14 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

~. ~. BACKGROUND INFORMATION On December 6, 2007, staff processed an over-the-counter approval and issued a building permit for the construction of a four-foot high concrete retaining wall located in the rear yard of 927 Montevino Drive. This retaining wall is located approximately 15-feet from the rear property line and is approximately 100-feet in length. The design of the retaining wall detailed the use of concrete stack blocks. The purpose of this retaining wall is for the re-grading of the southwest portion of the rear yard along the length of the drainage easement. A building permit is not required for a wall height less than 4 feet in height. On December 12, 2007, the applicant requested a permit for a pool which was issued. The pool is located in a relatively flat area, approximately 30-feet from the new retaining wall. The pool is considered an accessory structure and met the required rear and side yard setback requirements. In January 2008, the applicant removed the existing mature evergreen trees along the rear property line. Staff received calls from the neighbors stating that landscaping was a requirement of the development. The neighbors further stated that re-grading of the lot is not permitted by the conditions of the subdivision unless approved by the City Council. Additional Information The subject site is in the Vintage Hills II development (Tract Map 5835). The Vintage Hills II development is not a planned unit development. The area is straight zoned R-1-6,500 and is required to meet those development standards. The subdivision was approved requiring that certain lots categorized as "impact lots", due to elevational differences along the westerly property boundary, would need to provide landscape screening to maintain the privacy of the existing homes. The subject site is one of the impact lots requiring such vegetative screening. At the time the tract map was approved, Condition No. 5 of the Tract Map required the installation of evergreen broad leaf trees along the western property line. Additionally, Condition No. 16 required language in the CC&Rs to restrict re-grading on any lots within in the development. While the City does not enforce CC&R's, in June of 1989, in review of a re- grading request within the development, the City Council requested all re-grading applications be approved by the City Council. These types of conditions are typically found in PUD conditions, not in tract map conditions. Planning staff ultimately discovered the error and was interested in rectifying the mistake allowing the pool which modifies the site grades and requires off-haul of excess soil material. The conditions also restrict any soil leaving the site. Jerry Iserson, former Planning and Community Development Director reviewed the Vintage Hills II prior grading applications, historical information pertaining to the development, and the applicant's request and made the determination that an administrative hearing with the Zoning Administrator would be more appropriate for this request instead of a City Council review. He contacted the concerned neighbors who were agreeable to a modified entitlement process. The former Director also approached the concerned neighbors requesting they consider the applicant to continue the construction of the approved pool. He received verbal communication agreeing to that portion of the construction. The neighbors reiterated their ZA: PDR-715 2 of 4 July 10, 2008