14 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Dolan reiterated that the appeal did not request that the Zoning Administrator's decision be thrown out but that some of the conditions be modified. He noted that the first request, Item 2, was to lower the wall, and Item 4 asks for a minimum height requirement on the screening plants, additional trees along with the Pittosporum plants, replacement of the plants if they were to die, and re-evaluation of the plant species and their growth in 6 to 12 months to provide adequate screening. Chair Blank asked Mr. Dolan about Item 3. Mr. Dolan replied that he first thought this related to the height of the wall, but this is consistent with comments made suggesting that the fill be removed. Chair Blank recalled that at the last meeting, Mr. Roush stated that if the Zoning Administrator's decision were vacated, the wall would have to be redone, the grading would have to be taken out, and the property would have to be put back in its original condition. He noted that Mr. Dolan's response sounds like a change from Mr. Roush's answer. Mr. Dolan stated that from a practical viewpoint, this would be the most difficult way to address the problem. He noted that the appellants have asked to change the conditions and that this would be an interesting, theoretical discussion point. Chair Blank stated that from reading the Minutes of the last meeting, there appear to be three options: the Commission can uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval without any changes; the Commission can uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval with modified conditions; or the Commission can vacate the Zoning Administrator's decision. He inquired if this is still the case. Ms. Decker replied that if the appeal is upheld, the Commission would be overturning the Zoning Administrator's approval and therefore requiring that the property be returned to its former state, which would mean removing all grading, the retaining wall, the irrigation system, all plants which have been planted, and the screening trees which have been planted for the neighbors. Ms. Seto stated that this could be one case, but there could also be other direction from the Commission or discussion regarding whether or not the Commission would ask that the applicant re-apply. She added that during that interim period, the Commission would not require something be simply torn out as long as the applicant diligently pursues the new application, whether it be for something new or for what is already existing. Commissioner Fox stated that there are a couple of options on the table and inquired if it would be appropriate to conduct a poll among the Commissioners to determine what each one is thinking, given that there was atwo-week break and the Commission believed that a compromise had been reached. Chair Blank indicated that he was fine with that EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 24, 2008 Page 7 of 14