14 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Dolan replied that the only downside is that the wall would have to be entirely reconstructed because it is accurate that the wall was shown in the sketch as being on the same elevation as the top of the V-ditch. He added, however, that, in fact, the wall could not have been installed without digging back to stay out of the 15-foot easement, thereby moving the wall up the slope. He noted that while the wall is higher than what is shown on Exhibit A, it is not much over four feet high. He noted that 95 percent of the cases where a retaining wall is moved are not typically an issue, but in this case, the move made it visible over the fence. He indicated that it is fair for the Commission to consider what moving it down does and added that it would possibly move the actual wall out of view. He questioned, however, if this is a visually offensive wall, which the Johnstons believe to be so. He stated that there may be other ways to address that issue, including adding vegetation below, but moving the wall down would make it more difficult to plant the vegetation that will provide the screen. Commissioner Pearce noted that there are two Exhibit A's. Mr. Dolan explained that all of the design plans were part of Exhibit A. He explained that the reason the new condition asks for a detailed plan is that Mr. Jeffrey has not done this a lot and it has been difficult to relay to him that a conceptual plan like that in a situation this controversial is not working. He indicated that staffs preference would be to have a detailed drawing to be approved by the City and installed just as it is with very little change. Chair Blank commented that the problem is that this is after the fact. He inquired what the impact would be if the Commission found for the appellant, noting that he was sure it would be appealed to the City Council. Mr. Dolan replied the decision would be the denial of the project. He added that the appellants have asked for specific items but have not asked that the Zoning Administrator's approval be vacated. Chair Blank inquired what the impact would be should the Commission vacate the Zoning Administrator's approval. Mr. Dolan indicated that he needed some time to confer with staff Commissioner Fox stated that at the last meeting, the Commission discussed upholding the appeal and not the Zoning Administrator's decision. Ms. Decker requested the Commission to allow staff some time to discuss the issue. Chair Blank called for a recess at 8:10 p.m. and thereafter, reconvened the regular meeting at 8:20 p.m. Chair Blank noted that staff had handed the Commissioners the original appeal letter from the Johnstons. He asked staff to respond to the question of vacating the Zoning Administrator's decision independent of what the appeal letter stated. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 24, 2008 Page 6 of 14