Item 7.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT September 23, 2004 Page 2 Rudolph Alfinito, 25870 Westwind Way, 30 yew resident, addressed concems regarding the Burger residence now under construction, in particular, the proposed 1,000 square foot pool. He provided photographs of his residence which show how the Burgers residential construction affected the inner wall of his master bedroom closet which started with the construction of the Burger house. He stated that they have lateral and vertical soil movement noting any construction should be considered and reviewed very carefully. To minimize the disturbance of land, the proposed location of the pool should be on the easterly side of the house rather than the proposed north side as shown on the grading map. He farther discussed his objections to the six foot high wall which will wall him in like a prison. He provided a photograph taken from his master bedroom to illustrate the height of the proposed wall/fence. This will block his view from the master bedroom. His house was built in 1964. Piers all the way around the house were constructed 15 years ago. A three foot high wall should be sufficient for the Burgers. A six foot wall, proposed on the property line, would just wall him in like a prison. In conclusion, he stated he had no problems with the trees. Discussion ensued regarding the wall/fence which meets the code and the Commission having the discretion to require a change in materials or a reduction in height. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, stated the plan indicates that the wall on the north end of the property is not at the 30 foot setback. The Planning Director stated that there are no 30 foot setback requirements for retaining walls, fences, rock walls, etc. She was concerned that there would be two 6 foot walls, one on top of the other. It also takes away the green belt effect that you normally have between properties. She questioned the accuracy of the stated height of the two walls. Bill Burger referred to the previous speakers comments regarding the north end of the property stating the retaining wall there is set back from the property line. He tried to keep the retaining wall as low as they possibly could. In the area where Mr. Alfinito's house is generally located, it is 5 feet or less and it does conform to the plans provided. The retaining wall is in excess of 10 feet from the property line. Their objective with the fence is to have separation and isolation from his neighbor. He choose the concrete form pre -colored type of fence because he can install it without going onto his neighbor's property and it will look good initially on both sides when installed and he wanted something permanent. The pool area is the only private area on the lot and the only area where he is proposing a solid fence. He discussed the history of the project which included a signed agreement drafted by an attorney that he and Mr. Alfinito negotiated and signed last October 21". Part of that agreement was that Mr. Burger move his house 10 feet to the south as an accommodation to Mr. Alfinito. He also asked for and received at that time Mr. Alfinito acknowledging Mr. Burger's right and his obligation to not interfere with his efforts to build a proper fence between the two properties. The Commission reviewed the document, in particular, #2, stating "Alfinito acknowledges that Burger has the right to install a new boundary fence as near as possible to the common boundary line between the two above referenced properties, taking into account trees that we in place". Mr. Burger is only asking for what people normally have between their properties. Also, he felt Mr. Alfinito's pictures did not characterize the situation. He also noted that when he first started the project, you could not even see out of