PC 092408 - Laserfiche WebLink

a detailed sketch of the original theoretical landscape plan that was included in Exhibit A. She stated that she is amenable to a setback of 35 feet with a restriction on above-ground structures, noting that this is not land that the appellants would have been able to use had the property not been leveled. She noted that everyone appears to be amenable to the condition regarding pool lighting and added that a firm completion date would be appropriate. She indicated that in light of the circumstances, she feels the City should do everything it can to get the appellants' privacy back. Commissioner Narum stated that she found this situation uncomfortable, but looking at the original landscaping plan in Exhibit A with a scale of 1 inch = 16 feet, the bushes that were planted where the wall would be back to the lawn is about 1 inch or 16 feet, which would place it about 31 feet off the property line. She stated that there should be some fairly heavy planting on the 16-foot area where there is no lawn and that the use of play structures, trampolines, etc., should be precluded. She agreed with Commissioner Pearce that had this come in originally, she probably would not have approved it. She noted that a lot would have been resolved had the original Exhibit A landscaping plan been followed and dense bush and shrubbery created in this area, which, in effect, was unusable for the kinds of things that are being restricted on it. She added that she felt there should be a detailed plan that shows the shrubbery at a substantial distance from the wall towards the house which would in effect limit the use of that area without actually putting restrictions on the house as well. She stated that she believed athree-foot tall berm could be incorporated as part of this heavy planting. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he also believed that if this plan came in first, it would not have been something he would have approved. With respect to setbacks, he stated that 30-35 feet would be appropriate. He noted that in the Exhibit A from April 8t", the setback appears to be at least 30 feet back from the lawn in a couple of areas and a little shorter in one or two corners. He indicated that he would like to see heavy planting and the lawn retracted back to about 30 feet from the property line. He stated that afour-foot tall berm should be put in place in lieu of lowering the grade. Commissioner O'Connor added that the Commission is considering placing conditions on an approval where the applicant has stated he does not want additional conditions on his property. He noted that if Mr. Jeffrey is telling the Commission he is not going to accept conditions or non-use of an area in his back yard, or he does not have the money to put in more plants, Commissioner O'Connor thinks it is a moot point to place conditions on the property. Chair Blank stated that he feels the Commission must do the best job it can whether or not the applicant or the appellants accept its decision. Commissioner O'Connor stated that at the last meeting, the Commission made it clear that it would go one of two ways: either put certain conditions on the property PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 24, 2008 Page 16 of 41