PC 06/23/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

the March 10, 1999 Planning Commission staffreport; and, recommend approval of the project to the City Council subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "B.". Discussion ensued relating to the number of homes in the development, clarification of lotting patterns, and spacing between lots 4 and 5. Mr. Swift noted that the applicant would be in favor of adding lot 5B in the northwest corner of the development; however, neighbors are opposed to the impacts on views. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Nick Chapman, 255 Happy Valley Road, noted that at the March 10, 1999, Commission meeting he requested that staff provide a precise definition of the term "urban growth boundary minor adjustments," and that to date no definition has been received by staff. He expressed concern with the length of time that has elapsed in response to the request and he requested that the Commission direct staff to immediately provide that definition of the urban growth boundary. He noted his desire to see the golf course built; however, he expressed concern with the removal of the horse staging area in the area of the proposed golf course and noted that the horse staging area would be in character with the area. He commented on ongoing litigation concerning the Specific Plan and encouraged that issues be resolved before any more tax dollars or time is spent. Roger Manning, 4725 First Street, noted he supported staff's recommendations and urged the Commission to do the same and consider the plan before the Commission, including the accessory structures being within the building envelope. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Discussion ensued relating to the spacing between houses, not constructing accessory structures on the ridge, the height of buildings above building pads, preservation of the view sheds, and requiring single story buildings on lots 1-5A. A motion was made by Commissioner Roberts to limit the accessory structures for Lots 1 - 5A to the side yard setbacks of the house. Commissioner Sullivan noted that he had previously requested that Lots 1-5 be conditioned as single-story homes to reduce view impacts, and noted he still desired single-story homes for those lots. Further, that Lots 27, 28, 29, 30 and 33A should be single-story lots. He stated he was in support with Alternative 1 and Alternative 3. He expressed concern with Alternative 5 due to the reduced size of the lots. Commissioner Sullivan noted his desire for the Commission to review the production style homes and the custom homes. Mr. Swift noted that if the Conunission choose to reduce one lot in this area, Alternative No. 2 would be chosen, which would allow 75-foot setbacks; however, he stated the value of the lot would be lost. Commissioner Roberts expressed her desire that Lot 31 also be single story and expressed concern with Alternative No. 2 being used. Commissioner Sullivan requested that lots 29, 30 and 31 be single-story, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 June 23, 1999