SR 05:260 - Laserfiche WebLink

2. Add a new condition requiring the applicant to replace the three trees to be removed, the locations of which shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director to provide the maximum screening possible The applicants have raised objection to the requirement to replace the three trees to be removed in connection with the proposed project. The applicants cite the assessment made by Mike Fulford, the City's Landscape Architect, that although the three subject trees are healthy and two are "heritage trees" by virtue of their height, they not considered "special" examples of the species. Considering the abundant number of large healthy trees on the property, Mr. Fulford believes that it is not necessary to require the applicants to plant additional trees in order to mitigate the loss of the three subject trees. It must be clarified that the City Landscape Architect's assessment is based on the intrinsic value of the subject trees and whether or not replacement trees should be required to mitigate the removal of the subject trees in accordance with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance (P.M.C. ~ 17 .16). The discussion that ensued among the Commissioners centered on measures to mitigate the privacy impacts ofthe proposed addition to the neighboring property. In specific, Commission imposed the requirement to replant the three trees to provide screening between the Diaz' newly located second-story balcony and the Crofton's back yard area. Staff notes that requiring the planting of trees or other vegetation to mitigate impacts to surrounding properties is a commonly added condition to project approval. Staff believes the additional screening is necessary to help mitigate the visual impacts related to the newly located second-story balcony. Staff has modified the condition slightly to specify the size of the trees to be planted and to ensure the types of trees are subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. 3. Add a new condition requiring the applicant to construct and pay for a seven-foot fence at the north property line between the properties of the appellants and the applicants for the length of the entire yard, the design of which shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director and the design and installation approved by the Croftons. The applicants objected to this condition and staff recommends it be deleted. Staff believes that no essential nexus exists between the potential impacts of the proposed project and imposing construction ofa 7-foot tall fence to mitigate privacy concerns. The subject property sits approximately four feet lower than the Crofton's property, and a six-foot tall fence already exists along the shared property line. The combined elevation gain and existing fence effectively places a 10-foot visual barrier between the properties, thereby blocking any potential views from the Diaz' proposed first floor addition into the Crofton's back yard area. By contrast, the 10-foot or II-foot barrier (if a 7-foot tall fence is required), does nothing to block either the views the Diaz' currently have into the Crofton's rear yard area or the view they will have with the proposed relocation of their second-story balcony. The imposed 7-foot fence will not provide additional visual screening over that that currently exists with the 6-foot fence. Staff also has concerns in requiring one party to install and pay for a fence that is to be located on a shared property boundary that is owned and used by both property owners. Common boundary fences are generally installed and maintained through coordination between property owners and not through the authority of the City. Staff also agrees with the applicant that SR:05:260 Page 4