CCMIN120208 - Laserfiche WebLink

well-aware of all conditions attached to his property since January and has chosen to ignore the zoning conditions applicable to his lot. Ms. Johnston said it has been brought up in previous staff reports about the prohibition of re- grading and it is important that two of the other impacted lots that have had re-grading approved were for the removal of grade to install pools. The other impacted lot at 949 Montevino Drive is directly behind the Jeffrey's and staff denied a 19 inch increase of grade due to privacy issues, however with Mr. Jeffrey's project, she was never cliven a chance to address the grade issue as a concern until the Planning Commission meeting. After the Planning Commission meeting of September 10 and 24`h, she felt they came up with the best possible solution to a bad situation. Condition 3 deals with the rear yard setback of 35 feet. Staff is recommending Council consider a 25 foot setback as this is where the trees and plantings came out to. Their reason for the setback is due to the increased land available and that the yard used to slope significantly in the southwest corner and now it is level. She said its use for above-ground structures is increased as well as their privacy and view shed. Mr. Jeffrey has assured them that he is not planning to put in <~ny permanent structures in the corner of his lot; however, this could change in time. Another condition is for a detailed landscape plan required from a professional landscape architect. She agreed that this is necessary bur. it could also be prepared by a licensed landscape contractor. The specimens proposed should grow nicely in three years, but she believes additional landscaping is needed in the southwest corner to accomplish privacy, and she asked to be included in the review process of the revised plan. She said the original landscape plan submitted on April 8`h shows proposed vegetation going almost 30 feet back on the property, but now, a very thin border is planted across the property, and 10 feet on the sides. She agrees the berm would provide additional buffering and is appropriate based on the height of the finished grade. The one foot berm Mr. Jeffrey said he installed is not visible to the Planning Commission, and if it did exist, it is now gone. She asked that the berm be placed along the southwest corner of the property which is the most visible impact. The condition pertained to the entire property between the retaining wall and the lawn. She referred to a picture she provided about the positive effects of .a 3-foot berm and how it would benefit their privacy, as well as a picture of vegetation prior to it being removed taken from their backyard. Lastly, Ms. Johnston referred to condition 5, stating the Commission recognized Mr. Jeffrey did not like the view of the wall from his home and suggested landscape to soften the effect. This was never a requirement; however, it was the height of the wall that she said she was most concerned about In closing, Ms. Johnston asked the Council to maintain the conditions set forth by the Planning Commission with the exception of Condition 5; anything less would not be satisfactory and asked to return the property to the state prior to any grade changes and prior to installing any landscape. Councilmember Cook-Kallio asked Ms. Johnston to display the diagram that shows when the wall was built and actual grade. A previous home in the area was denied infill in 1990 because it was 19 inches, and she confirmed that staffs recommendation was to deny the increase in grade, but after meeting with both parties, they were able to come up with a plan for more soil and 25 feet back, and they were allowed the 19 inch grade. City Council Minutes 10 December 2, 2005