14 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

hand-written drawing, received a building permit, and approved by the Building Inspector, which basically means it was in conformance or close to what was submitted when he got the building permit. She noted that the applicant had to build the wall 15 feet off the property line to accommodate the easement and ended up with a wall that is a little higher than what he actually was approved for. Chair Blank stated that the wall should have been installed on the plane where the bottom of the property was. Commissioner Narum stated that the way she interpreted it was that the applicant was required to go back 15 feet from the property line, and the ground was already sloped at that point. Chair Blank noted that the four-foot tall wall was actually asix-foot tall wall and was visible from the Johnstons' property. Commissioner Narum stated that it is a six-foot tall wall only because the grade was actually sloped. Chair Blank agreed with Commissioner Narum's observation but indicated that the height of the wall should have taken into account the base of the property from where it was supposed to be measured. Commissioner Fox noted that if Mr. Jeffrey had known that he needed to move the wall 15 feet back, his original submission should have shown a 15 foot gap. Commissioner Narum stated that she assumed that it did and that the applicant went out and actually measured where the 15-foot setback was. Commissioner O'Connor noted that there were three separate occasions when Mr. Jeffrey was put on notice that he needed permits that he did not have and was asked to stop work, but the work proceeded. He noted that the four-foot wall that did not need approval may have been put in, but the filling of the dirt and the grading of the lot needed an approval. He added that on January 25th, the applicant was advised by phone to stop work, and he was notified that a design review permit from the Zoning Administrator was required. He continued that the approved permit was appealed on July 18th, and on August 8th, the applicant was given another stop work letter and informed that if he proceeded with the work, it would be at his own risk. Commissioner Fox inquired if there was a way to make a motion where the Commission would give the applicant 60 days or some arbitrary date to complete certain things and if these were not completed within that time period, the whole project would need to be put back to its original grade. Chair Blank suggested that the Commission come up with a motion. He noted that he believes that no matter what the Commission decides, the action would be appealed to the City Council by either the appellants or the applicant. He stated that the Commission should try and do its best to come up with conditions it thinks are the most EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 24, 2008 Page 10 of 14