PC 042810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Pentin disagreed and reiterated that the project includes custom homes massed developed by a single applicant. He stated that a home builder could indicate that they could handle the topography with home plans and put four homes on them. He inquired whether the Commission would be faced with the Serenity issue if true custom homes are not constructed. Mr. Pavan stated that because the standards for floor area are stated at a maximum, there is nothing to prohibit someone from building something smaller. Commissioner Pentin stated that this was the same issue with Serenity, where up to 9,000-square-foot homes were allowed, and the neighbors found the proposed 3,500-square-foot homes too small. Mr. Dolan stated that this is a possibility and that staff can address this in a number of ways. He noted that staff can either take all reference to “custom” out or better define “custom.” He said this is a case where there is an assumption that they be custom, so the package is set up to regulate an undesigned home. Commissioner Pentin expressed concern that there was an issue with “custom homes,” “custom lots,” and “custom sites.” He stated that the Commission walked away from that issue at a past meeting, asking that somewhere along the line, staff put a definition of those in place so that there is clarity when the term is used in the future with another project. Chair Olson inquired if each home would be subject to design review. Mr. Pavan said yes. He added that the design review approval and plans will be forwarded to the Commission as an information item for its review. Commissioner Narum indicated that is exactly what happened with the Serenity Terrace projects. Commissioner Pentin stated that this particular line lays it out as walking into the same situation. Commissioner Pearce inquired if there would be any ramifications with taking out the word “custom” in its entirety. She indicated that her big problem with the Serenity issue was not the house size but knowing what was and was not “custom.” She suggested removing all reference to the word “custom” and the section that refers to the second phase being mass developed or revising it. Mr. Dolan replied that he could not think of any downside of taking out all reference to “custom” because staff’s intent was not necessarily that they be custom but to deal with an undesigned home. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 28, 2010 Page 7 of 15