CCMIN081887 - Laserfiche WebLink

showing the impact of the proposed development from the inside of his residence, which he felt was far greater than from the outside. He stated the current location is very buildable; the proposed change would require more grading which subsequently impacts his property. The now approved proposal was equitable and accomplishes the best for all concerned. He stated it also utilizes the oak trees as much as possible. He advised the Black's hired an attorney who approached the neighbors stating they were on a fact finding mis- sion; the neighbors agreed to that and looked forward to the results. They met on Saturday; there were no sketches, no authority as to what the Black's would or would not do, and not much was accomplished. Mr. O'Callaghan stated he did not think there was one property owner in line of view who will not be in opposition to the proposed change. He stated that all other property owners have abided by the conditions of the PUD; he felt the Black's should be required to do likewise. Mr. Jim Coburn, 18 Grey Eagle Court, stated he met with the Black's one year ago in good faith; their plan was approved by City Council and he felt that plan should be adhered to. Mr. Jim Balch, 14 Grey Eagle Court, stated he has read the staff report and concurs with it. He met with the Black's on their original plan and it was understood that a workable solution had been reached. He stated that some of the residences in the area are not affected therefore they have no concern regarding the matter. He stated there will be considerable movement with the new location, which adversely impacts some of the surrounding neighbors. He stated the Black's proposed residence is a nice house with swimming pool and cabana, but he felt it should be built on the original location. Mr. Richard Mendosa, who is building a home at 16 Grey Eagle Court, stated he bought his lot after being shown approved maps and plans by the real estate agent, so that his home would focus on a view in the back. During the time he was designing his home it was presented to him about the problem with the location of the Black home. At the Planning Commission meeting they came to an equitable agreement as to where the house would be placed. He did not feel he had the right to keep someone from building where they want to build their home; but did not feel the change was fair to those who planned their homes with the original location in mind. He felt there would be a tremendous amount of land moved if the new site is approved, the hillside would be changed, and this would greatly affect his home and view. Mr. Fraser rebutted by stating the Black's are not specculators. He stated that no one knows what will happen on the Hansen Ranch which is behind this area, but it could affect the view of this area. He stated the CC&R's are confusing and he did not know if they would be binding; there has been a change since the original CC&R's were recorded. He advised that the original proposal was not based on a true topo when the compromise was made. He stated the fire turn-around also required some movement and the oak tree can be saved if the house is moved. The redesign of the house was done to more completely hug the contour and not affect the neighbors. Mr. Frechette stated the original topo was incorrect; as plans were more accurately defined it was determined the house should be moved back 35 feet to fit into the contours, consider the oak tree drip line, minimize the grading of the driveway, provide fire access, and look natural on the landscape. He stated they have no problem with the conditions attached in the staff report. 6 - 8-18-87