PC 040908 - Laserfiche WebLink

pertain to but that when there is a development plan and an established approved fencing plan, a PUD modification is necessary when the fences are modified, at which time staff evaluates privacy issues, landscaping, and other matters. She stated that staff has not had the opportunity to evaluate if this particular PUD had an approved fencing plan and to evaluate privacy and visual aesthetics in terms of having landscaping on one side or the other of the fence which is typically required with developments. Commissioner O'Connor inquired if the fence can be replaced without a permit if it were not over six feet tall. Ms. Decker replied that she as mentioned earlier, she does not know the history of the development in terms of whether or not it had an approved fencing plan. She added that if the fence would be a modification from what had been approved, then a PUD modification would be required. She added that it would probably be a staff -level process with a review of the change from solid to open fencing, landscaping or no landscaping, irrigation, and other issues. Commissioner O'Connor inquired if a permit would be required if there is no approved fencing plan. Ms. Amos replied that the property falls within the provisions of the North Sycamore Specific Plan, which includes fencing requirements. She added that she did not look extensively into that matter. Chair Blank noted that the fence is not the question of this application. Ms. Amos concurred. Chair Blank noted that in the June 20, 2007 violation letter, an option given the applicant was to apply for a conditional use permit for the water tank which would cost $150, would be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and would typically be a four- to -six- week process. He inquired why it took nine months to come before the Commission. Ms. Amos replied that the process would typically take four to six weeks if the information necessary to move the application forward was complete. She added that there were also site visits to be conducted by staff. She noted that this particular application was filed during the holiday season and there were vacation schedules that had to be taken into consideration. Chair Blank noted that on page 9 of the staff report, it states that the water tank was a complementary earthtone color. He inquired if green was considered a complementary earthtone color. Ms. Amos acknowledged the error. Commissioner Fox stated that this application reminded her of the fifth wheel hearing with a cylindrical object in place of a trailer. She noted that she grew up in a farm and was under the impression that if a water tank were to be replaced, it would have be much better to put it in the same location as the old one. She stated that she had a problem visually with the location as she was unsure the tank could be screened with redwood trees. She stated that she lived by Nielsen Park where there are redwood trees and noted that as redwoods grow taller, the trunks get very long and the evergreens stay at the top portion of the trees. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 9, 2008 Page 14 of 33