14 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Condition 1 refers to Exhibit A. Because the condition staff recommended requires new plans to be drawn, a reference back to Exhibit A is not relevant at this point. Their second condition asks that the planted berm be four to five feet tall, which would be problematic because only one of the options includes adding a berm. If the Commission opts for the alternative to return the grade to its original, adding a berm does not do anything; hence, this may not be relevant. If the Commission chooses the option where the retaining wall is maintained and the berm is added, the Zoning Administrator's decision requires aone-foot berm whereas the Commission had agreed on a three-foot berm. The Commission could consider this increase in height to four to five feet as requested by the Johnstons. Staff believes three feet is the appropriate height. The third item asks that the City's Landscape Architect, Mike Fulford, actually design the plan. This is not an appropriate role for the City's Landscape Architect. The plan needs to be designed by the applicant, and staff would review it and use the City's Landscape Architect's expertise, as necessary. Commissioner Fox inquired if staff would be amenable to a condition where Mr. Fulford would review the plan or sign off on the plan. Mr. Dolan replied that staff generally consults with Mr. Fulford on a landscape plan when there is an issue that is beyond Planning staffs expertise and that he would be happy to consult with Mr. Fulford. He added that both Ms. Decker and he have landscape architecture backgrounds and that Ms. Decker and Mr. Fulford are licensed. The fifth item is that one alternative talks about a setback restricting the structures that would encourage active use. The Johnstons suggested 35 feet, and staff feels 30 feet is adequate. The Commission could consider the 35 feet. The last condition is a lighting issue, which staff could accommodate but might duplicate some other conditions. Mr. Dolan stated that he contacted Mr. Jeffrey the day after the hearing about how he interpreted the Commission's dialogue and where he thought the Commission was going. He noted that Mr. Jeffrey had originally indicated that he would be willing to go along with a condition as summarized in his memo, after which he [Mr. Dolan] talked about how this would be presented to the Johnstons. Mr. Dolan stated that a few days later, Mr. Jeffrey stated that he was not willing to make those concessions. Mr. Dolan then notified the Johnstons via email, and Mr. Johnston came in to discuss the fact that Mr. Jeffrey was happy with the Zoning Administrator's conditions and that he would accept the Planning Commission's action and move on in the process if he had to. Commissioner Fox referred to the draft conditions of approval based on the Zoning Administrator's approval versus what she thought the Commission talked about at the EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 24, 2008 Page 2 of 14