14 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

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. Commissioner Fox concurred and stated that the was no longer any slope when she visited the site two weeks ago. Chair Blank and Commissioners Pearce, O'Connor, Olson, and Narum disclosed that they also had visited the site individually and separately. Ms. Decker stated that she would like to bring to the Commission's attention some information regarding Commissioner Olson's statement about the slope bank that is no longer there. She noted that other lots in the area, those adjacent to and farther upstream and downstream of the drainage easement, are not sloped any longer either. She explained that they have been graded, terraced, and filled, leaving the drainage easement and area clear as is required for access. She added that the lots adjacent to the subject site have been terraced as well, some with approvals and others without. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 10, 2008 Page 6 of 25