14 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of an application for design review for rear yard improvements. Zoning for the property is R-1-6,500 (Single-Family Residential) District. Chair Blank noted that since this item was tabled, a motion is needed to take it off the table. Commissioner Narum moved to take PAP-123 (PDR-715) off the table. Commissioner Pearce seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Blank, Fox, Narum, O'Connor, and Pearce. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. RECUSED: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Olson. The motion passed, and the item was taken off the table. Mr. Dolan presented the staff report and indicated that at the end of the last meeting, there was some Commission agreement with respect to the conditions of approval. He stated that staff offered to try and capture the discussion in a condition and has prepared some conditions with alternatives, which was included in the packet. He noted that one issue not included in the memo and which he had earlier discussed with Chair Blank is the height of the wall. He stated that the Commission had been interested in limiting the height of the wall to four feet, which he understood the Commission opted for as this would be the height limit that could be achieved without a building permit and having the plans reviewed. He noted that since there was a building permit granted, that the retaining wall had been inspected, and that the plans were approved, this issue would be a moot point and a condition on that topic would not be necessary unless the extra six inches presented some visual problem. Mr. Dolan further noted that some of the original conditions of the Zoning Administrator approval would still apply even if the Commission adopts the conditions provided in the memo. He added that staff has provided a copy of the original Zoning Administrator's conditions and suggested that if the Commission moves forward with the conditions provided in the memo, the Commission also adopt Zoning Administrator Conditions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12. He noted that the conditions he omitted are either no longer relevant or are addressed in the condition in the memo. Finally, Mr. Dolan stated that the Commission was emailed directly and staff was copied on some suggestions from the Johnstons regarding substitute conditions they would like the Commission to consider. He noted that staff has reviewed these conditions and provided the following staff considerations on these conditions: EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 24, 2008 Page 1 of 14