PC 091300 - Laserfiche WebLink

4. [~.EVISIONS AND OMISSIONS TO THE AGENDA Ther~ wer~ none. 5. ~IATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION There were none. Mr. Swift introduced Marion Pavan who will be takin__g over the position of Senior Planner during Jerry Iserson's assi?ment to work with the Downtown Specific Plan Committee. Request to determine whether the gr~ding limits prescribed for hilhide lots in Clmpter 18.84 of the Munidptl Code apply to the Grey Eagle subdivision (PUD-82- 10) and to provide direction on the design ora future home in this development. Mr. Pavan presented the staff report, providing information regarding the background of the original PUD approval for the Grey Eagle subdivision and the development plan requirements. He stated that Lot #12, which is the item of discussion this evening, is the last bnildable lot in this develoim~nt. He noted that the infill status of this lot has created concerns from the existing r~ighlx~s over privacy, views, and visual impacts. Mr. Pavan advised that staff is requesting the Planni~ Commission provide direction on the issue of the 7,$00-square-foot grading limit and the conformance of the design of the proposed home with respect to the PUD requirements. Mr. Pavan reported that Mr. Robert Grove, an adjoining property owner, has expressed concern regarding the impacts of the proposed home on the view from his home. Mr. Pavan noted that staff believes a split-pad home would be a better solution for the site rather than a flat pad. And, while downhill homeowners have indicated that a split-pad may result in a compromise to their privacy, he advised that staff feels that this matter could be addressed in the design of the home. Mr. Pavan stated that staff believes a fresh start should be taken and the home be redesigned and relocated closer to the street in that it would reflect the predominant development pattern on this street and resolve some of the questions of privacy of the downhill neighbors and the impact of views on the uphill property owner. He noted that staff acknowledges that Mr. Bentley, who lives across the street, is opposed to this as he believes this would compromise his views. Mr. Pavan described the proposed materials and colors for the home, noting that the Planning Commission may wish to comment on this issue. He noted that the Planning Commission has a broad degree of latitude with respect to its recommendation, further noting that the Planning Commission could accept staff's recommendation to move the house closer to the street or modify that recommendation; or the Planning Commission could make the determination that the proposed location is acceptable, however, the design needs to be modified. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 13, 2000 Page 2