14 - Laserfiche WebLink

appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of rear yard improvements to the property (PAP-123). The Commission continued the item and asked staff to see if a compromise between the two parties could be reached. Staff discussed potential conditions of approval but ultimately Mr. Jeffrey could not agree with the types of conditions that had been discussed as possibilities by the Planning Commission. At the Planning Commission meeting on September 24, 2008, the Planning Commission again considered the item and concluded that the landscaping that had been installed was insufficient to mitigate the neighbor's privacy concerns. The Commission upheld the Johnstons' appeal (PAP-123) and amended the Zoning Administrator's conditions of approval. Please refer to the "Background" sections of the Zoning Administrator Action report (Attachment 5) and the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 9) for additional information and Attachment 12 for a time line of events regarding this application. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The appellant has completed construction of an in-ground pool, an approximately four-foot tall retaining wall, and has used the excavated pool material to fill a portion of the rear yard area behind the retaining wall. Please refer to the Planning Commission staff report for a detailed project description (Attachment 9) as well as the exhibits provided in Attachment 2. DISCUSSION The primary disagreement associated, with the application is the method of ensuring adequate screening between the Jeffrey's yard and lots below. The notable difference between the Zoning Administrator's approval of the project and the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission are the height of the berm at the top of the retaining wall (four feet high verses one foot high); the requirement that a more detailed planting plan be prepared by licensed landscape architect; the addition of the restriction on construction of permanent structures in the rear 35 feet of the lot; the addition of a condition requiring that the retaining wall be covered with landscaping; and the addition of a condition on pool lighting requiring it to be directed away from neighbors. Each of these topics is discussed below. 1. Height of the berm: The Planning Commission required afour-foot high berm while the Zoning Administrator required aone-foot high berm to be located along the top of the retaining wall. Staff believes that the berm would not contribute significantly to improving the visual buffer in the long run beyond what can be achieved by landscaping but it would help attenuate the transmission of noise between the lots. There is no reason to conclude that the Jeffrey property would create noise above that normally associated with single-family residential uses; however, in this case, staff believes the additional buffering may be appropriate. Page 4 of 6