PC 031401 - Laserfiche WebLink

on the last three segments of the Lu's fence, Mr. MacDonald commented that this is a design that "only a government could love." He asked that Commission take the action it took last time, and r- also allow the one foot of lattice along the last three panels of the fence. Tracy Lu, 8031 Bethel Lane, asked that the Planning Commission not reconsider its original decision to allow the Lus to keep the solid fence. She commented that the views from the Scotts' home look into their home and the fence allows some limitations to this. In response to a question from Chairperson Sullivan, Ms. Lu advised that she would not want to eliminate the solid fence and plant landscaping, because there is an existing oak tree in their yard and she does not want to enclose the backyard with more trees and eliminate the space that can be used as a back yard. Ken Scott, 8009 Bethel Lane, stated that he concurs that everyone is entitled to privacy and he is not contesting the fence along the entire length, only the three northern most panels. He noted that he believes the remainder of the fence is beneficial to the Lus and themselves. He referred to the photos provided by Mr. MacDonald, noting that there is very little landscaping in the Lus' back yard. He commented that his main objection is that the fence is extremely stark and there has been no effort to try to give it a more natural perspective. He advised that he would be more inclined to acceptance the fence if there was a reasonable degree of landscaping on both sides of the fence. He further advised that his preference would be to remove the three solid fence panels, noting that the same level of screening and protection can be attained with the installation of natural planting material. He stated that that if the three panels are to remain, he wants the lattice installed. r' PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Maas stated that the application is for a modification to the PUD, and the first priority is to look at the PUD. She further stated that the PUD requires open fencing, and because of the West Foothill Road Overlay District requirements, it is even more important to keep the fencing open. She noted that the Lus did not know the fence was illegal, but it is their responsibility to go back to the builder to address the matter. Commissioner Maas advised that she would like to propose that the Lus and Scotts be given 30 days to reach a compromise regarding the fence, and that added landscaping be added on both sides of the fence at the expense of the Lus. She further suggested that if a compromise cannot be reached in 30 days, she would propose that the fence be removed in six months or with the sale of the house, whichever occurs first. Commissioner Kameny questioned whether a compromise could be reached in 30 days. Commissioner Arkin stated that he sees this as opportunity for the Planning Commission to demonstrate its flexibility to look at situations on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Roberts stated that she feels there needs to be more landscaping, but she doesn't want the matter to go back to the neighbors to resolve. She suggested that staff review and r- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14,2001 Page 3