PC 06/10/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

,-. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Jeff McMullen represented Fremont Land and is current owner of th that he has no objections to the recommendations. However, he ask the setbacks on the rear and wanted to be sure that it is 30 ft. from setback easement line, and not 30 ft. beyond that easement line. He the setback might not be wide enough as there are several trees in th must be avoided. He simply wanted it clear so that when the homeo also understand where the setbacks are. nine lots. He stated for clarification on e top of the bank or the xpressed concern that area of the setback that ner comes in, that they In reply to Mr. McMullen's question, Mr. Swift replied that staff h discussed this with him, and he did not think there needed to be a change. He further xplained to Mr. McMullen and sketched a map of the area. In discussing this with s ff, Mr. Swift noted there are one or two lots where the creek setback line is more towar Foothill Road than the actual top of bank. His understanding in talking with staff is that th e is the actual top of bank and then there is a creek setback line which sounds like what ne 7 calls the "top of bank" based on their calculation from top of slope. However, it is ot the 20 ft. setback that Mr. McMullen had spoken of. Mr. McMullen felt that the 30 ft. setback was for the rear yard pro rty line and wanted this very clear as whether it would be 20 ft. or 30 ft. Mr. Swift comme ted that what the applicant is recommending is that the setback be 20 ft. from the actu top of bank; staff is ,-. recommending 30 ft. from either the actual top of bank or a two to 0 e slope, which in his understanding is only on two lots. He thought it was most realistic look at the lots as stopping at the top of bank, not at the bottom of a creek. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CWSED. Chairman Hovingh expressed some concern about building height an said he would not want the houses to exceed 30 ft. in height above road grade. Commissioner Mahern referred to Table 3, Building Design, and sug ested that the word "avoided" be changed to prohibited. Staff had no problem with that. . ioner Wright -5 would be consistent A motion was made by Comml"s\oner Mahern, seconded by Co rmding that the proposed PUD rezoning for Case GP-92-2/PUD- with the new General Plan land use designation. ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: Commissioners Mahern, McGuirk, Michelotti, Wright NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None and Chairman Hovingh /_. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1992 Page 17