08 ATTACHMENTS 4-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

tolerant plants and get the credit for that point. She indicated that the maximum a building could have would essentially be about 300 points. Commissioner Blank stated that he felt there was some sort of generic guidance to indicate that a project that has 200 green points creates an overall carbon footprint of "x and a project that has 50 green points creates "y He inquired why there would be a system of points in place when there is no way of quantifying the results obtained. Chair Pearce agreed that this was valid but stated that she felt these were in the early stages and that there are guidelines. She asked Commissioner Blank what his position is on the General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Blank stated that it is the same as with the Specific Plan. He noted that he would never say that he would never be open to a General Plan amendment, and this is part of why he needs more information about the green points. He indicated that he likes the idea of redrawing the map lines because there may be a configuration where he would be willing to entertain an amendment to the General Plan and the Specific Plan; however, he does not have enough information to accurately answer that question. He noted that some of the information may need to come from staff on green building and whether the applicant would consider redrawing the lot lines or look at better ways to design this out. He inquired what would happen if one of the lots were eliminated and the rest of the lots made larger. He agreed that it still did not meet the Specific Plan, but one -acre lots sound better to him than .6 -acre lots, especially if the homes on the one -acre lots include 200 green point. Chair Pearce stated that she was not generally supportive of Specific Plan amendments; however, she thought the atmosphere was no longer rural next to the golf course and in- between adjacent developments. She indicated that she would not be opposed to amending the Specific Plan and that she really liked Commissioner Olson's idea of taking a look at the FAR's. She noted that there might be no FAR information at this time as the project is not at that stage yet. She inquired if a little more of the rural atmosphere could be achieved by tightening up the FAR's while allowing the six lots, which would be a way that she would be more apt to support the six lots. Chair Pearce then inquired whether the Commission needed to discuss Questions 3 and 4 or make some headway on Question 5. Commissioner Narum requested talking about Question 3, "Would the Planning Commission support a rezone of the subject site which would be consistent with the adjacent developments located at Serenity and Mariposa Ranch Commissioner Narum stated that the reason for her question on the rear yard setback on the Mariposa project was because it was exactly what Mr. Babbitt mentioned that as you drive on Westbridge Lane, the houses are too close together. She stated that she thought the intent was to have visions of the golf course through the houses, which would entail making some adjustments in the setbacks. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 14, 2009 Page 10 of 14