17 ATTACHMENT 07 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Chair Blank regarding whether there were any drainage issues from this unit, Mr. Otto replied that the conditions of approval stated that the applicant shall submit a drainage plan to be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure that no drainage shall go onto Mr. Chen's property. Commissioner Fox noted that she would not support the motion because she believed the option of moving the structure closer to the primary residence should be explored. Commissioner Narum noted that she would not support the motion because she would like to see an evaluation of moving the secondary structure off the property line. While there were no view easements, she believed that there should be some consideration under the health, safety, and welfare category for the downhill neighbor because the unit would look down on their pool. Chair Blank suggested that she may table the motion to see if there was support for her proposal. Commissioner Narum made a substitute motion that the Commission continue this item and request that staff evaluate revision of the visuals so that the unit is pushed up the northern property line as much as reasonable while maintaining the setbacks and grading standards. Commissioner Fox seconded the motion. Commissioner Pearce noted that the applicants had waited a long time for this project and inquired about the timeframe for this issue to return to the Planning Commission. Ms. Decker noted that priority was given to projects that are continued and added that more work would be required by the applicant to adequately evaluate the visual impacts to the adjacent neighbors. While it may appear to be easy that afour-foot revision be made, the drawings must be redone, submitted, and evaluated, and visuals would be reconsidered. She did not know whether that could be accomplished in one week or whether alternative plans could be redrawn within 30 days. She noted that the Planning Commission meeting schedule was very impacted and had several very large projects such as Staples Ranch and the General Plan that cannot be delayed. She noted that there may be cost impacts that the applicants may not be willing to shoulder. Staff would like the opportunity to explore the issues and return to the Planning Commission with the information rather than have the Commission make a decision that may or may not impact other neighbors. Chair Blank noted that he would not support the substitute motion to continue the project. He believed the applicant had tried in good faith to move forward, and he agreed that this item would probably be heard before City Council. He did not believe the delay would be appropriate. Commissioner Pearce noted that the applicants and appellants have now heard the Planning Commission's ideas and may continue to work on this going forward. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 12, 2008 Page 6 of 7