PC 052108 Special Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

the project so that the applicant did not need to wait for an additional geotechnical report, tearing out their pond, and returning to the Planning Commission. She added that the project could then move forward, and if the issues were resolved before going to the City Council, that could be brought before the Council as additional information. In response to an inquiry by Chair Blank regarding whether the existence of the pool would depend upon the recommendations of the geotechnical report, Ms. Decker confirmed that would be the case. She further stated that if the geotechnical report stated that there was no structural methodology that would support the placement of a pool at a 10-foot rear yard setback, the pool would not be able to be constructed there. She suspected that there maybe some way it could be built, but that was a correct statement. Commissioner Olson asked whether the Commission agreed that the present pool had to be removed. He did not agree with that. Ms. Decker believed that from her discussions with the Engineering Department that there were portions of the pool that must be removed, that it must be drained, and that core sampling must be done to determine how it was constructed. Chair Blank believed the entire pool must be removed if the setback were to be moved to 10 feet. Commissioner Fox moved to recommend Option 2 to the City Council, subject to the Conditions of Approval as listed in Exhibit B of the staff report, with the modifications that: (1) Condition No. 3 would be modified to require a geotechnical report to determine the construction detailing of the pool, subject to the review and approval of the Director of Planning and Community Development and the City Engineer; and (2) once the pool has been repositioned and the geotechnical report results that setback reductions would not present a safety hazard, the Director of Planning and Community Development may evaluate and make a determination as to such reductions. Ms. Harryman clarified that if the geotechnical report and the Planning Commission stated that a 10-foot minimum rear yard setback was acceptable, and the City Council agreed, it would not need to be returned to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion. Chair Blank was very concerned about the apparent lack of compliance by this applicant to any of the City's processes and procedures and inquired what should be done about it. Ms. Decker replied that the Commission may discuss what kinds of mitigations or suggestions they would consider. She stated that staff was concerned that the first building permit that was issued was based on a valuation of $12,000, while the actual cost was $32,000. She suggested that the applicant be required to pay the difference between the fee s that had been based on a valuation of $12,000 and the actual cost of construction of $32,000, resulting in additional fees assessed for $20,000. No additional fees for reconstruction of the pond would be requested PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 23 of 26