PC 04/08/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Severini distributed several photographs of the applicant's lot and views into his property and described each photograph. He stated that the landscaping he has planted in his yard is not for privacy, but is mostly shrubbery and would not shield any views into his yard. Mr. Severini also expressed concern with the retaining wall proposed by the applicant. He feels it cannot run north/south and would have to accommodate his fence which would have to be taken down and replaced. He stated that a child or animal could wander into his yard. Therefore, if the retaining wall is approved, he wants the City to provide him with an indemnity agreement during the period when the fence is removed and reconstructed. In summary, Mr. Severini requested that the applicant be required to relocate the second-story window, preferably to the east wall. He also requested that the applicant be restricted to construction on Monday through Friday so he does not have to hear construction noise on Saturday. Mr. Severini also requested that the applicant submit a landscaping plan that is sensitive to his swimming pool and that it be approved prior to any trees being planted. Ray Parodi, 1073 Cortez Lane, Gardnerville, Nevada, stated that he is the applicant's son. He acknowledged that shortly after the property was purchased, he advised Mr. Severini that they intended to build aone-story home. However, after further consideration, they decided on a second story. He pointed out that he, in no way, intended to deliberately misinform Mr. Severini, but rather circumstances and needs changed. Mr. Parodi also reported that the second-story room with the window facing Mr. Severini's yard was originally intended to be a study. Afrer concerns stated by the Fire Inspector and recommendations from staff, the design was changed for that room to become a bedroom. If the window is taken from its position in that bedroom, it would eliminate an emergency exit in the event of a fire. He told Mr. Severini that the architect would try to design the house in a way that it did not intrude on him, but it did not work out the way Mr. Severini would have liked. Mr. Parodi noted that he also offered to plant trees on the rear property line in order to address his concern with the view into his backyard. He went so far as to invite Mr. Severini to tell him where to place the trees and the types of trees he would like. However, Mr. Severini declined and maintained his position that he wanted the window moved. Mr. Parodi stated that his offer remains open. Mr. Parodi also described a series of personal conflicts with the Macaris and stated that he and his mother have felt unwelcome. Mrs. Macari denied the accusations made by Mr. Parodi. In addition, Mr. Parodi stated that there is no reason for the Severini's fence to be removed and that the retaining wall would not impact it. He also stated that he would be willing to put up a wood fence that would match Mr. Severini's on top of the concrete wall so that children could not climb up and fall. In response to Mr. Macari's concern with the wall, Mr. Parodi stated that he is willing to use split-faced block instead of solid concrete. Mr. Heim described how the retaining wall would be constructed so as not to interfere with Mr. Severini's fence. He also described the wood fence that could be placed on top to match Mr. _ Severini's fence. With regard to the window, he stated that since the roof line intersects the side elevations on the second floor, the window will not work on the east side. Planning Commission Page 16 April 8, 1998