CCMIN120208 - Laserfiche WebLink

of another neighbor's fence and yard and agreed with Ms. Johnston's comments and concerns. Since Mr. Jeffrey obtained all permits from the City, it was also not reasonable to require him to put it back the way it was, and said what the Council is dealing with is, how to make a bad situation better within reason. He supported the Planning Commission's conditions, but said vegetation does not truly block noise. The lawn does not allow for additional vegetation to be installed, and he supported the berm. He supported the 35 foot setback which he did not deprive the Jeffrey's to use but simply not disallowed sports courts or gazebos. The Planning Commission held two meetings on the matter, theoy struggled with it, arrived at good options, and he supported their recommendations. Motion: Councilmember Sullivan made a motion to support the Planning Commission's recommendations and the 35 foot setback from the fence line. Councilmember McGovern referred to the process>, asked if there was any lag time between asking for the permit and it being issued, so there could be time for staff to review conditions of approval. Mr. Dolan said there is as much lag time .as the staff person feels is necessary. In this case, the decision was made right away, and he noted he had information for the Council to address this concern and process. Councilmember McGovern said when a person acmes in for an over-the-counter permit; she verified that there is no requirement for neighbors to be notified and not given a period of time to make comments. She read an excerpt from the Tract rules regarding the fact that Council wanted any change proposed to come to Council for review and that all surrounding neighbors be notified of proposed changes as it relates to this development, and questioned when this change was approved, does staff reflect such change after the original conditions of approval. Mr. Dolan said it depends; what the Council at that time was considering was a compliance with a condition of application and not re-opening the conditions of approval. While they directed staff to bring such matters forward to the Council, this direction was not part of an advertised action that changed the conditions of approval. Councilmember McGovern felt the process should be reviewed, as if someone is building a pool and a retaining wall in their backyard, she would want to know this was permitted. Mr. Dolan noted that in a PUD, it does apply, but in straight zoning, it is allowed and there is no discretion. Councilmember McGovern referred to the conceptual designs which are not to scale. The landscaping plan that was shown to staff for approval only looked at where the pool was going to be placed. She questioned how conceptual plans could be approved, as staff would not necessarily know the outcome. Mr. Dolan said this. would depend upon the improvement; staff would have expected the landscape plan to be very close to what was represented. However, it is obvious that what was planted does not match. Councilmember McGovern suggested the need for accountable plans and being sure the inspector knows what is actually being built. She agreed it is impossible to go back on such a project, and said it only takes one time to allow something like this for others to come forward. Also, what is obvious in the minutes is that the view shed was a concern because the lots were higher, so she hoped this could be better tracked in the future. Councilmember McGovern referred to fencing, and said the approval in 1988 states, "no fences erected on any other portion of the lot shall exceed 6 feet." Her biggest concern is how the Council can work as a team to rectify and better track such restrictions in the future so things like this do not happen in the future. City Council Minutes 12 December 2, 2008