PC 02/25/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

In conclusion, staff feels that the applicant's two-story home with the existing trees existing and the required additional tress will not present any negative impact to the neighbors below and, therefore, recommends approval subject to the conditions identified in Exhibit "B". In response to a question from Commissioner Wright, Mr. Iserson stated that the City-owned open space behind the subject property is maintained by a Landscape and Lighting District. Once the applicant plants trees on that property, they will be owned by the City as well. Commissioner Wright also questioned Condition No. 5, asking whether there was any CC&R requirement that differed from staff s 9-month deadline to complete the front landscaping. Mr. Iserson answered that it was a standard condition to allow nine months. Chair Cooper asked whether any of the concerned neighbors have two-story homes, and Mr. Iserson stated that they all do. He further stated that they all have second story windows, and he believes they would all be able to see into each other's back yazds from their second story windows. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dennis Addiego, 831 Hunter Lane, presented the Commission with photographs of the site. He stated that he purchased his lot from Shapell and paid a premium to acquire that lot since it was not originally for sale. Prior to purchasing the lot, he did some reseazch and found that it was not restricted to a single-story home and, in fact, atwo-story home could be built on it. In addition, he noted that the lot is too small for asingle-story home. He also stated that the landscaping plan actually requires open wire fences for the azea. In addition, he stated that the design of the house meets all City and CC&R requirements in every respect, nothing that the proposed height is actually less than the requirement. He expressed a great deal of frustration that although he has complied with all guidelines, he is suffering the financial burden by unnecessary delays due to the neighborhood complaints. Mr. Addiego also displayed an illustration of his proposed home from all angles, pointing out the placement of the windows on the second story. He also showed photographs of his lot and the surrounding home describing the views from each photo. He feels the photographs show that his home would not be violating anybody's privacy or taking away from their views. He stated that although he is very pleased with staff's efforts to resolve the issues and for recommending approval of his application, he does not agree with their conditions relating to the open side fences and the requirement for him to plant trees on the City-owned land. He feels that if the neighbors are concerned about privacy, they should bear the cost of the trees. In addition, he noted that the City has already approved Shapell's landscaping plan allowing for open fences and feels it would be unfair to condition his property differently. He, again, expressed frustration that he is beazing all costs associated with the delay of his project, and he really takes exception to that. In response to a question by Chair Cooper, Mr. Addiego confirmed that he prefers to not have a fence at all. Mr. Iserson stated that the fence shown on the photographs is the City fence, and would remain. However, the fence in question is on the applicant's property line. Planning Commission Page 6 February 25, 1998