PC 091008 - Laserfiche WebLink

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 was part of the Conditions of Approval was removed. She indicated that she notified the City that same day and informed staff of all of the conditions of these impact lots and that she was told that the project planner had made an error by processing the application and issuing the permits over the counter. She stated that after she spoke to Mr. Jeffrey, she decided to involve the City for help because there were too many unknowns. Ms. Johnston stated that she was asked by then Planning Director, Jerry Iserson, tc have this heard at the Zoning Administrator level instead of at the City Council level as conditioned by the approval. She noted that she and her husband agreed to this after being assured that it would carry the same weight of importance as if it were heard at the Council level. She indicated that they were asked if the pool could proceed as Mr. Jeffrey had contractors lined up and work was being delayed, and they had agreed in an effort to compromise in order to allow the Jeffreys to enjoy their yard, based upon their representation that they would re-install the landscaped buffer immediately and that no significant grading would occur. Ms. Johnston continued that on April 8, 2008, the City received landscape and grading plans from Mr. Jeffrey, and upon reviewing the plans, they noticed that the plans did not accurately depict the nature of the slope bank that was in the southwest corner of the yard closest to them. She then showed pictures of what was submitted by Mr. Jeffrey, where the base of the wall is at the same grade level as the ditch and where the slope of the grade in the southwest corner as viewed from the Johnston home is more than just afour-foot area of fill. She also presented a picture of the final grade currently looks like. She noted that there is a significant difference between what was submitted as Exhibit A and what the final grade actually is, with the actual grade being 50 percent higher than what was submitted to the City. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 10, 2008 Page 13 of 33