PC 082510 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Pearce noted that in the past, retired Planning Commissioners acted as mediators. She then asked what the current side setback regulations were. Ms. Bonn replied that the setback requirements were a minimum of five feet on one side with an aggregate of 12 feet between the two setbacks. Commissioner Blank inquired whether or not this project meets this setback. Ms. Stern replied that the existing rear first story does not meet the setback because it comes within seven feet as opposed to the required 20 feet. Commissioner Pentin noted, however, that the proposed second story does meet the 20-foot setback and requested staff verification. Ms. Stern replied that was correct. Commissioner Blank stated that he found the language in the declaration of restrictions very interesting: “No lot shall be used except for residential purposes. No building shall be erected, altered, placed, or permitted to remain on any residential lot other than a one-story, single-family dwelling not to exceed 2.5 stories in height, and a private garage for not more than three cars.” He noted that the language specifies a minimum with a "not-to-exceed" verbiage, obviously written by a lawyer, but it is not as permissive a language as what he would have originally thought. Commissioner Pearce stated that she likes the idea of mediation. She noted that she sees no evidence of extensive discussions between the neighbors and would like to see more of this. Chair Olson stated, however, that if he were the appellant, recognizing that City staff is recommending denial of the appeal, he would want to come to the table. Commissioner O’Connor stated he recalls that when the Planning Commission sent one project to mediation, the Commission actually took a break during the meeting, and staff spoke with each party, who then agreed to go to mediation. He suggested a five-minute break for staff to talk to the parties. Commissioner Blank disclosed that he has driven around the neighborhood several times but has not spoken with the appellants.He stated that he always tries to put his hat on as a neighbor living there. He added that he must also put on another hat and see that there are no view easements nor restrictions, but reasonability. He stated that he recalls one very large project in a very disruptive area where the Commission actually required the homeowner to put up story poles. He noted that there were no requirements to do the story poles, but they were erected and with them, the Commission was able to fashion some better compromises because it was able to see exactly what the impact would be and where the limits were. He stated that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 25, 2010 Page 17 of 38