PC 031208 - Laserfiche WebLink

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 prof ect 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. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Narum and Fox. NOES: Commissioners Blank, Olson, and Pearce. ABSTAIN: None. RECUSED: None. ABSENT: None. The motion failed. Chair Blank noted that he would support the original motion on the floor. He noted that there were no view easements and believed the applicant showed good faith. He understood the appellants' position with respect to view easements and believed that the impact to the view was nonexistent. He noted that without a view easement, the appellant did not have the right to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 12, 2008 Page 9 of 22