14 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

instituted the question of grading is the pool, and staff had received the call in terms of the grading that was happening. She noted that four-foot tall retaining walls are being built all the time within the City. With respect to the question of whether, based on the topography the Commission has seen, this is or is not afour-foot tall retaining wall, she stated that on that corner there are six courses of eight-inch high concrete masonry unit blocks, which equal 48 inches. She added that there is a two- inch concrete cap, which makes the height slightly over four feet tall. Ms. Decker noted that Mr. Jeffrey did, in fact, get a permit but did not need to. In response to the question of whether or not this was a surprise to Ms. Amos, Ms. Decker replied that Ms. Amos did not have the history of this project and was not aware of how it actually evolved from being permitted over the counter when she took over the project in March 2008. She noted that pools are permitted over the counter without design review, and the setbacks as well as the retaining wall and backyard landscaping are checked in terms of the straight-zoning. With respect to the question regarding any of the other landscaping and irrigation on site, Ms. Decker explained that this particular dispute is about grading and excess material as a result of the swimming pool as well as the removal of the landscape screening along that boundary. Commissioner O'Connor noted that he had a picture that shows seven eight-inch bricks with atwo-inch cap, which makes the wall look like it is ten inches higher than four feet or almost five feet. He stated that when the red flag went up and the neighbors were saying that there were conditions of approval regarding grading, the fact that a wall went up and if it were four feet tall, the City would not be able to stop it from being put up anywhere on the grade. He noted, however, that the issue at that point was there should not have been any grading and backfilling to the wall. Ms. Decker stated this was correct, and the condition was interpreted that no grading without review would occur. She explained that the excavation of the pool itself causes grading of that site, which needed review. She reiterated that these types of conditions were embedded in a tract map and not a PUD which is more readily available to planners at the counter. Commissioner O'Connor noted that it was in January 2008 when everyone became aware that this site is a PUD and that there are conditions. He stated that the wall was not in yet, but that the wall was not really the issue as the wall can be built up to four feet high on any place on the property; the issue is that no grading should have been done and there should have been no backfilling into that wall without review. Ms. Decker confirm Commissioner O'Connor' statement and added that this, as well as the excavation for the pool, should have been reviewed. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he thought the pool was approved in January 2008. Ms. Decker advised that the retaining wall was approved on December 6, 2007, and the pool was approved on December 12, 2007. She added that when it came to staffs EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 10, 2008 Page 18 of 25