14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Planning staff researched and verified the information the Johnstons provided which was discovered in the original Tract Map conditions of approval. The development is zoned R-1-6,500, not a Planned Unit Development, which is where such conditions and conditions of approval are typically found. Staff contacted Mr. Jeffrey and required him to cease construction of his project in order to assess the situation. Staff discovered that the conditions of approval of the original tract approval in 1988 required that the project CC&R's include prohibitions against regrading of any lot (the CC&R's are provided in Attachment 4). Staff also discovered that as part of a subsequent request for regrading at a similarly situated lot in 1989, the City Council revised the conditions to allow grading but that each case would require City Council approval. In May 2008, when confronted with the current application, the former Planning and Community Development Director reviewed the Vintage Hills II prior grading applications, historical information pertaining to the development, and the appellant's request, and made the determination that an administrative hearing with the Zoning Administrator would be the most appropriate process for this project. He contacted the concerned neighbors who were agreeable to a modified entitlement process. At this time, staff, also contacted the neighbors requesting feedback if there would be a problem to continue the construction of the swimming pool. The Johnstons stated that they did not have an issue with that and believed that a process would ensue to rectify the situation. All parties concurred that the common interest was to replace the trees as quickly as possible, to install large specimen trees, and to ensure that the neighbors' privacy would be returned as soon as possible. Three Zoning Administrator hearings were conducted, along with individual site visits to the two rear neighbor's and the Jeffrey's properties. The Zoning Administrator concluded that the primary concern of all parties was to reestablish privacy to all properties and that a solution could be reached with some changes to the type, location, and number of trees and shrubs that the appellant was initially proposing to install. The Zoning Administrator approved Mr. Jeffrey's request to continue distributing the excavated material from the pool, finish the regrading of the rear yard area including backfilling the constructed retaining wall, and provide landscaping in the rear yard area subject to the changes listed above. Please refer to the Zoning Administrator Action Report in Attachment 5 and meeting minutes in Attachment 6 for detailed information. Aaaeal to Planning Commission The rear neighbors, the Johnstons and the Lams, were not satisfied that the conditions that the Zoning Administrator placed on the project adequately addressed their concerns and appealed the Zoning Administrator's action to the Planning Commission. Prior to the first Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Jeffrey installed landscaping with the understanding that he would have to remove it if the City ultimately imposed different requirements. Mr. Jeffrey has since submitted an as-built plan which is provided as Attachment 8. During the September 10, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission took public testimony from the appellants and rear neighbors regarding the Page 3 of 6