14 ATTACHMENT 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Olson indicated that he had the same concern expressed earlier by Commissioner O'Connor. He asked staff if there were procedures in place where inspections would occur relative to the drainage situation behind the pool and behind the wall on that part of the pool and fenceline as the project goes forward. Ms. Decker replied that under the pre-existing PUD approvals, there are standard conditions that all on-site drainage is to remain on-site or flow to the street. She explained that a grading plan would need to be provided, reviewed, and approved by the Building and Safety Division as well as the Planning Division. She added that when the applicants obtain their building permits for the pool and the landscape, the plans would be reviewed by both Building and Plamiing, and staff would look for solutions that would provide positive drainage. Ms. Decker acknowledged the concern expressed by the Commission and the Bessos regarding drainage from the northerly portion in the five-foot area of the pool toward the Besso property. She noted that there are different types of retaining walls that can be constructed, including batter-board, masonry, and wood retaining walls treated with water-proofing. She stated that the issue would be that there be positive drainage to the south from the rear yard area around the pool and to the site and not onto the Besso property. She added that the drainage would be looked at in general as the pool is filled in, water may sometimes be discharged onto the yard area, as well as overfill from rain water. Commissioner Olson noted that this concern would still be present whether the setback would be five or ten feet. Chair Blank inquired what would happen if the drainage does not work correctly and if Code Enforcement would have to come in. Ms. Decker explained that after the plans are reviewed and approved, various inspections would take place, including pool, electrical, and landscaping. She noted that a final inspection would be done by a staff planner to make sure that the trees and landscaping reflect the approved plans. She added that assuming the drainage was not constructed according to the approved plan, and there were failure in terms of drainage, there were no positive drainage, and there were negative impacts on the neighboring properties, Code Enforcement would step in. In response to Chair Blank's inquiry if the inspections would not catch this, Ms. Decker replied that generally speaking, that would be the case; however, when there is fine grading, drainage issues may occur. Chair Blank stated that the reason he is asking is because he moved to a brand new home in the mid-90's and had major drainage issues, even though there was a drainage plan. Commissioner Narum stated that this was another tough case where there is no clear solution that would make everyone happy. She indicated that she would support afive-foot side yard setback but with respect to the rear yard, she cannot support a situation that would put the edge of the north side of the pool closer to the neighbors' house than the south edge to the applicants' house. She indicated that she would support aten-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 DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 4-9-2008 Page 6 of 8