PC 021302 - Laserfiche WebLink

Groves' desired preserved view and commenting on the existing heritage trees. Mr. Roberts .--- asked the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to specifically look at adjusting the line proposed by the Commission. With regard to the recommendation concerning grading, he proposed that the motion be modified so that the grading would be allowed only after investigation of a landscape solution to mitigate the privacy impacts of the Schmidts and the Butts. He stated that if that doesn't work, he would like the recommendation to be that grading elevation changes be limited to five feet, with restoration to a natural appearance with vegetation after construction. Bob Grove, 28 Grey Eagle Court, advised that he had hoped after the last meeting a house would be constructed based on the Planning Commission's recommendation. He stated that he is willing to accept the Planning Commission's decision of January 23, but others are not. He noted that the decision was a compromise, unanimous, and reasonable and fair. He noted that following the decision, he agreed to meet with Mr. Roberts, Mr. Plucker, and Mr. Swift to discuss possible additional changes, but at that meeting Mr. Roberts insisted that the house would not be less than 6,400-square-feet, and refused to consider a new design, unless they were able to find a mutually agreed upon solution. He advised that he feels it is extremely important for the Planning Commission to demonstrate that it has come to closure on this matter. He asked the Commissioners not to support a reconsideration. The Planning Commission agreed to reorder the agenda to hear Item 7., Matters Initiated by Commission Members, in order to discuss this matter. .--- 7. Matters Initiated by Commission Members Commissioner Sullivan noted that the Planning Commission has reviewed this matter twice and held two hearings on this item. He stated that he personally spent a lot oftime at the site both times, trying to determine the best compromise for everyone. He advised that the outcome was a compromise solution that would meet most of the objectives that the Commission thought were important and the best, overall, for the community. He stated that he does not see any purpose in hearing this item again, as he does not think there is any new information that would cause him to want to reconsider this decision. Chairperson Maas stated that she agrees with Commissioner Sullivan. Commissioner Roberts advised that three appeals have been filed on this matter. She noted that one ofthe appeals is that of Mr. Roberts; one is based on the issue that the variance was not approved for the amount of grading that would be needed; and one is based on the issue of the fairness related to the equal importance placed on views. She noted that she does not feel the Planning Commission can effectively address these issues again. .--- Commissioner Arkin advised that he has spent a lot oftime on this matter. He advised that he feels even if the Planning Commission were to discuss it again, it will eventually go to the City Council. He stated that he does not see what the Commission could do to prevent this matter going forward to the Council. He commented on the impacts it would place on staff time to prepare additional analysis and address the issues of all of the appellants if the Commission PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 13,2002 Page 2