Laserfiche WebLink
ATTACHMENT 4 <br /> P14-1186. Nagib Haddad <br /> Application for Design Review approval to construct an approximately <br /> 6,841-square-foot, two-story custom home and related landscape and site <br /> improvements, including approximately 23,817 square feet of grading, at <br /> 8019 Golden Eagle Way. Zoning for the property is PUD-LDR (Planned Unit <br /> Development— Low Density Residential) District. <br /> Jennifer Wallis presented the staff report and described the scope, layout, and key <br /> elements of the proposal. <br /> Commissioner Balch noted that the slide on the site plan shows a suggested building <br /> envelope and inquired how that comes about. <br /> Ms. Wallis replied that when the Golden Eagle PUD was designed and the Design <br /> Guidelines created, each lot was looked at to determine the flattest area, the building <br /> envelope, that had the least impact on the natural topography within the subdivision. <br /> Commissioner Piper inquired if the 40-percent grading was a Homeowners Association <br /> (HOA) recommendation or requirement. <br /> Ms. Wallis replied that the Design Guidelines indicate lots should maintain a 40-percent or <br /> 20,000-square-foot of grading, whichever is less, but it can be exceeded with City and HOA <br /> approval. <br /> Commissioner Piper inquired if the HOA is fine with the 40 percent. <br /> Ms. Wallis replied that the HOA's letter actually indicates that its original approval was for <br /> 20,000 square feet of grading, but indicated within that letter that it would support the City <br /> should it approve grading in excess of 20,000 square feet. <br /> For clarification purposes, Commissioner O'Connor inquired if that letter indicated that the <br /> grading of 23,817 square feet was submitted but was not identified. <br /> Ms. Wallis said yes. <br /> Commissioner Nagler inquired, as a stand-alone explanation and in reference to the HOA's <br /> work on the progress of its project review, what specifically occurred between December <br /> 2013 and the letter that was sent to the City approving the design. He indicated that he <br /> was particularly interested in, from the City staffs perspective, what design changes were <br /> made in the home between that December 2013 position of the HOA and what is before the <br /> Commission tonight. He noted that it appears the HOA is still objecting to or asking for <br /> certain design and architectural changes. <br /> Ms. Wallis stated that the HOA's original approval letter dated August 19, 2014 had only <br /> three outstanding stipulations: (1) that color and material samples would be provided at a <br /> later date; (2) that the return wall between the home and the property line needed to be <br /> revised; and (3) that a full landscape plan needed to be provided. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, March 25, 2015 Page 1 of 12 <br />