PC 020900 - Laserfiche WebLink

r Kevin Ebrahimi, 4341 Silver Creek Road, referenced his letter dated February 3, 2000, and provided an overview of the Architectural Committee's approval process for fencing. He noted that the Architectural Committee unanimously approved the location of the fence based on the site visit, reviewing the architectura1 guidelines, and the guidelines intent, which was to keep solid wood fencing off of natural terrain and hillsides. Further, the decision was also based on the unanimous confirmation of the third party landscape consultant, the project landscape architect and the Homeowners' Association attorney. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Kameny, Mr. Ebrahimi noted that the graded building pad would not include the side slope between the subject site and the adjacent lot. Mr. Ebrahimi noted that the fence was offset from the property line because it has not been approved. r Dan Poirier, 6221 Detjen Court, referenced his memorandum dated February 5, 2000. He noted that extensive information was utilized, such as lot layout, restrictions, covenants, and guidelines governing the installation of landscape, prior to the applicant's selecting the home on Detjen Court. He noted that he opposed this fencing due to potential fire hazards and deterioration, and he stated that the fence is within 15 feet of his home. Mr. Poirier stated that he advised Mr. Doscher, in writing, prior to the construction of the fence, that his plans for the fence were not in compliance with the guidelines and City codes, that he would make inquiries to the City and suggested that Mr. Doscher do the same to avoid incurring any costs if the fence was not in compliance. He stated that the request for the variance should be denied due to the Doschers' electing to proceed with construction of the fence without verifYing whether the fence was within the guidelines. He noted further that to provide the variance suggests that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission. He requested that the Commission uphold the guidelines and reject the appeal. Linda Forker Bulger, 6240 Detjen Court, noted that both neighbors are great people and that it is unfortunate there are issues that have not been resolved. She commented on the members of the Architectural Committee and stated that only one member was a homeowner. She commented on the cost of the fencing and estimated the cost to be between $190 to $220. She noted that the relationship between the neighbors has been adversely impacted and is unnecessary. She stated that the City should have been contacted prior to fencing being constructed. She noted that the wooden fencing has adversely impacted the Poirier's views and light and decreased the property value. Ms. Bulger stated that the building pads should be considered and that Presley homes should have excused themselves from the decision-making process. Mr. Doscher readdressed the Commission and noted the fence was built to provide security for his children and animals. He commented on the deer eating the landscaping on his property prior to the fence being installed. He noted that throughout the process, permission was requested, as referenced in the submitted documentation, and that compromises were made. He stated that to accommodate all of the neighbors, he would have had two or three different fences starting and stopping in his backyard and that his property value and views would have been affected. Mr. Doscher requested that the Commission uphold the appeal. o PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 9, 2000 Page 13