PC 092408 - Laserfiche WebLink

permit. She stated that the building inspector had gone out to the site to verify that the work conforms to the plans approved at the counter. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Lisa Johnston, Appellant, noted that she holds the same position as before, stating that she did not understand why staff says Condition No. 1 would not mean anything because new landscape plans are being required. She stated that their main point is that Mr. Jeffrey did not meet Condition No. 1 of the draft condition of approval. She noted that it might be a four-foot tall wall, except that Mr. Jeffrey was supposed to build the wall from the base of his yard and not where the bottom grade went 15 feet from the fence, which then raises the wall six feet up from their side of the wall. She added that Mr. Jeffrey did not conform to the plan and built the wall 50 percent higher than what she was first told the wall would be. Regarding the landscape plan, Ms. Johnston pointed out that the area that would have been landscaped contains an intrusion with the extension of the lawn and does not conform to Condition No. 1 as well. She added that the reason they are requesting afour- to five-foot berm is because they feel the grade should be taken down to conform to Exhibit A. She stated that Mr. Jeffrey drew the plan and built it but did not build it right. With respect to the third condition on the additional trees, Ms. Johnston stated that they wanted Mr. Fulford to design a plan that Mr. Jeffrey can agree to. She noted that they never wanted to tell Mr. Jeffrey what to plant in his yard; however, they were asked to come up with suggestions, which they did but which were not taken into account. She stated that vegetation was fine with them as long as they met the conditions in Exhibit A. Ms. Johnston continued that they are requesting a rear yard setback of 35 feet because they feel this is at the point where the yard slopes down and he would not be able to use the yard for anything such as a play structure. She added that the lighting issue comes from the fact that there are some people in the neighborhood who have pools that have spotlights and not enough trees, and the light shines into their bedroom. Ms. Johnston stated that they feel Mr. Jeffrey took advantage of the zoning Administrator's decision to allow the four-foot wall by not conforming to Exhibit A. She added that building a wall over 50 percent is not conforming, there is a lack of landscaping in the way he landscaped the southwest corner of the lot, and he should have over-planted for reasons of good faith. She inquired if anyone from the City reviewed what is on Mr. Jeffrey's property and if the wall and grade are really what staff thought would be in place. She further inquired why the Planning Division appears to believe it is fine to write a condition of approval and then not abide by it. She stated that staff should require Mr. Jeffrey to rebuild the wall and questioned why Mr. Jeffrey was allowed to proceed when the conditions were not being met. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 24, 2008 Page 11 of 41