PC 061108 - Laserfiche WebLink

of substantial conformance so the appeal time could be waived to allow the process to occur. A recess was called at 9:28 p.m. Chair Blank reconvened the meeting at 9:38 p.m. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Fox noted that at one point, the City had a Design Review Board. She inquired whether that Board was part of the process in 1985. Ms. Giffin replied that in 1985, the Design Review Board had not yet been created; she was not sure when it was disbanded. She added that PUD's were handled as they are presently, and a PUD applicant was not required to go through a separate design review approval. Commissioner Fox believed the Design Review Board may have existed in the 1960's and 1970's. Ms. Giffin noted that it may have existed during part of the 1990's and recalled that some planners currently on staff prepared reports for the Design Review Board. She noted there was no evidence regarding a Design Review Board in 1985. Commissioner Fox agreed with Commissioner Narum's idea of mediation. She had significant issues in finding that it was in substantial conformance with the 1985 plan, which was atwo- to three-story building in her estimation. She stated that she believed the Negative Declaration resolution set the height at two to three stories, which did not conform with the 1985 approval; afour-story building was not in substantial conformance with the 1985 approval. She stated that she believed the intensity of the use had change from a retirement hotel to the current plan, and the use had changed. She noted the architecture was described as a Colonial design and had changed significantly from the previous proposal. She noted that the Zoning Administrator found it was in substantial conformance because it would have the same impact on the neighborhood; she stated that she disagreed with that assertion. She added that the greater range of care option made this more of a hospital-like facility, where it would be a more intense use in relation to the neighborhood. Commissioner O'Connor agreed with Commissioner Fox's comments and believed there were many places where atwo- to three-story building were discussed in the Negative Declaration. He noted that the Conditions of Approval stated that the design review approval lapsed within a year without a building permit. He believed that too many mistakes had been made and that the public could have been misled. He stated that he believed it was hard to making the finding of substantial conformance in discussing whatever a retirement hotel meant 23 years ago, to assisted living, which had evolved greatly since then. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 11, 2008 Page 22 of 28