PC 091008 - Laserfiche WebLink

approved plan. Mr. Dolan said yes. He added that it would be fortunate for the applicant if what is ultimately approved matches what he has installed. Mr. Roush advised that the Commission should evaluate the application on its own merits, given the testimony and the documents the Commission has at hand, as if no project had been started or no work had taken place. He added that the Commission should determine whether or not it can support the application or some modification thereof or whatever the Commission feels is most appropriate without consideration to what has, in fact, occurred. He noted that while this would be difficult to do, this is the task the Commission is being asked to perform at this time. Commissioner O'Connor stated that these types of applications have come before the Commission in the past, and the Commission has been fairly clear that it does not whole-heartedly support applicants who do work without permits or approved plans. He noted that based on the documents given the Commission, there have been two or three times that the City had informed the applicant to cease and desist; yet, when he visited the project two days ago, work was still going on. He expressed concern that work continues even after Code Enforcement has notified the applicant to cease and desist. Mr. Dolan agreed with Commissioner O'Connor with respect to the landscaping and grading at the rear of the site. He noted that the pool was not an issue and is not part of this discussion. Chair Blank noted that on January 25, 2008, Code Enforcement advised the Zoning Administrator that the owner was notified by phone to stop work until the necessary approvals were obtained. He inquired who spoke to the owner; Ms. Amos replied that it was Senior Code Enforcement Officer Walter Wickboldt. Chair Blank noted that he did not find in the staff report any other indication that the applicant was instructed by either staff or anyone else to cease work, although it is implied elsewhere in the documents. He inquired if the applicant was notified on more than one occasion. Ms. Amos replied that when the applicant came in to apply for his design review permit, he was asked to hold off work on the pool. She added that the former Planning Director then contacted the Johnstons and asked if it would be all right with them for the applicant to move forward with the pool while they try and resolve the design review issue, to which the Johnstons agreed. Ms. Amos continued that allowing him to move forward with the pool required excavating, removing the dirt, and stockpiling it. She stated that once that work was completed, staff conducted the Zoning Administrator hearings only for determining the type of planting as specified in the Tract conditions of approval and not for the landscaping itself; there was no restriction for the landscaping, and the applicant was allowed to plant in the rear yard area. She noted that at this point, the grading was completed where the stockpile from the pool was placed as the dirt had to be removed from the area. She PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 10, 2008 Page 8 of 33