PC 082510 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner O’Connor noted that there is no request for a variance and that this is where he has difficulty. Commissioner Narum stated that if the lot were located on the straight portion of the street and not at the end of the cul-de-sac, this would be a cut-and-dry decision; however, because of the way the house is sited on the lot and the Perrys’ lot, she finds there needs to be some judgment applied. She indicated that she is not as concerned about those on the back side on Robin Court and that the one she is most concerned about is the Perrys. Commissioner Pearce stated that these are some of the hardest things the Commission does as there is never anything that makes everybody happy, especially not in this case. She indicated that the Commission always searches for compromise, for community versus property rights, and there is discretion. She stated that for her, the applicants are not asking for any variances, there is a current setback, they have altered the second story so it is more toward the front, they have modified the windows, and they have articulated the roof. She noted that the compromise the appellants have put forth is that the applicant cut the addition in half, not have an addition at all, or move, neither of which is much of a compromise. She indicated that she was inclined to support the application. Commissioner Blank stated that he agreed but that there is not enough information to make a decision, and that is the reason he made the original motion. He added that it would be helpful to see what was proposed before and the change after and that he feels the Commission is making a decision without the data it needs. Commissioner Pentin stated that the Commission talks about the applicant being within the structure, rules, and zoning; and looks at the community and the effects on the neighbors; and goes into view sheds, screening, and privacy. He indicated that what is important is that the applicants are doing this for a reason too: they are telecommuting, working from home, and spending more time with their children, all of which would keep the family in that home. He added that community is also within the home. Chair Olson stated that the motion on the floor is to uphold the appeal. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Blank and Olson. NOES: Commissioners Narum, Pearce, and Pentin. ABSTAIN: None. RECUSED: None. ABSENT: None. The motion failed by a vote of 2 to 3. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 25, 2010 Page 23 of 38