PC 02/25/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Addiego stated that after heazing the issues expressed by the neighbors, he how realizes that the real issue is not privacy, but rather that the neighbors want aone-story home on his lot. He, therefore, feels that staffs conditions for the solid fence and trees in the open space should be removed. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Wright pointed out that when Shapell received approval for the Bonde Ranch project, Mr. Hicks and Mr. Strickler were very involved. He is rather surprised to now learn that they and other residents aze questioning what can be built on the lot. He feels that the applicant has done everything possible to satisfy staff and the existing homeowners. He, therefore, will support staffs recommendations for approval, with the exception of the conditions relating to the trees and the privacy fence. He feels that it's unfair to require the applicant to pay the expensive cost of planting trees in the open space. In addition, he feels that the privacy Fence should not be required because if people are so concerned about view impact, the fence would impact it even further. Commissioner Dove feels that the applicant's proposed design is the best possible design in terms of the privacy issue. He stated that he visited the site today and feels that views from either the top or the bottom of the hill would be less impacted if there were no fence at all. Commissioner Barker commented that the neighbors have diligently followed the project and she believes that the condition has changed, specifically some large trees that shielded the view have been removed. Otherwise, Commissioner Bazker agreed that there could be a two-story home on the lot. She recommends approval of the application and specifically stated that she would like to have Condition 4 remain, but recommends deleting Condition 3. Commissioner Kumaran reported that he visited the property today and walked azound the azea, constantly questioning why there is a view issue. He feels that Mr. Addiego's point is important in that there is an existing two-story home adjacent to the concerned neighbors whose windows allow a view into their yards. However, he feels the applicant's home would obstruct the view from the existing two-story home into the concerned neighbors' property. He stated that since the lot is not restricted to a one-story home, he is in support of the project and feels the applicant should be allowed to proceed. With regazd to the fence, he does not feel that a solid fence would improve or enhance the visual impact that the neighbors aze concerned about and, therefore, suggested that Condition 3 be deleted. He also recommends deleting Condition 4 because he feels it is unfair to ask the applicant to bear the cost of planting additional trees. Chair Cooper reported that he, too, visited and walked the property and surrounding azea and did not identify any privacy or visual impacts at all. He feels that the neighbors' concerns have been overstated and exaggerated and have caused significant undue hardship on the applicant. He voiced his support of the project, but recommends deleting Conditions 3 and 4. He feels that if the neighbors are concerned about visual and privacy impacts, they should plant additional landscaping in their own backyards. With regazd to condition 13, Chair Cooper asked Mr. Iserson whether it was customary to allow construction on Saturday in residential azea. Mr. Iserson responded that the condition normally allows construction Monday through Saturday, but that the Commission can modify the Condition if they so choose. Chair Cooper, therefore, suggested that the Condition remain unchanged. Planning Commission Page 8 February 25, 1998