the berm wall, it would go down two feet into the ground and the soil would hit the fence and rot it up within a short period of time. Commissioner Olson inquired if the fence is now on the soil. Mr. Besso replied that the batter-boards are on the soil but the fence is above the soil. Commissioner Narum asked Mr. Besso to point out on the diagram where he proposed to have Mr. Spencer's hot tub relocated. Mr. Besso pointed to the proposed location noting the proximity of the spa to the door of his entertainment area. He noted moving the spa would get it away from his house and the next door neighbors' entertainment area and would put the spa closer to the Spencers and give them more privacy. Chair Blank requested clarification from Mr. Besso that from his perspective, moving the pool five feet toward the Spencer's house would be an acceptable compromise and that he was not asking fora 15-foot or 20-foot setback. Mr. Besso said he would be comfortable with a 10-foot setback as well as having the spa moved. Mr. Kee Yun Hwang, attorney representing Mr. Spencer, stated that some of the issues raised by the Commission have already been addressed by the ACC. He explained that this matter came before the ACC in June or July of the past year, which is approximately ten months ago. He stated that the Spencers submitted their pool plans, and based on that submittal, the ACC visited all the neighbors, consulted with some of the experts, and decided that the Spencers' request was satisfactory and approved the plan. He added that since that approval date of June 12, 2007, the Spencers have communicated on a regular basis with Planning staff. He noted that on one of those conversations, the issue of global modification to reconsider setback requirements arose because houses in the development were built too large and the yards were too small, making some of the current setback requirements infeasible for some of the homes in the subdivision. He stated that the Spencers' request is reasonable and that after speaking with the neighbors, the ACC approved the specifications based on the factors the Commission was considering at this present time. He stated that the ACC should be deferred to because it was there, the members had the opportunity to speak with the Spencers and all the neighbors, including the Bessos, and there were no objections raised at that time. He noted that when the Spencers first filed the application for their modification setback, the Bessos raised their objection based on the noise level. He indicated that he did not understand the noise issue since what the Bessos are asking for is to have the Spencers move their spa closer to where the Bessos' spa is. With respect to privacy reasons, Mr. Hwang noted that there is no visibility with respect to whether the Spencers could see the Bessos or vice versa. He noted that the Spencer property is approximately three to four feet above the Besso property and that the photo shows that above the fence, the Bessos' roof is what is visible from the Spencer's home while the second story of the Spencer's home that is visible from the Bessos' home. He indicated that there are no privacy or noise issues in question. He added that this issue has been ongoing since May 2007, now 11 months since the DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 4-9-2008 Page 4 of 8