14 ATTACHMENT 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

proposed pool such that all parties involved would be satisfied. A satisfactory solution has not been found through the discussion and compromise process and therefore staff requests that the Planning Commission considers the following and provide such recommendation to the City Council. 1. Allow the applicant to maintain their original request to reduce the required 20-foot rear yard setback to 5-feet and reduce the required side yard setback from 10-feet to 5-feet: 2. Allow the applicants to reduce the side yard setback from the required 10-feet to 5-feet, however, reduce the rear yard setback from the required 20-feet to 10-feet; 3. Allow the applicants to reduce the side yard setback form the required 10-feet to 5-feet, however, maintain the required 20-foot rear yard setback as established in the PUD Guidelines; or 4. Require the applicants to maintain the required 10-foot side yard setback and the required 20-foot rear yard setback. PUD modifications to reduce the rear yard setback for a pool to 10-feet have been supported by the City in the past in similar developments. The applicants feel that they are not asking for anything unusual and feel that they have made every effort to do what is best for the development as a hole while trying to be accommodating to the Besso's. The attached conditions of approval in Exhibit B would be modified accordingly to reflect the Planning Commissions recommendation to the City Council. PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to the Planned Unit Development Minor Modification process, staff notified the surrounding properties on July, 18, 2007. In response to the notification, staff received comments from two neighbors, Judy and Terry Besso, 4538 River Rock Hill Road, who expressed concerns about the drainage given the proximity of the pool/spa/waterfall to their home, and Kryssa Cooper, 8045 Oak Creek Drive, who expressed support of the proposed application. The Besso's concerns and the applicant's response are outlined in the a-mail dated Wednesday, July 25, 2007 in Exhibit D-2. After speaking with the Besso's, staff had provided the applicant with the following options: ^ Since there was objection to the application, move forward with a major modification to the PUD with a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council for final action; OR Since both the applicant and rear neighbor seemed willing to try and come to a compromise, staff would put the application "on hold" until the Spencer's and Besso's went through some type of mediation process to see if a compromise could be reached. PUD-99-01-OS, Steven Spencer Planning Commission 9of11