PC 091008 - Laserfiche WebLink

material as a result of the swimming pool as well as the removal of the landscape screening along that boundary. Commissioner O'Connor noted that he had a picture that shows seven eight-inch bricks with atwo-inch cap, which makes the wall look like it is ten inches higher than four feet or almost five feet. He stated that when the red flag went up and the neighbors were saying that there were conditions of approval regarding grading, the fact that a wall went up and if it were four feet tall, the City would not be able to stop it from being put up anywhere on the grade. He noted, however, that the issue at that point was there should not have been any grading and backfilling to the wall. Ms. Decker stated this was correct, and the condition was interpreted that no grading without review would occur. She explained that the excavation of the pool itself causes grading of that site, which needed review. She reiterated that these types of conditions were embedded in a tract map and not a PUD which is more readily available to planners at the counter. Commissioner O'Connor noted that it was in January 2008 when everyone became aware that this site is a PUD and that there are conditions. He stated that the wall was not in yet, but that the wall was not really the issue as the wall can be built up to four feet high on any place on the property; the issue is that no grading should have been done and there should have been no backfilling into that wall without review. Ms. Decker confirm Commissioner O'Connor' statement and added that this, as well as the excavation for the pool, should have been reviewed. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he thought the pool was approved in January 2008. Ms. Decker advised that the retaining wall was approved on December 6, 2007, and the pool was approved on December 12, 2007. She added that when it came to staff's attention that there was grading occurring and that there was a condition of approval restricting that, Mr. Iserson began discussions with Mr. Jeffrey, the Johnstons and the Lams to determine what course of action would benefit all of the parties. Chair Blank stated that based upon what is before the Commission, it seemed clear to him that if the Commission upholds the Zoning Administrator's decision, things would remain the way they are. He inquired if conditions would be created should the Commission vacate the Zoning Administrator's decision. Ms. Decker replied that if the appeal is upheld, the Commission would be overturning the Zoning Administrator's approval and thereby requiring that the property be returned to its former stated, which would mean removing all grading, the retaining wall, all of the irrigation, and all of the plants that have been planted as well as the screening trees that have been planted for the neighbors, and consideration of the pool. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 10, 2008 Page 23 of 33