17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Blank stated that was an exaggeration but added that a 30-foot tall house would go within 70 feet of the top of the ridgeline, and he did not think that was the intent of Measure PP. Commissioner Pearce indicated that it boils down to two words: "within" and "place." Chair Blank added that those are "o?'s. Commissioner Pearce stated that she would rather choose a placement that satisfies both of them and that she agrees with Commissioner Olson. She indicated that she would rather go more conservative with this, given that, she thinks at least on this issue, people are generally in agreement with regard to the intent. Commissioner Posson asked for clarification that Commissioner Olson is saying that the top of the house has to be below 100 vertical feet of the ridgeline versus staffs recommendation that the foundation would be outside of that 100-vertical foot ridgeline. Commissioner Olson replied that was correct. Commissioner Posson stated that he agreed with Commissioner Olson's, proposal. Commissioner Narum inquired, if the Commission recommends that the house has to be 100 vertical feet or more below the top of the ridgeline, whether that would be more restrictive and eliminate potential housing sites in Lunch Ranch II. Mr. Dolan replied that it would. Commissioner Narum inquired what the percentage would be; if it would be by 10 percent or 25 percent. Mr. Dolan replied that he could not tell the exact number but estimated that it would be between those two. Commissioner Narum stated that she thinks one thing that is pretty clear about Measure PP is that the intent was to keep the ridges intact, and from that, it follows that the house should be set below the 100-foot ridgeline. She pointed out that this would open up other potential issues. Chair Blank inquired if there was consensus that the measurement should be from the top of the house to the top of the ridge. Commissioner Narum noted that the proposed language includes some exceptions. Commissioner Pearce inquired why cupolas, chimneys, or similar appurtenances were excepted. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 13, 2013 Page 25 of 35