PC 10/23/96 - Laserfiche WebLink

. one-acre parcels. He does not understand the restrictions requested by Mr. Deri, specifically giving her a 180 foot rear setback and no landscaping over 6 feet in height. He feels the rear one-story house design is backwards in design. Everyone in the neighborhood has lost their views in recent years with the new residential development. He is concerned about the cul-de-sac and he feels it should be widened. Mr. Weimken would like to delete Conditions 3b and 3c from Exhibit B. George MiMillion, 3785 Trenery Drive, lives across from the Montgomery residence and believes he would be the most impacted from this parcel subdivision. He does not oppose this project and favors its approval. Also, he knew he would eventually lose his views whenever the surrounding properties were developed. Shirley Lauer, 2221 Martin Avenue, no one has been restricted in their building designs as is being suggested in the staff report. She is opposed to the restrictions listed in the staff report. Robert Deri, 3769 Angus Way, has concerns with this application. He feels some of his concerns and requests have been misrepresented. Overall, he is not opposed to this subdivision, and he is in favor of removing the horse. He is concerned about preserving his backyard privacy and keeping his viewshed. He advised that there is indeed a view visible from the dining nook and from the upstairs bedroom window and he has a right to have his opinion heard. Regarding the loss of views of Ms. Montgomery, it was her family that sold the property for development. Mr. Deri stated that he was not informed at the time of his home purchase that there was a building proposed on an adjacent site, and was not notified of the construction because he was not the homeowner of record at that time. He would have liked some input on that construction, as well. . He would like to come to some mutually acceptable solutions. Regarding the proposed building restrictions, he is unable to make a determination whether they would be difficult to abide by. He does feel there is a considerable amount of square footage within which a person could build a very substantial house and still accommodate his wishes. In response to Commissioner Wright, Mr. Deri advised he closed escrow on his home the end of March, 1996. In response to Commissioner McGuirk, Mr. Deri advised he has a 15 foot rear yard setback. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED In response to Commissioner McGuirk, Mr. Iserson stated the FAR on an R-I-40,OOO lot is 20-25%. Commissioner Lutz feels that if there is no restriction on landscaping the rear lot, restricting the house placement or height is useless. He feels the R-I-40,OOO zoning has sufficient built-in controls and the subdivision fits the neighborhood. He supports the application with the deletion of the house height and location. Commissioner Wright concurs with Commissioner Lutz in that Mr. Deri stated some of his proposed restrictions were based on "if he bad his wishes.. He feels the Deri privacy would be insured because Lot 2 is large. Chair Barker also added that their privacy issues would be reviewed again . Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 October 23, 1996