14 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

and 15305 (5) Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. Therefore, no environmental document accompanies this report. CONCLUSION Approvals for re-grading rear yards have been granted for other homes in this development subject to the same restrictions as the subject lot. Such approvals have been granted for 870, 949, and 905 Montevino Drive; 2924, 2932, 2980, 2985, and 2977 Amoroso Court; 3088 Crestablanca Drive; and 953 Finovino Court. Staff feels that the re-grading, as conditioned, is appropriate and that the landscaping will provide a significant visual buffer between the subject properties to protect the privacy of all parties. Since the last scheduled Planning Commission meeting, the Planning and Community Development Director met with the Johnstone and Mr. Jeffrey independently to see if a compromise could be achieved. The Johnstone reiterated their desire for a restriction on the placement of any structures such as play structures, permanent barbeques, gazebos', etc. that would encourage active use of the rear portion of the yard. While such a restriction is within the authority of the Planning Commission, it would be highly unusual for asingle-family property to be restricted in this way and very difficult to enforce. Placement of such a restriction may also be unnecessary in the area for which it is suggested as the area will contain the required landscape buffer which would require City approval to remove. The Johnstons also expressed a desire that the height of the berm included in the landscape plan be increased in height to three feet (the Zoning Administrator only required a one foot berm) to help with screening and noise attenuation. Staff believes this is a reasonable request and is open to a change in the conditions of approval on that item (Exhibit B; Condition No. 4). The Planning and Community Development Director met with Mr. Jeffery to discuss the Johnston's requests on August 22. Mr. Jeffery does not plan to place structures in the southwest portion of his yard, however he opposes having any type of a restriction placed on his property. Mr. Jeffery is also opposed to increasing the height of the berm from one to three feet as he believes its impact would be minimal and he would have to import soil to fulfill such a requirement. Since the meeting with the Director, Mr. Jeffery has moved forward with the installing the landscaping per the Zoning Administrator's conditions of approval (Exhibit B; Condition No. 3). He has been informed that the installation is at his own risk and that he may be required to remove whatever he has installed subject to the outcome of the appeal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Deny PAP-123, thereby upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of PDR-715 subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B. Staff Planner: Natalie Amos, (925) 931-5613, or email: namos t(~ci.oleasanton.ca.us PAP-123, Appeal of PDR-71 S Planning Commission 7of7