17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Discussion related to the construction of a solid fence for privacy was supported by the appellants and the Planning Commission. Ultimately, it was not made a condition of approval due to the competing concern for maintaining the open fencing that had been required for the original PUD to maximize the open views both from the residents outward and the public as they look up into the subdivision. The City has made a practice of requiring open fencing in hillside subdivisions so that the hillside is not checkered with terraced solid fencing. Residents of this subdivision have had a strong interest in modifying this requirement to allow solid fencing throughout, which the City has been discouraging to date. / Mitigate privacy concerns by requiring additional landscaping on the neighbors fenceline as well as on the Bawas' rear property line. It was noted that there is existing landscaping planted along the uphill neighbors fenceline that will grow to a height greater than the ridge of the second unit. The materials are newly planted and need more time to be an effective screen. The PUD restricts the height of landscape materials to 12 feet. The Planning Commission considered requiring the Bawas to add to the existing neighbors' landscaping but after further discussion acknowledged that the Bawas would also be planting materials to screen the structure along the rear yard property line. Similarly, to screen the proposed unit at the side yard property line, the Bawas are installing landscaping that will screen the structure when the plant materials mature. The Planning Commission denied the appeal, thereby upholding the Zoning Administrator decision by a 3-2 vote (Commissioners Narum and Fox dissenting), subject to the staff-recommended conditions of approval plus a new condition requiring that an automatic fire sprinkler system be installed in the second unit. Commissioners in support of the project noted that the applicants had made reasonable efforts to mitigate the neighbors' concerns by reducing the massing and height. The dissenting Commissioners indicated they continued to have concerns with the privacy impacts the second unit would create on Mr. Chen and his family and wanted to explore moving the second unit closer to the applicants' home. Prior to the vote on the project noted above, the Commission had considered continuing the item requiring the applicant to return with alternatives depicting how the site would change if the second unit were located elsewhere on the site. A motion to continue failed with those dissenting observing that continuing the item would cause additional delay and may not attain consensus as other neighbors could then be impacted and that the applicant had reasonably tried to mitigate the concerns. The Commissioners opposed to continuing the item further acknowledged that the applicant had been working steadily with the neighbors since 2006 until filing in 2007. They noted that the Page 6 of 12