14 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

to Exhibit A. She stated that Mr. Jeffrey drew the plan and built it but did not build it right. With respect to the third condition on the additional trees, Ms. Johnston stated that they wanted Mr. Fulford to design a plan that Mr. Jeffrey can agree to. She noted that they never wanted to tell Mr. Jeffrey what to plant in his yard; however, they were asked to come up with suggestions, which they did but which were not taken into account. She stated that vegetation was fine with them as long as they met the conditions in Exhibit A. Ms. Johnston continued that they are requesting a rear yard setback of 35 feet because they feel this is at the point where the yard slopes down and he would not be able to use the yard for anything such as a play structure. She added that the lighting issue comes from the fact that there are some people in the neighborhood who have pools that have spotlights and not enough trees, and the light shines into their bedroom. Ms. Johnston stated that they feel Mr. Jeffrey took advantage of the zoning Administrator's decision to allow the four-foot wall by not conforming to Exhibit A. She added that building a wall over 50 percent is not conforming, there is a lack of landscaping in the way he landscaped the southwest corner of the lot, and he should have over-planted for reasons of good faith. She inquired if anyone from the City reviewed what is on Mr. Jeffrey's property and if the wall and grade are really what staff thought would be in place. She further inquired why the Planning Division appears to believe it is fine to write a condition of approval and then not abide by it. She stated that staff should require Mr. Jeffrey to rebuild the wall and questioned why Mr. Jeffrey was allowed to proceed when the conditions were not being met. She stated that the change in grading would be arguable in any lot in any neighborhood in the City and that she was surprised with Mr. Jeffrey's lack of willingness to compromise. Mr. Jeffrey, applicant, stated that he received two building permits in December of last year to complete a pool and the retaining wall in his yard and that both permits were approved by the Planning Department and the Building and Safety Division. He added that to date he has not received any documentation revoking or suspending the permits. He noted that the permit outlines the actual grading that was to be completed and was signed off by the Planning and Building Permits Department. He stated that he completed the work stated on the permits to the satisfaction of the building inspector and noted that similar projects had occurred in the neighborhood: two in August 1991, one in September 1990, one in August 1990, and three in 1989. He noted that all were approved for grading of pools and patios in their rear yards. Mr. Jeffrey stated that after several meetings with the Zoning Administrator and the neighbors, he redesigned his landscape plan several times to incorporate the Zoning Administrator's ideas and neighbors' comments. He added that he was required to complete the project within four weeks of the Zoning Administrator's ruling. He indicated that he constructed the back yard based on the direction of the Zoning Administrator and that this is how the yard looks today. He stated that grading can be EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 24, 2008 Page 4 of 14