14 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Johnston stated that at the Zoning Administrator hearing on July 10, 2008, staff did approve a retaining wall and mild grading along the rear portion. She noted that the grading was not mild and that staff rendered a decision without having seen the completed wall or photos of it to ensure that it conformed to Exhibit A. She added that Mr. Jeffrey assured them that trees would be planted in a tiered effect to cover the entire rear portion of the property and would conform to the landscape plan he submitted; however, the landscaping has been completed, and there is no room for the tiered planting. She added that the southwest corner which is the area of they are most concerned with has very few plants. She stated that she believed the final landscaping and retaining wall do not conform substantially to Exhibit A, as provided in Condition No. 1. She continued that since Mr. Jeffrey has proceeded with his work throughout this appeal, there are still other conditions that are not satisfied, specifically Conditions 3, 4, and 10, and probably more. Ms. Johnston stated that there are many inconsistencies and misrepresented details in the staff report and that she would be happy to explain all of them should time allow. She brought to the Commission's attention a statement at the bottom of page 5 that states that the resulting slopes and landscaping will be similar to other requests that were approved within this subdivision and lists 10 addresses on page 7 with grading changes approved within the development. She noted that only four of the lots are impact lots and that one of them, 949 Montevino Drive, was denied by the Ciry a 19-inch grade increase because of the impact to the neighbors' privacy. She added that two others on Amoroso Court excavated dirt out to build pools. Ms. Johnston stated that despite their appeal and the City's recommendation not to proceed, Mr. Jeffrey has completed the grading and is putting the finishing touches on his landscape plan. She noted their disappointment and amazement at how Mr. Jeffrey could proceed with the project even though it was under appeal. She added that they had done everything that had been asked of them throughout the entire process, but Mr. Jeffrey was granted approval of everything with no compromising. She stated that this would set a precedent with the development and that others will be able to do the same. She noted that Mr. Jeffrey was able to level his entire lot by re-grading it, install a pool, build asix-foot high retaining wall, ignoring the request by the Planning Division not to proceed with any work. She added that even though Mr. Jeffrey agreed to the changes made to the landscape plan at the July 10, 2008 hearing, he planted what he wanted anyway. Ms. Johnston noted that in the beginning of this whole process, they had asked for two conditions: to not allow a significant grade change and to plant enough screening to provide immediate privacy. She added that when the discussions headed into the direction that the retaining wall was going to be allowed, they came up with ideas and suggested that athree-foot high berm be added to the southwest corner to act as a barrier for sound and privacy, and that due to the height and close proximity to their yard and master bedroom, they had also asked that the newly elevated area be conditioned as landscape only. She stated that they felt these were more than EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 10, 2008 Page 10 of 25