Laserfiche WebLink
Discussion ensued relating to all lots being conditioned as single-story homes and smaller homes on <br />single-story lots selling for less money and adversely affecting funding gap even more significantly. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cooper noted that single-story homes should be developed where appropriate, as <br />determined by staff. <br /> <br />Alternative 1: <br />Chairperson Kumaran noted he would concur with staffs recommendation for Alternate 5A, to provide <br />an additional lot and also agreed that lots 5 and 5A as single-story homes as proposed. <br /> <br />Alternatives 2 and 3: <br />Commissioner Maas, Roberts, Sullivan and Chairperson Kumaran all concurred with staff's <br />recommendation for Alternatives No. 2 and 3. <br /> <br />Alternative 4: <br />Chairperson Kumaran noted the Happy Valley Specific Plan PUD designations, and stated he would not <br />be in favor of increasing the size of lots and would not be in favor of Alternative No. 4. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sullivan noted he would not be in favor of Alternative No. 4. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cooper noted he would be in favor of 37 lots for the developmem due to the funding gap <br />difference and stated he would support Alternative No. 4. <br /> <br />Commissioner Maas noted her concurrence with Alternative No. 4 and stated that staff has addressed <br />issues relating to the overall massing and single-story homes. <br /> <br />Commissioner Roberts noted concurrence with Alternative No. 4 <br /> <br />Commissioner Sullivan expressed concern with Alternative No. 4 lot sizes being smaller than 20,000 <br />square feet and the massing of houses. He noted that in addition to lots 27, 28, and 29 being restricted to <br />single-story homes, he desired 10ts 30 and 33A to be single-story. <br /> <br />Conunissioner Roberts expressed her concurrence with Commissioner Sullivan's statement and <br />expressed her desire for single-story homes along the road to the clubhouse. <br /> <br />Chairperson Kumaran expressed his concurrence with restricting lots 27, 28, 29, 30 and 33A to <br />single-story lots. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson noted the Urban Growth Boundary is to delineate areas generally urbanized with <br />infrastructure to support development of homes from areas to be left as open space. He discussed the <br />location of the Urban Growth Boundary and noted that the area outside the Urban Growth Boundary <br />does not include urban uses and only includes open space and golf course uses. He notes that there is no <br />conflict with respect to the boundary and that the issues were specifically addressed in the Specific Plan <br />and EIR and was found to be consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Iserson further noted that this <br />project does not require any adjustment to the Urban Growth Boundary. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 March 10, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />