17 ATTACHMENT 07 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Olson regarding whether the applicants could apply for a PUD modification to allow the privacy fencing, Mr. Otto replied that would be possible. Commissioner Olson noted that if he were in the neighbors' position, he would want solid fencing. Commissioner O'Connor did not believe the Planning Commission should knowingly approve items that were in violation of the CC&R's. He did not believe that the wall height exceeded the fencing height, and he inquired whether the appellants would prefer solid fencing. He noted that a condition of approval discussed landscaping being between six to eight feet tall, which was taller than the fence and would also provide privacy. Commissioner Fox inquired whether the floor area ratio (FAR) in an R-1-20,000 zoning district was defined for the primary and secondary structure combined, or whether the secondary structure may exceed the overall FAR for the lot. Mr. Otto replied that the second unit must conform to the FAR for the development and that it was calculated in the FAR. He noted that this FAR of 20 percent was more restrictive within the development than in a normal R-1-20,000 district of 25-30 percent. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Frank Nguyen, appellant, noted that he did not believe the second unit followed the spirit of the community and that it was the first second unit in the development. He did not believe it was appropriate and noted that the Homeowners Association (HOA) did not follow through on their complaint because State law allowed second units. He noted that the second unit would block their view, and they expected to be able to see their landscaping. He expressed concern about the security of their home and that their home would be isolated from the rest of the community. Xin Chen, appellant, displayed a series of slides on the overhead screen and noted that he was concerned that the second unit would block their view. He believed the City should take responsibility for any consequences of the construction of the second unit, such as landslides, flooding, and other unforeseen circumstances during and after the construction. He noted that their privacy would be compromised and was concerned about impacts on health and safety. He stated that both the City and the applicant should be prepared for a lawsuit as a result of any damage to his home. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Olson regarding whether the appellants would accept solid fencing, Mr. Chen replied that they would be amenable to solid fencing. Commissioner O'Connor suggested that landscaping that was taller than the existing fence be installed to provide screening and privacy and inquired whether that would be a better option than afour- or five-foot high solid fence. Mr. Chen replied that would be another option to consider, although he could not commit to a plan of action. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 12, 2008 Page 2 of 7