PC 01/08/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Staff recommends approval of this application, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. r- Commissioner Wright questioned whether the Commission had any control over side yard parking. Staff noted that residents can park in their side yards if desired. Chair Barker noted that without the retaining wall, a vehicle could not have parked in this area. Commissioner Cooper inquired if the other retaining walls in Bonde Ranch were made of concrete. Staff believed they were. Chair Barker inquired if retaining walls were even allowed in a five foot side yard. Mr. Higdon stated that it varies according to PUD conditions, but they are allowed and are very common. Mr. Iserson also noted that it is also very common to install a five foot fence on the top of a retaining wall. In response to Commissioner Cooper, staff stated that a retaining wall would be stronger and more durable than would be putting the slope back to its original condition. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Joseph Zuffa, 8028 Jorgensen Lane, agreed with the staff report in general and had a few exceptions. He advised that 80 percent of the retaining walls in Bonde Ranch are of wood material. He also hired a structural engineer and soils engineer to review the project. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED ~ Commissioner Lutz noted that the neighbor who was the most impacted by the previous situation is now satisfied. Structurally, he feels keeping the wall and grading as they are is the best thing to do. He will support staff's recommendation to keep the retaining wall instead of returning the side slope to its original configuration. Commissioner Wright also agrees with staff recommendation to keep the wood retaining wall. Commissioner Cooper feels the applicant's ignorance of the law is unconvincing to him and is not in favor of keeping the retaining wall. If it is to be kept, however, he feels the wall should be built to a higher standard and would prefer concrete or masonry material. He supports staff recommendation except for the materials to be used. Commissioner McGuirk feels the carport roof was the most egregious issue, and it has been removed. He feels the retaining wall improves the appearance and the use of concrete for the retaining wall is impractical. He will support the wood retaining wall. Chair Barker also feels that the retaining wall should be made of a masonry or concrete material for protection of the neighbor and for the longevity of the retaining wall. Discussion ensued regarding whether a 2 foot retaining wall would have been allowed on this site. Mr. Iserson stated the PUD makes a retaining wall discretionary. Commissioner Wright noted that with the structural/engineering reports, if this application were for only a 2 foot wall, it probably would have been approved outright. In response to Commissioner Cooper, Mr. Higdon advised that applicants are required to comply with all structural calculations and building permits. Therefore, the City would have no legal exposure if the wall failed in the future. ~ Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 8, 1997