22 ATTACHMENT 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Pearce agreed that because this is a Work Session, discussions can be less exacting than normal. She indicated that the Commission can go through the discussion points and ask questions of staff as they come and have a conversation about them. 1. Does the Planning Commission support the applicants'proposal for siting the homes, or is there a preference for Alternatives 1, 2 or 3? Commissioner Allen stated that, as a background, she visited the site twice and that this is the first time she has been exposed to the property. She noted that she walked the site from the perspective of a pedestrian and a bicyclist and a resident, and then walked the site with staff for about an hour and a half actually looking at each of the Alternatives. She indicated that given that, she does not support any one of the Alternatives purely but would support something that would be a blending of the proposal and a blending of Alternative 3. She stated that that would mean lowering the house that is right now located toward the top to be more in line with where the lower property is. She noted that she thinks that would have less visual impact to everyone and little more of a clustering, and assumes an easterly alignment of the road in a way that protects those heritage trees. Commissioner Olson stated that he supports the applicant's proposal and none of the other Alternatives. Commissioner O'Connor agreed with Commissioner Allen and stated that he is more inclined to follow the applicant's proposal. He stated that the visuals are pretty clear: if the upper home is not at the top of the hill, it is pretty close to it for breaking blue sky and quite a way away from the original "blob." He indicated that he knows there is some flexibility with "blobs" but that he would prefer not to have the home so visually exposed. He added that he would also like to protect as many of these heritage oaks as possible and would rather see a little more work with where the road is sited without doing much damage to those trees; the tradeoff would be making the homes less visible. Commissioner Ritter stated that he supports the proposed plan as it disturbs the least amount of area and leaves it the most natural-looking without removing any heritage trees. He noted that it appears the applicant has met all the zoning and Specific Plan requirements, based on his proposed plan that was there before any changes of a sort could be made. He added that based on the photos, the homes appear to fit in pretty well and looked aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Posson stated that he generally supports the applicant's siting and does not prefer any particular Alternative. He indicated that he thinks some additional work needs to be done, especially taking a look at the Specific Plan Residential Design Standards, the concerns brought up by Mr. Reeves regarding siting, lot line, and those types of things. He added that he would like to study the Specific Plan a little bit more to see whether or not the alignment, as proposed, conforms with that or not. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 24, 2013 Page 7 of 10