PC 031401 - Laserfiche WebLink

3. MEETING OPEN FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ANY ITEM WHICH IS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA ,--. There were none. 4. REVISIONS AND OMISSIONS TO THE AGENDA Item 6.f, Review of Recommendations for Capital Improvement Program Projects for 2001- 2006, was continued to the March 28 meeting. 5. MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION There were none. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Reconsideration of the PIannin2 Commission Decision Recommendin2 Approval of PUD-88-16-2M, the application of Richard and Tracy Lu, for a maior modification to PUD-88-16 to allow the retention ora solid privacy fence aIon2 a portion ofthe rear property r Mr. Pavan noted that this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a previous hearing and the Commission had determined to reconsider its decision. He presented an overview of the materials provided in the Commissioners' packets. He advised that staff is maintaining its previous recommendation that the Lus' fence be approved in its present configuration. He reviewed the three options presented to the Commission at the previous hearing. With regard to a question from Commissioner Kameny, Mr. Pavan advised that Mr. Scott's fence received approval as an effort to balance two competing issues of desire a to maintain the openness and rural atmosphere, while addressing the property owner's desire for privacy. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED COMMENTS FROM THE APPLICANT Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, Suite 210, represented Richard and Tracy Lu. He asked the Planning Commission to review the photos presented with his letter and think about the impacts their decision will have on each of these two families. He commented on the views from Foothill Road. He stated that while Mr. Scott's fence was approved as a minor modification, the Lu's fence approval is a major modification only because Mr. Scott protested it. Mr. MacDonald noted that it is illegal to give veto powers to neighbors and it is a Planning Commission's duty to exercise its independent judgement and not hand over its authority to the angriest neighbor in every neighborhood. He reminded the Commission that the Lus did not by-pass the process and that the solid fence was constructed by the prior owner at the time the Scott's lawn mower was breaking a window every other week. Mr. MacDonald stated that there are no substantial impacts from the Lu's fence. With regard to staffs recommendation that no lattice be permitted ,--. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14,2001 Page 2