PC 052108 Special Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner O'Connor was more disturbed by events after the City got involved and laid out the rules for the applicant. He noted that the licensed contractor did not seem to follow anything the City asked. He believed that as a minimum, the water should be removed from the pond until the problems are further identified. He noted that there was a safety issue, as well as leakage. Commissioner Fox agreed with Commissioner O'Connor's comments and noted that the leakage and the slope may not be stable enough for a retrofit to be performed successfully. Chair Blank noted that there was a fault near that area and that even a small temblor on that fault could cause damage in this area. Commissioner Narum agreed that the project should meet the engineering requirements as spelled out in the report. She noted that she struggled with the setback and noted that a swimming pool had just been allowed across the street with a 10-foot setback, even though the pool could have fit within the 20-foot setback. Chair Blank noted that in that case, the conditions were different and that there was no leakage at that location and that this was not up against the hazard boundary. Commissioner Narum noted that the Planning Commission had been striving for consistency and that she believed that with the correct engineering, it could be accomplished and the reduction of the rear yard setback from the required 20 feet to 10 feet could be allowed. Ms. Decker noted that the Spencers had requested that the rear yard setback be reduced from the required 20 feet to 5 feet. She stated that the Planning Commission agreed with staff s recommendation to at least have 10 feet because they wanted some distance from the downslope property as a rear yard setback. She added that the Planning Commission did agree with staff that the side yard setback could be reduced from ten feet to five feet, but there was no elevation difference as great as that to the rear yard neighbor, nor in this particular instance, either. Commissioner Narum understood staff s rationale for the side yard setback, but with respect to the 20-foot setback, she believed the City should be consistent with its determinations. She noted that in effect, aten-foot variance had been given across the street from this applicant. Chair Blank suggested that if Option 2 were to be chosen, the applicant could remove the pond and then return to request a variance fora 10-foot setback once the pond was properly removed and engineered. Commissioner Fox noted that even if the applicant were to retrofit this prof ect, she was concerned about the overall slope stability. She agreed with Chair Blank that this was a different situation because of the safety issue. Commissioner Olson agreed with that assessment. He added that given what the Commission knew, he believed it would be irresponsible to choose Option 1. He stated that he believed the applicant should properly construct this pool, which would require tearing it out and starting over. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 21 of 26