PC 092408 - Laserfiche WebLink

read the memo regarding the summary of requirements imposed on the work. He noted that two places discuss having the landscaping screen replicated to the previous screen within five years. He stated that when he was at the hearing two weeks ago, he commented that he purchased his home six years ago, and the fact that he would not only lose his backyard privacy but would also have to wait five years is unreasonable. He added that he previously owned two other homes on zero-lot line properties and that the reason he purchased this home was the attraction of the backyard privacy. He therefore asked to have appropriate landscaping done that will allow the screen to be replicated in two to three years. Lisa Johnston, Appellant, stated that Mr. Jeffrey claimed he redesigned his plans, but he basically modified them. She added that she believes that mediation could have been resolved the matter a long time ago and that there were better options but were never brought up. She invited Mr. Jeffrey to look out her window, as she is closer to his property than he is to his own home. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Pearce stated that there is a concern that this project has not conformed to the original plans and inquired if there were a downside to having a condition stating it should conform substantially to Exhibit A and then adding that landscaping will be increased. Mr. Dolan replied that the only downside is that the wall would have to be entirely reconstructed because it is accurate that the wall was shown in the sketch as being on the same elevation as the top of the V-ditch. He added, however, that, in fact, the wall could not have been installed without digging back to stay out of the 15-foot easement, thereby moving the wall up the slope. He noted that while the wall is higher than what is shown on Exhibit A, it is not much over four feet high. He noted that 95 percent of the cases where a retaining wall is moved are not typically an issue, but in this case, the move made it visible over the fence. He indicated that it is fair for the Commission to consider what moving it down does and added that it would possibly move the actual wall out of view. He questioned, however, if this is a visually offensive wall, which the Johnstons believe to be so. He stated that there may be other ways to address that issue, including adding vegetation below, but moving the wall down would make it more difficult to plant the vegetation that will provide the screen. Commissioner Pearce noted that there are two Exhibit A's. Mr. Dolan explained that all of the design plans were part of Exhibit A. He explained that the reason the new condition asks for a detailed plan is that Mr. Jeffrey has not done this a lot and it has been difficult to relay to him that a conceptual plan like that in a situation this controversial is not working. He indicated that staff's preference would be to have a detailed drawing to be approved by the City and installed just as it is with very little change. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 24, 2008 Page 13 of 41