14 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

last meeting where four Commissioners had indicated that they wanted to uphold the appeal. She requested clarification on how the two could be blended together. Mr. Dolan replied that he thinks the discussion was a question of semantics and that this was a revised set of conditions for Commission's approval or denial. Commissioner Fox stated that she was confused because the conditions appear to be mutually exclusive in that the Commission could opt for an alternative that would allow the fill to stay, and one of the conditions is that the conditions for Tract 5835 shall remain in full force and effect, which includes Council approval for grading. Ms. Decker clarified that the condition could be modified to read: "All conditions of approval of Tract 5835 shall remain in full force and effect except as modified by these conditions." She stated that the last phrase is usually added on so that the remainder of the Tract conditions remain applicable. Chair Blank inquired exactly if the wall was four feet or less on its entire length. Mr. Dolan said no and explained that the height varied at different parts of the wall. Chair Blank further inquired if the installation of the wall went through the right process for being over four feet. Mr. Dolan said yes and added that it was reviewed by Building staff. He added, however, that he was unsure as to whether the building permit was approved over the counter. Ms. Amos indicated that the permit was approved over the counter and a building permit applied for. She noted that all building permits are then reviewed, and final inspections are required by the Building and Safety Division in order to close the permit. She stated that the building inspector had gone out to the site to verify that the work conforms to the plans approved at the counter. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Lisa Johnston, Appellant, noted that she holds the same position as before, stating that she did not understand why staff says Condition No. 1 would not mean anything because new landscape plans are being required. She stated that their main point is that Mr. Jeffrey did not meet Condition No. 1 of the draft condition of approval. She noted that it might be a four-foot tall wall, except that Mr. Jeffrey was supposed to build the wall from the base of his yard and not where the bottom grade went 15 feet from the fence, which then raises the wall six feet up from their side of the wall. She added that Mr. Jeffrey did not conform to the plan and built the wall 50 percent higher than what she was first told the wall would be. Regarding the landscape plan, Ms. Johnston pointed out that the area that would have been landscaped contains an intrusion with the extension of the lawn and does not conform to Condition No. 1 as well. She added that the reason they are requesting a four- to five-foot berm is because they feel the grade should be taken down to conform EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 24, 2008 Page 3 of 14