15 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

solution. He noted that staff reviewed every possibility for making it work such as using area on the other side. Commissioner Pentin stated that there are examples across the valley where people have constructed bike lanes off the side of the road because there was no area to locate the bike path and he inquired if this was feasible. Mr. Dolan replied that staff looked at every alternative and could not make any of them work, other than moving the ditch /creek. He added that if the Commission wanted to see this done, it could be considered; however, he noted that all the parties involved worked together in a negotiated compromise. He indicated that the applicant ended up losing two lots, and consideration was given to assist with the oak woodland issue since moving the creek up the hill is a significant expense. Commissioner Blank thanked the applicant for the high quality of the materials and the time and efforts in putting the plans together. With respect to the stepped house, he inquired what the distance was measuring from the bottom to the top of the structure, and what the impact might be if the house were built the other way. Mr. Pavan replied that roofs would have to be no steeper than 4:12, and the interior ceiling heights would have to be replaced from nine or ten feet to eight feet. He added that the house would potentially not have a step pattern where the form of the house reflects the lay of the land. He indicated that there would be no variation in the roof height, and the roof would more likely be a continuous roof which would potentially emphasize the visual massing of the house. Commissioner Blank inquired how the grading would be affected. Mr. Pavan replied that it would create a flat pad lotting pattern, and the knolls would be pushed back to accommodate a flat pad for the house. Commissioner Blank referred to page 7 of the Conditions of Approval regarding the CC &R disclosure requirements and stated that it surprised him that the high school and the train tracks were not disclosed. He indicated that he had reviewed the history of the Stoneridge Drive Extension home disclosure where homeowners brought him their packages and noted there were no disclosures. He noted that there are traffic and noise impacts from the high school as well as the railroad noise and inquired why these disclosures were left out. Mr. Pavan replied that when he was on -site, he did not find the trains to be objectionable and, therefore, did not include it in the disclosure. He indicated that the exclusion of the high school was an oversight, although conceptually, activities associated with the high school would be apparent. He noted that both disclosures could be added should the Commission desire. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 28, 2010 Page 2 of 11