14 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Fox stated that she was leaning toward moving the wall back to where the original hand-drawn sketch states it should be and having it appear as what was approved. She added that she felt there should be a removal of the extra fill material made through the repositioning of the wall and that there should be a 35-foot setback where no above-ground structures should be allowed. She also noted that she believed the landscaping needs to be redone with Ms. Decker or Mr. Fulford reviewing the landscaping plans and that an engineered set of plans be submitted for this. She concluded that she does not believe it is a good policy for the Planning Commission, given the entire situation, to simply grandfather in what work was completed in the last six to nine months. Commissioner Pearce commented that she was disappointed that the Commission was having the same discussion two weeks later, especially in light of the direction the Commission had given. She noted that this is not necessarily something she would have approved had it came to the Commission before the work had been done. She indicated that she recognizes it is complicated and that mistakes were made, but she was extremely concerned with the appellants' lack of privacy. She noted that in this regard, she would like to do everything possible, short of returning the property to the state it was before, to assure the appellants' privacy. She stated that she believed a four- to five-foot tall berm is appropriate and that she is in favor of Commissioner Fox's and Mr. Dolan's suggestion of a very strictly followed landscape plan. She added that she would like to see incorporated in this new plan a detailed sketch of the original theoretical landscape plan that was included in Exhibit A. She stated that she is amenable to a setback of 35 feet with a restriction on above-ground structures, noting that this is not land that the appellants would have been able to use had the property not been leveled. She noted that everyone appears to be amenable to the condition regarding pool lighting and added that a firm completion date would be appropriate. She indicated that in light of the circumstances, she feels the City should do everything it can to get the appellants' privacy back. Commissioner Narum stated that she found this situation uncomfortable, but looking at the original landscaping plan in Exhibit A with a scale of 1 inch = 16 feet, the bushes that were planted where the wall would be back to the lawn is about 1 inch or 16 feet, which would place it about 31 feet off the property line. She stated that there should be some fairly heavy planting on the 16-foot area where there is no lawn and that the use of play structures, trampolines, etc., should be precluded. She agreed with Commissioner Pearce that had this come in originally, she probably would not have approved it. She noted that a lot would have been resolved had the original Exhibit A landscaping plan been followed and dense bush and shrubbery created in this area, which, in effect, was unusable for the kinds of things that are being restricted on it. She added that she felt there should be a detailed plan that shows the shrubbery at a substantial distance from the wall towards the house which would in effect limit the use of that area without actually putting restrictions on the house as well. She stated that she believed athree-foot tall berm could be incorporated as part of this heavy planting. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 24, 2008 Page 8 of 14