PC 082201 - Laserfiche WebLink

,-- Mr. Miller provided clarification regarding the photos he distributed to the Commission and the effect of two feet of lattice on the top of the fence. Commissioner Kameny noted that an additional two feet would not cover the full structure. Discussion ensued regarding the potential for growth of various sizes of box trees and the number of neighbors that would be impacted by the installation ofthe over height fence. .-- David Campbell, 625 Abbie Street, advised that this project is under construction on a previously approved building permit, but this application was required to extend the open patio overhang by eight additional feet. Mr. Campbell stated that there is a gap in the landscaping of about four to six feet and there is mature vegetation, mostly evergreen, some deciduous. Mr. Campbell advised that they believe that a screening tree is a reasonable and effective way to mitigate this matter. He further advised that it meets with the degree of visual impact that they are talking about and it is not an extreme solution to the problem. He noted that they are proposing to plant a 24" box Japanese Blueberry tree that is ten feet high, with a girth of 5 feet, 5 inches. He stated that it is not a conifer, but it is an evergreen. He noted the project is well within code compliance and they are not requesting a variance. He further noted that the degree of impact is minimized and that the height of the overhang would actually be shorter if the application is approved. Mr. Campbell commented on the existing landscaping and noted that they are agreeable to purchasing and planting the tree because the City believes it is appropriate. He advised that this approval will provide the appellant with a benefit that he would not otherwise have. He noted that this is not a privacy issue, it is an extension of a roof, there are no windows, there is no living space involved, and it is a patio overhang. Mr. Campbell noted that the comment referenced by Mr. Miller from the administrative hearing was taken out of context. Mr. Campbell stated an eight-foot fence would be overkill. He suggested that the issue of the repair of the fence be dealt with at a later time. Mr. Campbell advised that this process has cost them a lot of time delay and considerable expense and they are requesting that the recommendations of the City staff and the Zoning Administrator be upheld. Commissioner Harvey asked the applicant if he is willing to put in more trees. Mr. Campbell advised that they support the recommendation of staff and the Zoning Administrator, and that they are not in favor of installing additional trees or another fence. Discussion ensued regarding the design of the patio cover. Mr. Campbell noted that the staff determined that the open gable design was a plus. Katherine Campbell advised that they have considerable landscaping going into the area and there will be other trees planted in the area. She noted that they are concerned about specifying any additional exact location of trees, because they have a pool in that area and an ornamental iron fence that may have to be relocated as the tree grows. She advised that they have severe space restrictions on where trees can reasonably be placed. Commissioner Harvey questioned whether the tree could be planted on the appellant's side of the fence. Mr. Pavan advised that the appellant would have to agree to accept the tree. ,- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 22, 2001 Page 11