PC 10/11/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

size of trees existing as well as those required to screen ensued. The Cravottas appealed this decision; however, the Earnests did not agree to comply to the neighbors' request. Staff feels the variance findings are such that there are special circumstances to the property including its size and shape, the variance would not constitute a granting of special privilege, and the variance would not be detrimental to public health and safety. Staff recommends that the original approval be upheld and approve AP-95-10. In response to Commissioner Wright, the final color of the gazebo would match the existing buildings. In response to Commissioner Hovingh, Mr. Iserson believes that the evergreen pear tree will fit between the cypress trees and the gazebo for an overall massing effect. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Anthony and Mary Ann Cravotta, 19 Foothill Road, represented themselves as the appellants to the design review and variance approval for a neighboring gazebo. Ms. Cravotta provided photos of the gazebo from their property. They do not feel the pear tree could be strategically placed to provide sufficient screening of the gazebo from their residence. They also asked that the finial be removed or painted a dark color. Ms. Cravotta noted that the one pear tree would screen the front-on view of the gazebo, but not the side views. In response to Commissioner Barker, Ms. Cravotta stated that at the Zoning Administrator meeting it was decided that one pear tree would be sufficient for screening. Commissioner Wright inquired what their plans were for landscaping. The Cravottas advised that the side yard is a narrow area that would not accommodate large plantings. Commissioner Wright thought they could augment the screening by adding additional trees or large plantings. Suzanne Earnest represented herself and her husband as the applicants for the variance for their gazebo. She commented that she does not perceive the area of the neighbors' yard as being narrow. Ms. Earnest gave an overview of the history of a variance for their fence several years ago. Because of the original fence variance, the Eamests did not know there was a front yard setback existing behind the fenceline when they started the construction of the gazebo. Ms. Earnest also noted that if the gazebo is moved back another five feet as requested, it will be even closer to the fenceline and more in view of the neighbors. The speaker also noted there are several trees existing around the gazebo. She believes additional trees used for screening the gazebo are more likely to impair the ridge land views than would the roof of the gazebo. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 October 11. 1995 .