14 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker replied that this is not atypical and that the pool plan shown on Exhibit A is typical of a pool plan. She stated that the City has standard civil engineering design and drawings for various depths of pools and that staff has separate engineering drawings for free-form pools that are available through the Building and Safety Division. She noted that this is where the pool plan comes from, and the actual structural plan with standard details is then stamped. With respect to plans prepared by an engineer, Ms. Decker stated that the Building Code does not require a building permit and/or structural engineering for retaining walls that are four feet tall or less; hence, there is no requirement for any engineering for this type of stacked wall. She noted that similar four-foot tall walls consisting of stacked concrete blocks have been constructed elsewhere, but this wall is mortar and a concrete masonry unit wall. Ms. Decker noted that based on the drawings, the wall height varies from approximately two feet at the end next to the existing fence, goes up to four feet toward the corner of the drive isle with access to the drainage area, and then back to zero feet up the driveway. She stated that in effect, there is only a small portion of the retaining wall that is actually four feet in height; the rest of the wall varies from zero to four feet tall on both ends. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Lisa Johnston, with her husband, Greg, Appellants, stated the importance of reviewing the history of this development to help explain their appeal. She noted that when the tract homes on Montevino Drive were first being developed, they attended many meetings of City planners and developers to discuss the homes, lot size, height of the lot, and most importantly, how to maintain the privacy and views of existing residents. She stated that when the development was finally approved, the impact lots, Lots 1-4 and 6-13, were required to place a heavy, dense, broadleaf evergreen shrubs and trees along the entire western property line and were strictly prohibited from grading. She noted that Mr. and Mrs. Jeffrey owned one of those impact lots. She stated that the conditions are documented in Exhibit D, the Conditions of Approval for Tract 5835, with Conditions Nos. 5 and 15-18 indicating that the sloped yards shall be covered with trees and that re-grading is prohibited. Ms. Johnston noted that a staff report from 1990 referencing a re-grading request of 19 inches reads: "The intent of the proposed conditions of approval that prohibited the re- grading of the lots in this subdivision and the restriction of building height from the 12 impact lots was to minimize any of the impact of the new development on the privacy and view shed of the homes in the older Vintage Heights subdivision.... Although the proposed re-grading is minor and could be completed without the need for City permits in most other neighborhoods throughout the City, staff feels that approval of this project would not be in conformance to the approved Tentative Map Condition prohibiting re- grading." She added that early in January 2008, the landscaped buffer which served as a privacy screen between their home and the home at 927 Montevino Drive and which EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 10, 2008 Page 8 of 25