PC 022504 - Laserfiche WebLink

- In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Roberts, Mr. Iserson confirmed that the grades of the two lots were fairly close and that Mr. Muat's lot was slightly higher. Chairperson Roberts advised that she visited the site and added that the fence was down. She spoke with Mrs. D'Arcy during her visit. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. William Muat, appellant, 3657 Olympic Court North, noted that he was not opposed to a seven-foot fence, which he originally agreed to. He was opposed to the applicant's method of changing the agreement with respect to the fence. He noted that he had a six-foot high fence and aseven-foot high shed and added that aneight-foot tall fence would block light into the yard. He was opposed to a nine-foot high fence (with fill) and an eight-foot high fence (without fill). He clarified that he appealed due to the construction of the retaining wall, which was contrary to the agreement reached at the Zoning Administrator hearing. He noted that the applicant would not agree to any lattice on the fence and that a solid nine-foot fence would be excessive. He noted that his children were two and four yeazs old and that they were unlikely to jump the fence to reach Mr. D'Arcy's swimming pool. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin, Mr. Muat replied that the seven-foot tall fence did not bother him. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Mr. Muat replied that he would agree to a five-foot fence on the new two-foot fill. Robert D'Arcy, applicant, 3671 Olympic Court North, noted that Mr. Muat's children would eventually be big enough to scale the fence. He expressed concern about the liability and safety with respect to his water feature. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Mr. D'Arcy replied that the retaining wall was actually a flower gazden, and that it was completed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Roberts advised that there were three different fence heights along the lot line and noted that the fence in the back was higher than the fence that went across. She supported staff's recommendation. Commissioner Sullivan believed that the staff recommendation was the same as the agreement reached at the Zoning Administrator hearing; he expressed his support for the recommendation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 25, 2004 Page 7 of 19