PC 091102 - Laserfiche WebLink

r- Robert Grove noted that he requested a slight increase in the building envelope only to the existing property line between his lot and Lot 12. There would be no possibility of any construction, accessory structure, or home addition that could ever go to Lot 12. He noted that the reason for limited the building envelope extension in that marmer was to avoid that possibility. He noted that his neighbors were delighted to exchange a slightly larger building envelope for the assurance of no other structures in that area. Mr. Grove noted that the Plarming Commission generally wanted neighbors to reach a compromise when there is a controversy, rather than see the Commission serve as judge and jury. He was pleased that he and Mr. Roberts had reached an accommodation, and that they had worked very hard to do so. He noted this was not a perfect plan, and that it was somewhat complex. Mr. Roberts displayed the features of the proposal on the overhead screen. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts, Mr. Iserson noted that the smaller setback was allowed under the Rural Density Residential zoning, and added that each PUD had different setback requirements. A discussion of the setback ensued. Commissioner Roberts noted that there was an EV hookup in the garage, and did not believe that people used electric cars as much as they used hybrids vehicles. Commissioner Arkin noted that it was a split phase 240 hookup. r Mr. Roberts noted that it was his intent to include sufficient conditions so. He noted that they performed visual studies so that it would not require another visit to the Planning Commission. Mr. Roberts expressed concern about the requirement to return to the Planning Commission, and noted that they had put significant conditions on the project in order to avoid return visits. He noted that when the house was designed, he would welcome the Commission's invitation for a return appearance. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts, Mr. Iserson confirmed that it was Plarming Director Brian Swift's idea to remove the project out of the Vineyard Corridor. Commissioner Roberts believed that was a brilliant idea. Commissioner Roberts noted that the project was barely in the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan, and she liked the fact that it avoided as many trees as possible. Chairperson Maas noted that a large amount of staff and Commission time had been spent on this project. She thought that the matter had been settled after the last Commission recommendation, but believed that the City Council did not want to hear the matter. She questioned the necessity of amending the Specific Plan all for a view. r- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September II, 2002 Page 18