14 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

the grading be returned to the pre-December 2007 grading and only afour-foot tall retaining wall be retained. Commissioner Fox stated that she agrees with Commissioners Pearce and Olson and that the Commission should uphold the appeal because she believes that what the appellants have to go through was not right. She noted that this is the sixth permit issued in error that the Commission has received in about three years. She agreed that the grading at the wall should be returned back to its original state and that the wall be only at four feet in height. She stated that the applicant should be required to do a professional landscaping plan that includes grades, prepared by an engineer to ascertain that it complies with the first grading plan that was approved. She indicated that she believes the backyard towards the property boundary should be restricted so that there are no accessory structures, no sports courts, no gazebos, no fire pits, and no play structures. She added that the landscaping should be increased and that a condition be added that that this be reviewed by the City Council as well. She compared this application to that of the nursing facility at 300 Neal Street where there was an issue of planning integrity. She noted that the intent of the resolution should be looked into and that it is not right to say the Council does not need to see this because 15 or 20 years have since passed. Mr. Dolan indicated that there are certain practical limitations to some of the things that have been discussed that he would like to comment on. He stated that in terms of a restriction, the Commission should be very specific geographically with respect to what this restriction should be in terms of the distance from the fence or retaining wall because this can be controversial. Mr. Dolan noted that he was not certain that it will be practical to be able to determine precisely what the grade originally was because as has been mentioned, he was not sure whether or not the retaining wall was over four feet tall. He noted that where the wall is located is definitely farther up the slope than where the fence was located because of the setback requirement from the fence. He added that it would be difficult to determine the grade on which the wall is located, and the applicant's claim that the wall is located on the former existing grade would be difficult to disprove. Commissioner Fox inquired if the City has an original map of the subdivision. She stated that she felt the Commission would not get down to the quarter-inch. Chair Blank indicated that the Commission does not have any professionally prepared diagrams, but a hand-drawn diagram by someone who is not an architect or a soils engineer. He added that a professional engineer could look at the site and say that it would be impossible to determine or it would not make a difference due to erosion or other things; or the engineer could also spend 10 seconds on it and identify how to determine the grade and get within three to four inches. Mr. Dolan stated that he believes the language of the motion needs to acknowledge that kind of difficulty. He questioned that if there is consideration for the Jeffreys to maintain the wall but not backfill it, it would be a retaining wall with nothing to retain. Chair Blank EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 10, 2008 Page 22 of 25