PC 070908 - Laserfiche WebLink

Steve Otto replied that they were identical. He noted that the item was continued from the last meeting by Commissioner Fox in order to have the public noticed area expanded, which staff has done for the present hearing. He then summarized the staff report and described the background, scope, and layout of the proposed project. Mr. Otto noted that staff has received several emails both in opposition and support of the project which have been forwarded to the Commission for consideration. He added that staff has also provided responses to the email submitted by Nancy Allen in a memo distributed to the Commission, and the applicant has met with resident Jereen Gilbert to discuss the project, as well. Mr. Otto noted the City's Traffic Engineer was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Narum referred to page 13 of the staff report and asked Mr. Otto to clarify whether Lots 10-13 and 16-17 have a retaining wall built at the back of the lots. She assumed that the slope of the grade would go from the back to the front. Mr. Otto replied that there is a retaining wall proposed near the property line. He noted that the lots of the existing development are higher than the proposed lots, so there would be a retaining wall on two of the lots. He added that on the other lots mentioned in the section of the staff report, staff is proposing a 2:1 slope versus having a retaining wall. He stated that staff felt that in order to maximize a flat area of the rear yard, retaining walls could be put on those lots that have the 2:1 slope bank versus expanding the rear yard areas. He indicated that if they were not put in, residents would most likely want to install them and staff believed having the developer do this at one time would improve their overall structural soundness, as homeowners may not pull permits for the work. Commissioner Narum inquired which way the drainage would go on the lots, and Mr. Otto said if a retaining wall is installed, they would typically have a French drain to catch water, but otherwise, there are area drains in the backyard that convey the drainage to the front of the property. He noted that the slope bank is maybe five feet deep on the rear of the lot. Commissioner Narum questioned if this was the same for Lots 32-40 and 44-51. Mr. Otto replied that along the northern and eastern portion, there would be retaining walls up to 3.5 feet in height, and on top of this would be a seven-foot tall masonry wall. He noted that having up to a 10.5-foot tall wall would be somewhat overbearing to those lots. He stated that since the wall was not required for noise mitigation, staff felt it would be nice to open it up or lower it to minimize its height. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 9, 2008 Page 8 of 39