08 ATTACHMENTS 4-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

of the discussion are already in the Minutes, such as Question 7: "Would the proposed lot substantially change the character of the neighborhood She added that some of the discussion was about whether or not the project complements or takes away from the rural character as it is directly adjacent to the Serenity Terrace subdivision. She noted that these are the kinds of thoughts and feedback provided in the past, noting that the lot sizes are greater than Serenity Terrace but not quite as great as perhaps they ought to be. Commissioner Fox recalled that the Commission had provided feedback at that meeting but that it now sounds like staff is coming back with something similar to what the Commission had already said "no." Ms. Amos noted that there was neither definitive support of nor opposition to the project at the previous meeting, with some Commissioners indicating that they may be supportive of it and others being indecisive. She added that such feedback gave the applicant very little to go forward with but that the number of lots proposed were reduced from seven to six. Commissioner Fox inquired if a work session was allowed to be done within a year just because there were absent Commissioners. Ms. Amos replied that the application during the first workshop was a Preliminary Review, which is deemed by the City as a pre application, but that the applicants have applied for a PUD application since, which is being discussed at this workshop. Commissioner Narum stated that she was not at the workshop but that she met with Mr. Babbitt and Ms. Decker one -on -one and provided her comments that she would have made had she been at the workshop. Chair Pearce indicated that she did the same as well. In connection with Commissioner Fox's question, Commissioner Narum stated that additional comments were given to the applicant from those Commissioners who were not at the meeting. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he heard there were comments but did not know there were two or more one -on -one meetings with the applicant. He noted that there was a quorum the night of the meeting and that two Commissioners, one being Commissioner Olson, clearly stated that they would not support a change in the Specific Plan. Commissioner Blank noted that the individual comments not attached to the Minutes. Ms. Decker clarified that they were not attached to the Minutes because there were not part of the formal hearing before the Commission. She added that the Commissioners who met individually with the applicant and with staff present wanted to provide their feedback. She stated that as the project moved forward from a Preliminary Review application to the actual PUD application, the applicant was unsure what the consensus might be with the project and wanted to have the PUD project come before the Commission. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 14, 2009 Page 2 of 14