PC 012302 - Laserfiche WebLink

Paul Mo1kenbuhr, 15 Grey Eagle Court, commented on the Grey Eagle development CC&R's r- which were signed by the lot owners, noting that Exhibit "A" shows a site plan for the development and house footprints in their anticipated and intended placements. He noted that it appears that the Groves have placed their home closer to the street than what was prudent. Mr. Mo1kenbuhr stated that he feels Mr. Roberts has made numerous concessions in an attempt to accommodate everyone. He advised that as a homeowner with a vested interest in the development, he stands behind the CC&R's and their intent. He stated that the current design plan is the most reasonable for all parties. r- r- Melanie Bentley, 23 Grey Eagle Court, noted that the proposed lot is a beautiful piece of property and it would be an asset to have a house on it. She further noted that the development of this lot has been halted a number of times. She commented that since Mr. Roberts purchased the lot the proper process has been followed and adhered to. She noted that when they built their house they knew there would eventually be houses surrounding them, and they planned their windows and daylight and evening views accordingly. She advised that as compromises have been made to accommodate all of the adjacent neighbors, it ends up that her house will probably be the one most affected. She further advised that they approve the proposed plan, but they are strongly opposed to moving the house any closer to the street and any farther down the hill. She provided a photo from the entryway of her home that shows the impacts of the proposed house from this location. Russell Schmidt, 18 Grey Eagle Court, noted that he supports the current step-pad design and is strongly opposed to the appeal and any redesign and siting change that moves the house closer to his and results in windows with views ofthe back of his house and yard. He noted that the perfect solution for all the neighbors would be no house on the lot, but he recognizes that the owner has the right to develop the lot. He commented on the staff report and the reference to the impacts on the neighbors. He provided an exhibit showing the proposed house and the windows to which he is referring. He described the redesign of the house that resulted in the relocation of these windows. He noted that he was not happy about the impact of the additional glass and bulk closer to his house, however, he agree to support the proposal because of the Roberts' willingness to mitigate the new windows with landscaping and his strong desire to see this whole issue finally resolved in a way that did not polarize the neighborhood. He noted that if the appeal is granted, then further compromise from him is pointless, and he would want to return to the original design without the windows and the additional fourteen feet of bulk. He advised that the previous step-pad design would have also been much better for the Bentleys. He further advised that if the appeal is upheld, he would expect the Planning Commission and staff to give his view the same degree of protection as given to the Groves. Robert Harris, 6 Grey Eagle Court, advised that he was the Planning Director at the time the Grey Eagle development was reviewed and approved and that he wrote the staff report and the conditions of approval. He referenced Condition #24, advising that the intent ofthis condition was to address concerns related to obtrusive colors, and had nothing to do with low visibility of structures or blocking views. He advised that he feels Mr. Roberts has accommodated 95% of the neighbors and the City, and has been willing to prepare plan after plan, beyond what is rationale, in an attempt to satisfy everyone. Mr. Harris stated that the Grey Eagle subdivision was a clustered subdivision, mainly a ridgetop subdivision, and they did not want building in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 23, 2002 Page 6