7.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT March 11, 2004 Page 4 normally allowed. Also, part of the Mehta's driveway is on the Chan's property. He reviewed the site from the Chan's property, taking photos from the upstairs master bedroom and from the upstairs guest bedroom. Looking from the Chan's master bedroom, which has floor to ceiling windows, the Chan's are very exposed. He agreed with having three or four extra trees on either the Mehta's or Chan's property for critical screening, at least 24" box. Regarding the permit modification regarding the windows, he would do nothing. Commissioner Kerns discussed several issues: (1) Windows on the northeast side-no change. There are architectural features which will help with style. (2) The east side windows-larger windows would be acceptable with additional landscape screening. (3) Skylights-no problem with a solar tube although after viewing the area, the applicant could put in a large skylight facing towards the back of the house which would provide more light into the stairwell than the solar tube. He felt there were solutions to the dark stairway leading to the second story. He was concerned with condition #3 (4/17/03) asking how they allowed him to get to building plan check without complying with this condition, asking if it was true that the asphalt has not been removed. It was clarified that staff knew of the condition as the applicant requested to wait on the removal in case they were asked to install larger trees than required at the time the house was to be finaled. Commissioner Kerns stated a concern with condition #1 (4/17/03) "all windows located on the second story to provide privacy". He would like the applicants to be able to increase the windows on the east side with the additional planting in appropriate places for screening. He did have a problem specifying a box size without a height and width information. Commissioner Vitu agreed with previous comments from Commissioner Kerns. She felt the windows should only be limited on the northeastern side of the property. She would not restrict the southeast side of the property. Regarding the landscape plan, additional landscaping is needed. The setback is relatively small there and screening is appropriate on the Chan's property as well as on the Mehta's property. She liked Commissioner Kerns' solution concerning the skylight although she does not have a problem with the solar tube. Chairman Clow felt Mr. Chan did need some landscaping and felt it was a generous offer to place some of the landscape screening on his property with a deposit to draw against. The Planning Director clarified that they would not be allowed to condition the project for off-site improvements. The plan could be approved as is and the neighbors could mutually come to some agreement where Mr. Mehta installs landscaping on the Mr. Chan's property (private agreement). Chairman Clow continued stating he supports the landscaping as shown on the plan with the three trees filling in the gap. He would make a recommendation to the City Council to not allow changes to the windows. Regarding a skylight, he felt the applicant could return with a separate application to be noticed and reviewed. He was not in favor of any architectural changes but would support the landscaping. Regarding the windows on the east side versus the northeast side, he stated he did not have a recollection of limiting the windows only on the north east side. Discussion ensued regarding taking no action versus making a recommendation to the City Council.