PC 04/08/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

six feet. The applicant does not want to eliminate the wall. However, she has stated she would be willing to construct a wood fence between the retaining wall and the driveway. Mr. Iserson reported that the main issue with the sideyard treatment is that the applicant desires to create a flat yard, necessitating a retaining wall, and the Macaris desire to maintain the existing character of their driveway including the open-rail fence with no retaining wall. Since this issue is unresolved, Mr. Iserson pointed out that the staff report identifies three options, and he described each. The second neighbor to express concern was Mr. John Severini, whose property backs up to the applicant's property. He also noted that the Severini property has a swimming pool in the back yard. Mr. Severini expressed concern with asecond-story window that he feels will impact his privacy. In addition, Mr. Severini prefers that the house be only one story, but if it is two stories, he would like the window relocated to either side of the house. The applicant has offered to locate the window in a more easterly direction so it would not directly face Mr. Severini's rear yard and pool and has agreed to plant some large trees along the reaz fence line. However, Mr. Severini declined this offer and maintained his request that the window be deleted or relocated. If there must be windows on the reaz elevation, they should be located high on the wall so as to prevent views from it. The third neighbors, Larry and Susan Dingman, expressed concern with construction hours. Mr. Iserson noted that the Dingmans are also experiencing construction on the other side of their home and would, therefore, like for construction to be limited to Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mr. Iserson stated that normal construction hours are Monday through Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. However, the applicant has agreed to limit Saturday construction to indoors. Mr. Iserson also stated that staff received several letters and a petition of other neighbors who aze in support of the applicant. In conclusion, staff feels the house is well designed and will fit in well with the neighborhood. However, the two remaining issues are such that the existing neighbors and the applicant have taken strong positions. From a planning perspective, there is no "right or wrong" to these issues; it is a matter of differing expectations for development of the site. Staff has identified several options for the Commission to consider; however, some of the conditions of approval may need to be modified depending on the option accepted. In conclusion, staff recommends approval subject to the conditions included in the staff report. Chair Cooper noted that he visited the site and met with the applicant. He stated that a large window on the Severini house is visible from the applicant's lot and asked whether it was asecond-story window. Mr. Iserson responded that the Severini home is a single-story home and his lot is four feet lower than the applicant's, so it is probably just a high window. Commissioner Wright noted for the record that he also visited the site and met with the applicant's son and daughter at the property. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Richazd Heim, architect, Gazdnerville, Nevada, addressed the Commission. He apologized for taking _ the Planning Commission's time. He feels the issues should have been resolved at staff level, noting that the issues aze nuisance complaints that have slowed down this application. He also stated that since this Planning Commission Page 14 April 8, 1998