PC 031208 - Laserfiche WebLink

see a change that involved further use of the landscaped screen and leave the fencing the way it was. He noted that he would support a change to Condition No. 9 to include landscaping along the rear sloped bank. Mr. Otto noted that staff did not include a requirement along that side and was concerned that any additional screening landscaping would impact Mr. Nguyen's concerns with views over the fence. He understood that the applicant intended to landscape in that area, but staff did not require it. He noted that there were restrictions in place for height of landscape materials. Commissioner Olson noted that since the landscaping would grow, he might not need to suggest a change to Condition No. 9. In response to an inquiry by Chair Blank regarding Saturday construction, Mr. Otto replied that the matter had been discussed at the Zoning Administrator hearing. He added that it had been brought up by the Zoning Administrator and that some neighbors worked on the weekend and felt that Saturday hours would impact them. Ms. Santiago noted that some homeowners purposely scheduled construction on the weekend so they could be present to supervise. The Zoning Administrator decided to keep the Saturday hours for that reason. Commissioner Pearce moved to deny PAP-117, thereby upholding the decision of the Zoning Administrator approving PADR-1762, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit C, with the addition of a condition that an automatic fire sprinkler be installed in the structure, and to recommend approval of PUD-99-09-02M to the City Council, subject to the conditions shown in Exhibit D. Commissioner Pearce noted that she believed the applicant had made a reasonable effort to mollify the neighbors' concerns by reducing the massing and the height. In addition, the applicant had worked with the HOA's Architectural Review Board, and while she understood the appellants' concerns, there was no view easement and no right to a view. With respect to the CC&R', she believed the City should not be involved in such a private agreement between parties. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 12, 2008 Page 8 of 22