CCMIN120208 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Dolan noted that all five of the re-grading applications in the neighborhood have been approved. Councilmember Cook-Kallio confirmed half were putting in more dirt rather than taking dirt out. Councilmember Sullivan questioned when staff had found the error and did not correct it. Ms. Johnston said two meetings were held in April and she tried to have Ms. Decker understand her concerns about re-grading and the retaining wall. After the April 30 meeting, there was still no discussion about the grade change, it was always about the landscaping. This is when she suggested a berm to provide privacy and additional landscaping. On July 10`h, the wall was not addressed at all and grade was not an issue. Councilmember Sullivan referred to the error made where there was an over-the-counter approval for the wall without understanding there was a prohibition on grading. He confirmed the wall; however, had already been built and completed sometime between June 30`" and July 5`h when the Johnston's were on vacation. Nelson Lam said when he moved into his home in 2000, it was not as big as he wanted, but he was attracted to it because of the seclusion and privacy of the backyard. He said he would never know there was someone behind him as the trees provided total privacy. He built an addition two years ago, creating many windows and French doors knowing he had lots of privacy. He now had to purchase window coverings because not only can he see homes, but they can also see him. He said he cannot undo what has been done, but wants to quickly regain the privacy he once had. Regarding draft conditions, he supported the Johnston's comments about conditions 3 and 4. Urged the Council to take the Planning Commission's recommendations of 35 feet, as his concern is not only visual but noise as well. Regarding the berm, he supported keeping the 4 foot berm as recommended and for the same reasons Ms. Johnston's raised. Mr. Steve Jeffrey, Appellant, said Ms. Johnston seems to think the wall is 50% higher. Conceptual drawings submitted in Exhibit A are conceptual and not drawn to scale. He reiterated the types of plantings proposed which he felt would make a difference for screening. He said no backfill was used, the height of the wall was determined by the slope at the time the wall was built. Regarding the question whether there was vegetation on one or both sides of the fence, there was only a five foot narrow section with one tree. Another issue he dealt with was the inability to trim trees, as they blocked his view of the west ridge and this was another reason he removed them. He believed that with continued vegetation, any outstanding issues could be resolved, said there is a permit process established by the City for any type structure that falls under above-ground definition. Regarding Mr. Lam's comments, he feels that it is not his responsibility to landscape his yard for others privacy and views. He pointed out Mr. Lam's property, stating there was no way for him to see into his property, but only the tip of his roof. Mayor Hosterman closed the public hearing. Councilmember Cook-Kallio confirmed that the title report would include the CC&R's which the property owner would have. She wanted to have the property restored as close to the conditions in terms of screening. She felt it was very clear that the vegetation would remain; and did not understand why a retaining wall was needed for a flat piece of land. She felt it was reasonable for the Johnston's and the Lam's to have, at a minimum, landscaping back in the way it was in the past. Councilmember Sullivan said it is unfortunate and believed the project should never have been built, believed it was highly unusual to have someone's yard become flat and located at the top City Council Minutes 11 December 2, 2008