PC 052108 Special Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Narum agreed with that assessment and noted that the Commission agreed that the applicant should tear the pool out and get the engineering done. She noted that the second issue was determining what the correct setbacks were. She stated that she believed there was a third option and would be more inclined to allow a 10-foot setback instead of a 20-foot setback. She noted that she would go with the 10-foot setback on the side yard. Commissioner Fox inquired where the leakage was coming from. Commissioner Narum noted that this was a design issue; the pool was not designed properly. Commissioner O'Connor noted that if the City had the engineering report stating that this pool could be built safely by following certain steps and following the proper engineering, he would not obj ect to having a 20-foot setback on the rear. He emphasized that it must be done safely. Chair Blank suggested going with Option 2, but informed the applicant that he could return to the Planning Commission once the pool/pond has been torn out, and the engineering reports support the setback reductions before they start reconstruction. He noted that the engineering report may conclude that aten-foot setback may not be possible. Commissioner Narum did not read the engineering report that way. Chair Blank noted that the report may have been written to cover themselves professionally, because they had not inspected the pool through the process. Commissioner Fox suggested a motion to follow staff's recommendation of Option 2, with the caveat that after Option 2 occurs and the existing pool was removed, an engineering study would be done to say that there was a possibility of a reduced setback, or they could return with a PUD modification. Ms. Decker clarified several points. She noted that the recommendations referenced in Condition of Approval No. 3 were not those of the applicant's GHAD engineer but of the City's engineer. She added that the applicant's engineer did nothing but take the correlated information provided by staff and the unknowns that were identified and provided their best guess. She stated that she wished this condition because staff did not necessarily want the applicant to comply with the recommendations made by Engeo, but rather, the applicant needed to have a geotechnical report prepared that clearly identified what the section of the pool was, what the ground would actually bear, and what the issues were for the design of the pool. She noted that they were based on what would could have been built, which was unknown because no inspections took place. She noted that there were some rough sketches, but that was all. With respect to the discussion of setbacks, she requested that the Commission consider a condition of approval that would indicate that the interest to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 to 10 feet was not necessarily supportable; that particular setback would be at 10 feet. She noted, however, that if the geotechnical report and structural detailing came forward and identified that a different/greater setback would be required based on the report, the location of the pool would have to conform to that report. She noted that could be a consideration in terms of conditioning PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 22 of 26