17 ATTACHMENT 08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Otto stated that the Planned Unit Development requirement for rear yard setbacks for a second unit is 10 feet minimum and the side yard setback is 5 feet minimum. He stated the proposed rear yard setback is 14 '/2 feet and the side yard setback is 10 feet. Ms. Decker explained that the building is set back more than required and does meet the Planned Unit Development guidelines. Mr. Nguyen stated he was satisfied with the setbacks, but the location of the second unit does not make the community look good. Mr. Brysk clarified for Mr. Nguygen that he does not have a problem with the design, but has a problem with the second unit being there at all. Mr. Xin Chen stated that it does not matter how much compromising has been done, he still believes the house is still too close and would make their backyard activity uncomfortable. He explained that the yard cannot be screened because of the open fence condition. He also mentioned the parking is in conflict with the CC&R's. Mr. Chen stated that the second unit does not match the community layout and would not make the community look good even if it matched the design of the home. He explained that it would probably decrease his house value. Mr. Fineberg stated he was originally opposed to the project because of the view impacts. He raised his concerns regarding the size and height of the structure with the architectural committee. After many discussions, he felt that they came to a fair compromise. He realized that the building would be just above the fence line and felt that his concerns had been addressed. He mentioned how he appreciates the see-through fencing and open feeling, but realizes that landscaping would be in front of the fences. So his primary concern was with the impact to the view above the fence line. Ms. Decker asked Mr. Fineberg if he objected to the Planned Unit Development modification regarding the grading and retaining walls. She also asked him if the design of the proposed structure is keeping with the design of the house. Mr. Fineberg replied that he did not have any objections, but does not know all the specifics of the PUD modification. He also thinks the design of the second unit is in keeping with the design of the existing house. Ms. Tami Santiago clarified that all new homeowners signed off on the CC&R's that addressed Class 1 & 2 accessory structures with setbacks and height limitations. She stated that Mr. Bawa's plan originally was 1,100 square feet and 15 feet high. She stated that the architectural committee went to neighboring developments to look at other second units, their sizes, and roof height. She explained that the committee received input from neighbors and worked with the applicants. She stated the compromise consisted of the roof height at 13 feet or lower and the building size at 700 square feet. She indicated that the Bawa's offered to lower the height to 12', 3", which she felt was more than generous to appease the neighbors. Ms. Decker asked if the neighbors had comments regarding the grading and retaining walls. Minutes: PUD-99-9-2M/PADR-1762 Page 3 January 22, 2008