08 ATTACHMENTS 4-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Blank asked Commissioner Narum if viewscapes were important to her. Commissioner Narum replied that they have already addressed what she would want by having the greater side yard setbacks so there is more of a gap between the houses, and having the rear yard setbacks farther away from the golf course so it would be more open and provide more of a rural feel. She noted that on hindsight, she thinks the City did not quite get the look it wanted in the Mariposa project. Commissioner Narum stated that she would support the request based on what is being proposed. She added that a chart showing the maximum house sizes at 25- percent FAR and 22- percent FAR with their corresponding building envelopes might make the Commission feel more comfortable about having six lots on six acres. Chair Pearce and Commissioner Blank stated that this would be a great idea, stating that a more intelligent decision can be made with more information. Commissioner O'Connor stated that based on what he has heard so far, having only two houses along the side of the street that abuts the golf course and three houses on the other side would certainly result in having fewer structures looking from the golf course. He noted that there is a possibility of doing only five lots instead of six, where the view can be spread out and structures even farther away from one another and leaving one acre of open space. Commissioner Narum stated that her only concern with having two lots on the golf course side would be that there would be bigger lots and potentially animals without having fully landscaped lots. She indicated that she believed animals did not belong along the golf course and felt this idea might make more sense across the street on those lots that back up to Serenity Terrace. Commissioner O'Connor noted that the Commission could approve a PUD with five lots and include Conditions of Approval that would not allow animals. Commissioner Fox indicated that her position was still one of non support on both amendments. Chair Pearce stated that Question 4, "If an analysis provided by the applicant determines that the proposed project would not increase the overall allowable units within the Happy Valley Specific Plan area, would the Planning Commission support the proposed density believing it appropriate for the Plan area was already discussed and that Question 5, "Given the proposed setbacks, lot sizes, and location of the site, is site layout appropriate has already been discussed in part. Commissioner Fox stated that she thinks from the City's standpoint, the edge of the City should have a feathering out of density. She indicated that she would like to see'/ -acre lots or Low Density Residential (LDR) districts around the City and rural or semi -rural residential at the very edge of the City. She added that she believes Happy Valley is still a rural area, even with the golf course, and that she did not vote for the purple EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 14, 2009 Page 11 of 14