PC 091008 - Laserfiche WebLink

amount of base and a certain width of base, which would pull the current lawn back from where it is now and dictate a certain width distance from the wall. Chair Blank suggested specifying that it be a 10-foot setback from the three-foot high berm. Commissioner O'Connor stated that it should be measured from the property line or from the wall. He added that the Commission should keep in mind that before the grading was done, this backyard was virtually unusable as it sloped all the way to the bottom where the V-ditch is located. He stated that he would look at where the wall is currently located, step back from there, and then look at 25 feet from where the wall is. He noted that this restriction is for an above-ground structure; it is not for usability and or for coming out and playing on the lawn, but for going up higher. Commissioner Fox inquired what the setbacks for accessory structures are for straight-zoned sites. Ms. Amos replied that it is five feet from the rear property line and three from the side property line for Class I accessory structures. Commissioner Narum noted that the bigger issue is to re-create the privacy. Commissioner Fox noted that a large accessory structure also creates a visual impact. Commissioner O'Connor indicated that the wall has only been pushed back about seven feet from where the fence used to be, and where the fence used to be, the ground was four feet farther down. He noted that it would be a guess to determine how far back was usable ground before it was backfilled. Chair Blank stated that he liked the idea of 25 feet and that while he realizes it might not be a scientific methodology, it is something that is enforceable, measurable, and achievable. He noted that this is part of the price everyone has to pay when a project is handled this way by the City, the applicant, and everybody involved. He indicated that the Commission is simply attempting to do the best it can to make sure the appellants regain their privacy. He noted that the documentation from the Planning Commission meeting from 1987 looked like a lot of people went to a lot of effort to make sure that one thing above all will not happen, that the property will not be re-graded without City Council approval, and that is exactly what happened. He stated that the Commission must now do the best it can to make sure the intent is restored. He noted that the grade could be returned to what it originally was, which is going to be very expensive and maybe impractical. Commissioner Pearce inquired how this could be done if the original grading is unknown and what would be proposed to be done in theory? Mr. Dolan stated that it will be very difficult to construct the complex condition the Commission is discussing as a group. He noted that no one wants this to drag out longer and asked the Commission to give staff some time to make some proposals in order to correct it. He added that alternatively, the Commission could consider PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 10, 2008 Page 28 of 33