PC 091008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Pearce inquired why there would be a condition that directs the CC&R's to prohibit something but doesn't actually include the prohibition in the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Roush replied that theoretically, a person who purchases a piece of property is subject to the CC&R's that they might be more apt to be some kind of constructive notice of what is in the CC&R's rather than what would be in the Conditions of Approval. He noted that the idea would be that the purchasers would review those CC&R's and know that they are not allowed to do certain things. Chair Blank noted that it would be similar to signing-off on deed restrictions. Mr. Roush stated that it is a constructive notice to the people buying the property as opposed to assuming the buyers are going to review a staff file that might prohibit the re-grading. Commissioner Pearce clarified that given what Mr. Roush has said, the intent of the City to have a condition like this might not be to say that it is a private contractual matter but to indicate greater interest in the prohibition of a re-grading in order to provide the homeowners a greater, constructive notice of that condition. Mr. Roush stated that he would certainly read Condition No. 16 to indicate that the Council was concerned about not allowing re-grading on any lot within the project without exception. He added that the CC&R's provided more flexibility, but taking the language in Condition No. 16 literally, "prohibition" means, it cannot be done. Commissioner Fox inquired if, as the approval of the CC&R's did not reflect the exact prohibitions against re-grading, the Commission should not then utilize Resolution No. 88-29 rather than the CC&R's, as Condition No. 16 is included in the resolution. Mr. Roush replied that it was appropriate to look at all of the documents and try to fashion a remedy that made sense. He noted that there are somewhat conflicting statements, and the documents are not totally clear; hence, some interpretation will need to be done in terms of what the Commission thinks the intent of this is all about, weigh that against the privacy interests and other issues before the Commission, and try to come to some fair and just decision. He admitted it was not an easy task. Commissioner Fox inquired if staff had the documents from Peter McDonald. Ms. Amos replied that there are two sets of CC&R's found in laserfiche, one of which is the draft set and the other with some hand-written revisions. Commissioner Olson noted that Condition No. 17 states that the on-site slope banks need to be cleaned and vegetated. He stated that when he visited the property two days ago and met with the appellants, he did not see the slope bank and believe it has been removed. He added that the yard comes out on a level plane to the wall which has been constructed, which sits right above the V-ditch. He indicated that he did not think Condition No. 17 has been met because the slope bank is gone. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 10, 2008 Page 10 of 33