PC 092408 - Laserfiche WebLink

or revert it back to its original state prior to grading. He noted that the applicant is now indicating that he does not want conditions on his property, which, by default, would mean telling us to put his property back to its original grade. He added that the Commission can present some suggestions tonight, but absent any desire to work with their neighbors on a compromise, the Commission is left with the option to require that it be returned to its original grade, with the wall remaining in place as a four-foot tall wall is permitted. Commissioner Fox indicated her agreement with Commissioner O'Connor's statements. Chair Blank indicated that his original inclination was to simply vacate the Zoning Administrator's decision and require the property to be returned to its original state. He stated that he thinks the applicant has shown a disregard for the conditions and the rules and that his lack of knowledge of the CC&R's, which was evident is the public testimony at the last meeting, is something that he [Chair Blank] has a hard time dealing with. He noted that should the Commission approve the project, he would be supportive of a four- to five-foot tall berm and a 35-foot setback, and the wall should be moved to where it is supposed to be. He added that if the applicant is not interested in having a 35-foot setback, then he should remove all the dirt and put the place back to its original grade. He noted that over the last three-and-a-half years, this Commission has taken an extraordinarily dim view of folks who either proceed and do things that are not according to the plans they had submitted or once something has been appealed, simply continue with their projects because they have not received a "stop order" notice. He stated that it just does not feel right and that the landscape plan has to be right. Commissioner Narum stated that she tends to agree with what Chair Blank is saying but that she is struggling a bit with the fact that the applicant submitted an Exhibit A with ahand-written drawing, received a building permit, and approved by the Building Inspector, which basically means it was in conformance or close to what was submitted when he got the building permit. She noted that the applicant had to build the wall 15 feet off the property line to accommodate the easement and ended up with a wall that is a little higher than what he actually was approved for. Chair Blank stated that the wall should have been installed on the plane where the bottom of the property was. Commissioner Narum stated that the way she interpreted it was that the applicant was required to go back 15 feet from the property line, and the ground was already sloped at that point. Chair Blank noted that the four-foot tall wall was actually asix-foot tall wall and was visible from the Johnstons' property. Commissioner Narum stated that it is a six-foot tall wall only because the grade was actually sloped. Chair Blank agreed with Commissioner Narum's observation but indicated that the height of the wall should PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 24, 2008 Page 17 of 41