PC 042501 - Laserfiche WebLink

The minutes of the April II, 200 I meeting were approved as revised. r- 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 5.b., PUD-05, Centex Homes, and Item 6.c., PUD-80-16-19D & 11M, Providian Bancorp were continued to the May 9, 2001 meeting. 5. MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION a. PUD-88-16-2M. Richard and Tracy Lu Application for a major modification to PUD-88-16 to allow the construction of a seven- foot high solid privacy fence along a portion of the rear property line of an existing residence located at 8031 Bethel Lane. Zoning for this property is PUD-LDR (Planned Unit Development - Low Density Residential) District. ,r- Mr. Swift presented the staff report, noting that the Planning Commission has reviewed this item at several meetings, and at the last meeting the Planning Commission continued the application for thirty days and directed the Lus and Scotts to meet to determine if they could arrive at a mutually satisfactory solution to the matter. Mr. Swift advised that during this time frame, the Lus choose not to meet with the Scotts, and, therefore, no meeting was held and there is no different position than that previously presented. Mr. Swift presented the options described in the staff report. He referenced the letter from the Scotts which was provided to the Planning Commission this evening. Mr. Swift advised that staffis recommending approval of the solid fence, noting that given the position and grade of the two properties and the fact that the large oak tree in the rear of the Lus' property would preclude the addition oflandscaping to address privacy concerns, staff believes a solid fence is justified. He noted that landscaping could be substituted for the portion ofthe fence closest to the driveway. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Maas, Mr. Swift provided information and clarification regarding Planning Department application fees for major and minor PUD modifications. He also advised that there is no building permit fee to construct a six-foot fence, and a nominal fee to construct a six-foot fence with one-foot oflattice. Discussion ensued regarding the application process and filing and permit fees. Commissioner Arkin asked for clarification regarding the Planning Commission's direction at the previous meeting with regard to the meeting between the Lus and the Scotts. Mr. Swift replied that staff was to be available as mediators. He noted that staff contacted both parties, however the Lus declined to meet. - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 25, 2001 Page 2