14 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner O'Connor stated that he also believed that if this plan came in first, it would not have been something he would have approved. With respect to setbacks, he stated that 30-35 feet would be appropriate. He noted that in the Exhibit A from April 8th, the setback appears to be at least 30 feet back from the lawn in a couple of areas and a little shorter in one or two corners. He indicated that he would like to see heavy planting and the lawn retracted back to about 30 feet from the property line. He stated that afour-foot tall berm should be put in place in lieu of lowering the grade. Commissioner O'Connor added that the Commission is considering placing conditions on an approval where the applicant has stated he does not want additional conditions on his property. He noted that if Mr. Jeffrey is telling the Commission he is not going to accept conditions or non-use of an area in his back yard, or he does not have the money to put in more plants, Commissioner O'Connor thinks it is a moot point to place conditions on the property. Chair Blank stated that he feels the Commission must do the best job it can whether or not the applicant or the appellants accept its decision. Commissioner O'Connor stated that at the last meeting, the Commission made it clear that it would go one of two ways: either put certain conditions on the property or revert it back to its original state prior to grading. He noted that the applicant is now indicating that he does not want conditions on his property, which, by default, would mean telling us to put his property back to its original grade. He added that the Commission can present some suggestions tonight, but absent any desire to work with their neighbors on a compromise, the Commission is left with the option to require that it be returned to its original grade, with the wall remaining in place as a four-foot tall wall is permitted. Commissioner Fox indicated her agreement with Commissioner O'Connor's statements. Chair Blank indicated that his original inclination was to simply vacate the Zoning Administrator's decision and require the property to be returned to its original state. He stated that he thinks the applicant has shown a disregard for the conditions and the rules and that his lack of knowledge of the CC&R's, which was evident is the public testimony at the last meeting, is something that he [Chair Blank] has a hard time dealing with. He noted that should the Commission approve the project, he would be supportive of a four- to five-foot tall berm and a 35-foot setback, and the wall should be moved to where it is supposed to be. He added that if the applicant is not interested in having a 35-foot setback, then he should remove all the dirt and put the place back to its original grade. He noted that over the last three-and-a-half years, this Commission has taken an extraordinarily dim view of folks who either proceed and do things that are not according to the plans they had submitted or once something has been appealed, simply continue with their projects because they have not received a "stop order" notice. He stated that it just does not feel right and that the landscape plan has to be right. Commissioner Narum stated that she tends to agree with what Chair Blank is saying but that she is struggling a bit with the fact that the applicant submitted an Exhibit A with a EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 24, 2008 Page 9 of 14