PC 010908 - Laserfiche WebLink

a procedural question and stated that he believed Mr. O'Callaghan did not have the right to appeal the condition on the sprinklers and that staff erred in bringing it back to the Commission because the appeal period had expired. He questioned the legality of staff bringing forward a condition that has been approved but was not appealed, as opposed to the pavers condition being removed because it was in conflict with existing priorities and the decision of a legislating body. He indicated that he was not in support of removing the condition on the fire sprinklers. Commissioner Pearce moved to eliminate Condition No. 15.c. of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-2007-28 approving Case PDR-602 and to retain all the other conditions of the previously design review approval of Case PDR-602 in full force and effect. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Blank, Fox, Narum, Olson, and Pearce. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. RECUSED: None. ABSENT: None. Resolution No. PC-2008-01 approving the elimination of Condition No. 15.c. of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-2007-28 and the retention of all the other conditions of approval for PDR-602 in full force and effect was entered and adopted as motioned. A recess was called at 8:17 p.m. Chair Blank reconvened the meeting at 8:25 p.m. c. PDR-623, Scott Adams Work session to review and receive comments on an application for design review approval to replace an existing one-story single-family home with atwo-story tall single-family home including 8,325 square feet of building floor area, 2,215 square feet of attached garage area, and an attached 8,476-square-foot two-story tall indoor tennis court located at 2751 Crellin Road. Zoning for the property is PUD-LDR (Planned Unit Development -Low Density Residential) District. Marion Pavan presented the staff report and summarized the background, scope, and layout of the project. On behalf of City staff, Ms. Decker acknowledged and thanked Scott and Shelly Adams for their cooperation in the review process of their project. She called the Commission's attention to the review process described on page 2 of the staff report stating that this prof ect technically would be undergoing a staff -level review process and did not have to go before the Commission. She noted that since this project could have been approved over the counter, the efforts put forth by both the staff and the applicants were significant and attest to their commitment to work with the neighbors in finding good solutions to mitigate the various concerns. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 9, 2008 Page 14 of 28