PC 031208 - Laserfiche WebLink

compromises. He noted that the appellants did not have any problems with the grading but took issue with the idea of a guest home. He noted that once the landscaping grew in, the view would be blocked effectively to ensure their privacy. He noted that the appellant's privacy concerns did not have to do with house-to-house privacy, but rather that the guesthouse would be in view of his yard. He noted that with respect to the solid fencing, he would have to examine that further because of the significant change it would present to the neighborhood. With respect to the CC&R concerns, he did not believe there were any and added that the car was never in the driveway because they used the three-car garage. With respect to the landslide concerns, he noted that they had engineered everything to City code, and the pool had extra steel grading for support and everyone's safety. He noted that they kept the neighbors in mind when designing this home. Tami Santiago noted that she was on the Vineyard Hill Architectural Committee and was part of the original committee that reviewed the applicant's plans. She noted that in 2006, this was a 1,100-square-foot dwelling. There were concerns at the time, and the committee took close to a year interviewing the neighbors and researching similar developments in the area. She noted that the committee was able to reduce the square footage to 700 square feet and the roof height to 13 feet to minimize the visual blockage. They believed that the applicant had made many concessions and fully supported the second dwelling and his plans. With respect to the garage parking, overflow parking may go onto the driveway. She noted that she had atwo-car garage, and her teenage son parked his car in the driveway. Steve Fineberg noted that he had originally been opposed to the plan, but after working with the committee and the applicants, he withdrew his complaint. He had originally been concerned about the height over the fenceline and appreciated the concessions made by the applicant. He noted that they would look right at a solid fence, which would not address the height and blocking views. He would be opposed to a solid fence but did not oppose a solid fence between the applicant's and the appellants' properties. Mr. Nguyen noted that when he originally bought his home, he was told they would not be able to build a second unit; however, that was not mentioned in the CC&R's. There were guidelines for gazebos and storage units. He was concerned that because Mr. Bawa was on the Board of the HOA, he (Mr. Nguyen) was not able to communicate effectively with the Board. He was concerned when the City approved the second unit because the second unit would block their views. He was very concerned that their issues had not been heard or addressed and hoped this decision would allow future residents to live by the regulations for their community. He stated that he thought the design looked nice and matched the existing home but that he feared it would create more density that was not in keeping with development. Mr. Bawa noted that he had no part in the reviews of their particular case and recused himself as a Board member. He noted that the approvals were done by the Architectural Committee, which was independent of the Board; that committee was run by Ms. Santiago. He believed that the appellants' concerns had been heard and emphasized that they compromised considerably in the design of the unit. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 12, 2008 Page 6 of 22