PC 091008 - Laserfiche WebLink

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 reasonable requests, considering the vast improvements he would be gaining from the redesign of his yard. She noted that Mr. Jeffrey has greatly increased the value of his home while decreasing theirs. Ms. Johnston concluded that this long and exhausting process was mismanaged from the start and that they never want to address it again. She noted that 20 years ago, they fought long and hard for their privacy and view shed from these homes, and she requested the Commission to make a decision tonight that will prevent this will from ever happening again. Commissioner Fox asked Ms. Johnston what additional mistakes were in the staff report besides the two she had mentioned. Ms. Johnston replied that the report reads: "The appellants oppose the amount of grading and replacement of the landscape screen." She stated that they do not oppose replacement of the landscape screen. She added that on page 4, there is reference to the new wall replacing the old wall and noted that the original wooden fence was installed at that place by the original owners to hide the V-ditch and that they then put the heavy broad-leaf plants in front of it. She noted that the purpose of Mr. Jeffrey's wall was to specifically level. Ms. Johnston also pointed out that on page 4, it also states that the Johnstons felt they could possibly agree to the grade change if the applicant planted the majority of the yard with mature dense landscaping. She noted that they would never agree to that change without conditions, and no mention is made of their suggestion of the three-foot high berm. She added that every time the wall is mentioned, it is referred to as four feet tall, but staff has not come out and seen it, noting that it was actually on top of two feet of grade, making it a six-foot tall wall. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 10, 2008 Page 15 of 33