15 ATTACHMENT 6 - Laserfiche WebLink

ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Fox and Pearce. NOES: Commissioners Blank, Narum, and Olson. ABSTAIN: None. RECUSED: None. ABSENT: None. The motion failed. Commissioner Blank indicated that he would like to discuss possible modifications to the conditions of approval. He would like to see the 2,900-square foot addition not be an entitlement but brought back to the Commission for specific review. Commissioner Olson noted that Condition No. 81 referred to a June 22, 2007 letter from TerraSearch. He noted that the June 12, 2007 letter from TerraSearch specifically required a perk test early in the process. He believed they would be able to get out of their obligation if the perk test was not done or if the results of the perk tests were not in line with their thinking in writing those two memos. He believed that Condition No. 81 should also refer to the June 12, 2007 letter as well to be complete. Mr. Otto stated that Condition No. 92 referenced all geotechnical reports and supplemental response letters by the project geotechnical engineer, as well as the peer review. Commissioner Olson noted that would be sufficient. Commissioner Narum noted that with respect to Condition No. 57, she had difficulty with the idea of leaving trees in poor health, if they are not coming back. She would like them taken out and replaced as they could be a fire hazard. Ms. Decker noted that similar language was included to offer flexibility, as opposed to requiring that all labeled trees be removed. She stated that she has not seen all the trees recommended for removal, and is providing the opportunity for an arborist to look at them and determine if they can be pruned, the dead material removed, or remove some unhealthy trees to provide space for other trees to spread their canopies. She noted that staff wants to be cautious and have the discretion on how the tree could be handled. If the arborist determines that the trees are really bad and need to be removed and the Planning Director concurs, the trees would go. She noted that staff would be able to clean up the language of the condition for clarity. With respect to the photo simulation, Commissioner Narum noted that the dark color of the retaining wall looking from Roberts' residence was still visible even after ten years and would like it to be softened. Mr. Otto explained that there are two different retaining walls. One is stone-faced and was shown on the photo simulations, and the other is a series of two retaining walls that would be stone-capped with split-face block that is stained to match the stone and include rosemary cover to grow down and up those walls to further soften them. Commissioner Blank suggested that the dark retaining wall color be softened subject to the approval of the Planning Director. That was acceptable to Commissioner Narum. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 14, 2007 Page 17 of 19