Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Discussion ensued between Chairman Mahem and Mr. Hempy in gard to how he came to <br />purchase the property. Chairman Mahem said she was under the i pression that the area <br />was to be left as open space. Mr. Hempy said it was a remainder iece by definition or a <br />piece that he had to prove was a Lot of Record. He had to go to e County and show that it <br />was a piece of property that was merged several years ago for tax ns. Mr. Hempy <br />indicated that it was only supposed to be left temporarily as open <br /> <br />Peter Shutts, 4133 Mohr Avenue, stated he is architect for the proj t. He noted that when <br />they were designing the house they did a lot of study, at staff s l' est, in regard to the line <br />of sight. He said the line of sight follows the slope of the land. e felt that with adequate <br />screening, the proposed house will be 99 percent invisible from vi w. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSFD. <br /> <br />Mr. Swift pointed out to the Commission that staffs only concern is one of density; <br />otherwise, staff is very pleased with the design of the house. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Hovingh, seconded by Co missioner Michelotti <br />finding that the project would not have any significant effect on th environment and adopt a <br />resolution recommending approval of the draft Negative Declarati n prepared for Case PUD- <br />91-19. <br /> <br />ROLL CAU. VOTE <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br />ABSTAIN: <br /> <br />Commissioners Hovingh, McGuirk, Michelotti, and Chairman Mahern <br />None <br />Commissioners Horan and Wright <br />None <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC-92-27 was entered and adopted recommending approval of the Negative <br />Declaration prepared for Case PUD-91-l9 as motioned. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh stated he would be in favor of supporting staff s recommendation for <br />denial as he also thinks the project is not in agreement with the RCOD guidelines. <br /> <br />Commissioner Michelotti said she had mixed feelings regarding e case. On the one hand, <br />she felt it was one of the nicest lot configurations; on the other h d, she was not convinced <br />that adequate screening could be done to screen the house. She as not comfortable with <br />approval as she felt it did not completely meet the guidelines for e WFRCOD. She stated <br />her main problem is with the house directly in front of the Hemp site and felt it would be a <br />visual problem for them. <br /> <br />Minutes Planning Commission <br />Msrch 25, 1992 <br /> <br />Page 9 <br />