16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Staff notes that the area of planted Redwood trees shown in Figure 3 does not represent the number of trees planted. Please see Attachment 2 for the approximate location and number of trees. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission approved Case PCUP-205, subject to the conditions of approval found in Attachment 1. After receiving public testimony, the Commission discussed the proposal and considered the following alternatives to mitigate the neighbor's concerns they had heard through the testimony received: o Relocate the tank farther east so that it is completely behind the appellant's garage. The Commission concluded that moving the tank farther east would only mitigate the rear neighbor's visual concerns and not the visual concerns raised by the residents on Diamond Court to the west of the subject property. The Commission discussed the removal of a 13 foot tall fence located on the Segundo's property along Diamond Court. The previous property owners had received planning approval to construct the fence in 1994; however the Segundo's stated that they were approached by their Diamond Courf neighbors requesting that the fence be removed to allow for a sense of openness. The Commission concluded that the applicant should not be punished for the residents requesting screening to be removed which is something the applicant could not control. o Mitigate visual concerns by allowing solid fencing or additional landscaping between the redwood trees. Following discussion, solid fencing and additional landscaping for screening was ultimately not supported by the Segundo's or the Planning Commission. The Segundo's had previously removed landscaping in their front yard to allow for more openness, thus, reintroducing more landscaping was not an acceptable solution for them. The Commission stated that this would not be an appropriate mitigation since the Segundo's had removed the landscaping and, thus, solid fencing would prevent the sense of openness that they wen; trying to achieve. The applicant had also expressed concern that there is a small range of landscaping materials that would be safe for the horses that she keeps in her rear yard. The applicant and appellant disagree on when the landscaping was removed by the Segundo's from the Segundo's front yard in relation to when the tank was installed. Page 5 of 8