PC 091008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Johnston stated that they submitted a letter to the City dated April 15, 2008, explaining their concerns about Exhibit A and its inaccuracies. She noted that they attended Zoning Administrator hearings on April 16 and April 30, 2008, but no solution was reached. She stated that following the meeting on April 30t", she asked to meet with Donna Decker, Principal Planner, and noted that on May 2, 2008, she reiterated their concerns about the grading of the lot and how it negatively impacted their home and lives. She stated that Ms. Decker indicated that she would meet with Mr. Jeffrey to discuss these issues and that she would get back to them when new landscaping plans were submitted. Ms. Johnston noted that they did not hear back from anyone and that about June 26, 2008, work again began at 927 Montevino Drive. She indicated that she sent and email and spoke to Natalie Amos and asked if work had been approved that they were not made aware of. She stated that Ms. Amos replied that nothing had been approved and that Mr. Jeffrey was proceeding without City approval. Ms. Johnston noted that when they returned from vacation on July 6, 2008, the retaining wall was completely installed, and it was to the top of their fence line. She noted that the wall may be four feet tall but that from their home, the wall was a six feet tall. She added that they were unsure at what point the wall went from being permitted in error to being allowed as they never received an explanation. 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 City 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. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 10, 2008 Page 14 of 33