PC 031208 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker noted that as the Zoning Administrator for this application, she would be able to answer any specific questions only from that perspective but that all other questions should be directed towards Mr. Otto, the project planner. Mr. Otto summarized the staff report and described the background, scope, and layout of the proposed project. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Pearce regarding whether any of the neighbors have a view easement, Mr. Otto replied that there were no view easements in this development. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Pearce regarding whether the CC&R's were of concern to the Planning Commission, Mr. Otto replied that CC&R's are covenants, conditions, and restrictions that apply privately for the property owners. The City does not oversee or enforce CC&R's. He added that CC&R's often had more restrictions than City requirements. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Narum regarding whether a privacy fence for downhill privacy would be an option similar to that at the Lemoine development, Mr. Otto replied that the fencing regulations for this development require open fencing along the property lines. The only allowance for solid privacy fencing per the PUD were where the grade was 10 percent or less or where the fencing met the principal structure setback. Staff had been approached by some neighbors about installing solid fencing, and staff had not supported that action. The Specific Plan contained language about not placing solid fencing on hillsides to avoid visual impacts. He noted that the Lemoine PUD had two modifications to allow solid fencing and added that the site was flatter with smaller lots, thus lessening the impact. Chair Blank and Commissioner Pearce questioned what the recent fencing modification for Lemoine Ranch was. Ms. Decker provided further background regarding the fencing on the Lemoine development. She noted that generally, open fencing was preferred to avoid a tiered appearance when looking up a hillside. She noted that the request for private fencing was related to the realization that the homes were in some conditions quite close where neighbors could readily view into their neighbor's home. Therefore, a revised fencing plan for privacy fencing was approved as a PUD major modification by the City Council. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Olson regarding whether the applicants could apply for a PUD modification to allow the privacy fencing, Mr. Otto replied that would be possible. Commissioner Olson noted that if he were in the neighbors' position, he would want solid fencing. Commissioner O'Connor did not believe the Planning Commission should knowingly approve items that were in violation of the CC&R's. He did not believe that the wall height exceeded the fencing height, and he inquired whether the appellants would prefer solid fencing. He noted that a condition of approval discussed landscaping being between six to eight feet tall, which was taller than the fence and would also provide privacy. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 12, 2008 Page 4 of 22