PC 040908 - Laserfiche WebLink

the south edge to the applicants' house. She indicated that she would support a ten -foot rear yard setback. She added that the pool design is an individual issue and that the Commission should not be designing what it will look like. She stated that she wonders if a compromise could be reached with flipping the pool design to relocate the spa and allowing the five -foot setback between the neighbors. She inquired if these are standard conditions of approval. Ms. Amos replied that Condition No. 2 of Exhibit B states that all the conditions of approval of PUD -99 -01 through PUD- 99- 01 -04M would apply to this modification. Commissioner Narum inquired if drainage is part of Exhibit A in Condition No. 1 of Exhibit B. Ms. Amos replied that Exhibit A would not necessarily include a drainage plan but that a drainage plan was approved for the Lemoine approval. She added that a new drainage plan would be in place when the applicants come in for their building permits. Commissioner Pearce agreed with Commissioner Narum that neighborhood issues are tough. She stated that her best neighborhood compromise is one that gives everyone a little bit and does not make anyone happy. She indicated that she would support a ten -foot rear setback, which would cause some issues for the Spencers with respect to their patio but would put the pool closer to the Spencers' house than the Bessos'. She stated that she cannot get to the point of moving around the structures on the applicants' property. She added that she was comfortable with the planting that was in place and with staff's explanation of the grading plan through the Building permit process. Commissioner O'Connor concurred with Commissioners Narum and Pearce in terms of a five -foot side yard setback and a ten -foot rear yard setback, particularly since the rear neighbor is amenable to the ten -foot setback. He added that he would not like to alter the design of the pool layout. Commissioner Fox indicated that she would have supported the original request of a five -foot setback for both the side and rear yards but that she would go along with the ten feet. She noted that this would be a structure that would not be seen over the fence, unlike a structure that might have a visual difference if the setback were either five feet or ten feet. She added that she did not believe noise would make any difference either. With respect to the issue of the pool being closer to one back door versus the other; she noted that the fact is the applicant has a larger backyard than the next -door neighbor. She added that the homeowners association supported it as well. Chair Blank stated that he took a quick look at the conditions of approval for the project and did not see a requirement for the grading and drainage plan or for the irrigation or swimming pool runoff. Ms. Decker noted that this is not the first time that the Commission has requested clarification of conditions for a PUD modification, and she suggested that the grading, drainage, and irrigation plans be considered by the Commission. She stated that a condition of approval can certainly be added requiring that a drainage and grading plan be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 9, 2008 Page 27 of 33