PC 03/11/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

~- reduction in lots along Foothill Road. He also noted the road has een pushed back somewhat so the setbacks are larger, from 120 to 155 ft. On the north property line they have a minimum lot size of 35, ()()() sq. ft. going up to 61, ()()() sq. . The inside of the project has been reduced by five lots; average lot sizes are about 0,000 sq. ft. Houses on the north property line are one story. There will be a trail access the Regional Park. The project has been designed to avoid all the slide areas. Mr. Dommer presented diagrams on the height of the homes, po' g out they do not build on anything less than a 25 percent slope. He took issue with the owance of a height limit of 30 ft. measured from the highest point to the lowest grade, and felt that should be a 35 ft. limit. Commissioner Hovingh further discussed the height issue with Mr Dommer. Mr. Dommer again asked for a five ft. leeway. Commissioner McGuirk noted that he had met with the applicant several of the other Commissioners. f any two, three or four- ould be necessary to t for maintenance" can be Commissioner Horan asked Mr. Dommer if they would consider Dommer said they have discussed it, but would rather not do so. e felt that once the homes are built, Lot 11 would not be seen anyway. However, th y would reconsider it again. Mr. Dommer discussed Condition 19 in regard to the prohibition wheeled vehicles on the site, and noted that some type of vehicle maintain open space areas. Mr. Swift said language such as "ex added to the condition. Mr. Dommer referred to Condition 36 in regard to street width noted he had no problem with eliminating the sidewalk, if that is what the Commission wis es. He said he could go with a narrower street than 28 ft.; however, the City requires 28 . for a public street. He referred to Condition 39 in regard to improvements along Foothill Road and further discussed this with Mr. Higdon. Condition 40 - Mr. Dommer sai the applicant does not wish to put the utilities underground, at which Mr. Swift respond that this is a requirement of the City. In regard to Condition 46, Mr. Dommer questioned r. Swift as to the estimated amount of a pro-rata share of funds for a patrol vehicle d water tender. Mr. Swift said staff will figure this out before the case goes to Counc' . Commissioner Wright referred to Condition 82.b. and felt that wo ding in the condition limits the material use to only two kinds. He thought that more xibility should be allowed and that two kinds was too restrictive. Mr. Dommer said they w uld prefer to be able to use more than two kinds. Commissioner Michelotti discussed the possibility of an eques the future. Mr. Swift pointed out that the PUD does allow for a center at some point in ility of that nature. Minutes Planning Commission Mao:h 11, 1992 Faa_ 19