17 - Laserfiche WebLink

minor modification changes status to a major modification due to opposition, the application then requires City Council action. The City's goal is to complete a PUD major modification process within three to six months. The application was submitted to the City in August 2007 and, due to an interest in mitigating the concerns of the neighbors, has engaged in a longer process than would otherwise be expected. Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report, dated March 12, 2008 (Attachment 8), for additional project information. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 12, 2008 to review the subject applications. Detailed information on this meeting is provided by the attached excerpts of the Planning Commission minutes (Attachment 7). Adjacent property owners Frank Nguyen and Xin Chen spoke in opposition to the project. Mr. Nguyen indicated that second unit did not follow the spirit of the community and that the structure would block scenic views from his property. Mr. Chen indicated that the second unit would create privacy impacts and was concerned the structure would block views from his property. Tami Santiago, Vineyard Hills Homeowners Association representative, indicated that the Homeowners Association is in support of the applications and that the Architectural Committee had received input from neighbors and worked with the applicants to address the neighbors' concerns. Adjacent neighbor Steve Fineberg indicated that he initially opposed the second unit but now supports it after the applicants agreed to modify the proposed project by reducing the size, height, and building pad grade. After receiving public testimony, the Commission discussed the proposal and considered the following alternatives to further mitigate the concerns heard from the neighbors: / Relocate the second unit farther from the rear property line to alleviate the appellants privacy concerns. Discussion resulted in acknowledging that moving the unit to a different location may increase the visibility, could be an impact to the pool that was already approved, poured, and completed via permits having been issued and appropriately inspected, and would impact other neighbors that the applicant had also worked with to mitigate concerns. / Mitigate privacy concerns by allowing solid fencing on the rear property line. Page 5 of 12