15 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

project is not one where a typical mass development would be constructed, but it is conceivable that a custom -lot home builder may want to buy all of the lots and spec them out as custom lots, and a member of the public could argue this was not their expectation. Joseph Gorney, project architect, referred to the size of the homes for the photo simulations and stated that they used examples of models done before on different properties. He indicated that they added the amount of square footage of the garage: Lot 1 is 7,000 square feet; Lot 2 is 6,500 square feet; Lot 3, which no longer exists, had 7,500 square feet; Lot 4, which is now Lot 3, is 7,000 square feet; and Lot 4 had 5,500 square feet because it was a severe upslope and narrow lot, and the house was designed to step up the hill while still meeting the height restriction. He added that they worked within the rules to see what could be allowed, but the lot is now a little longer and they are working around a tree, making it less restrictive than the first design. Commissioner Narum noted the word "drawing" was misspelled on page 9 of the April 12, 2010 drawing. Mr. Gorney noted that there were many typographical errors, which would be corrected. Commissioner Narum referred to the setbacks and accessory structures on page 7 and stated that she did not see any reference to barns and structures outside the building envelope. Mr. Gorney stated that this would be integrated into the Conditions of Approval that they would be getting. Commissioner Narum noted that the height restrictions on page 12 do not match the height restrictions in the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Gorney noted that they added in the absolute 40 feet in the revision because originally, they were going to have a discussion to finalize it but had not established the number at the last meeting. He indicated that the 40 -foot version will need to be added back into the verbiage. Commissioner Narum referred to page 32 regarding solid fencing and courtyards, but there was no specific reference to fencing around the perimeter, in particular, to what is visible from the street. She added that she did not see anything about fencing in the Conditions of Approval either. She suggested that it be as open as what is at the golf course. Mr. Pavan stated that the Landscape Design Guidelines provide that no fencing is allowed along the perimeter of the property, and the only fencing allowed is on the building envelopes, which would be open fencing. He noted that the example shown in the Guidelines is a combination of solid fencing and some trellis elements as a means EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 28, 2010 Page 8 of 11