Laserfiche WebLink
Specific Plan, which includes fencing requirements. She added that she did not look extensively <br />into that matter. <br />Chair Blank noted that the fence is not the question of this application. Ms. Amos concurred. <br />Chair Blank noted that in the June 20, 2007 violation letter, an option given the applicant was to <br />apply for a conditional use permit for the water tank which would cost $150, would be reviewed <br />by the Planning Commission, and would typically be afour-to-six-week process. He inquired <br />why it took nine months to come before the Commission. Ms. Amos replied that the process <br />would typically take four to six weeks if the information necessary to move the application <br />forward was complete. She added that there were also site visits to be conducted by staff. She <br />noted that this particular application was filed during the holiday season and there were vacation <br />schedules that had to be taken into consideration. <br />Chair Blank noted that on page 9 of the staff report, it states that the water tank was a <br />complementary earthtone color. He inquired if green was considered a complementary earthtone <br />color. Ms. Amos acknowledged the error. <br />Commissioner Fox stated that this application reminded her of the fifth wheel hearing with a <br />cylindrical object in place of a trailer. She noted that she grew up in a farm and was under the <br />impression that if a water tank were to be replaced, it would have be much better to put it in the <br />same location as the old one. She stated that she had a problem visually with the location as she <br />was unsure the tank could be screened with redwood trees. She stated that she lived by Nielsen <br />Park where there are redwood trees and noted that as redwoods grow taller, the trunks get very <br />long and the evergreens stay at the top portion of the trees. <br />Commissioner Pearce commented that it always make her really sad when she sees neighbors <br />engaging in hostilities like this. She stated that she understood where both sides are coming <br />from. She noted, however, that this is a farm property and a lot of things come with it such as <br />being near horses, getting flies and the odor from manure, and a water tank. She noted that there <br />is no well expert present, but that given what the well expert said, the present location appears to <br />be the most efficient. She pointed out that while the tank could be place five feet in either <br />direction, the applicant took care to move it toward the garage. With respect to the neighbor's <br />situation, she indicated that she would consider mitigation but the neighbors appear not to want <br />mitigation since they cut down the trees that would have screened the tank. <br />Commissioner Olson stated that he initially thought that one of the possible mitigations would be <br />to move the tank farther to the east so it is completely behind the garage. He noted, however, <br />after driving down Diamond Court, that the tank would still be visible from Diamond Court. He <br />added that it was unfortunate that the solid fence was removed. He stated that he was in a tough <br />spot because moving the tank to mitigate the view for the neighbors to the rear would not solve <br />the problem for the Diamond Court residents. He stated that after taking several trips to the <br />Happy Valley area, he noted that the place is a farm country and that the decision to locate the <br />tank as close to the wellhead as possible was one that was motivated by efficiency. He stated <br />that in that respect, he did not think the tank should be moved. <br />EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, Apri19, 2008 Page 10 oY IS <br />