Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. parejo stated he is willing to come before the Planning Commis ion for final approval <br />once the house is designed. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson stated that staff feels comfortable allowing a two-story <br />stated stipulations in the staff report, deleting the view easement, an <br />Commission's control by bringing the design review application bac <br />ensure that the house is designed sensitive to the view. <br /> <br />30 ft. portion, with the <br />increasing the <br />to the Commission to <br /> <br />Chairman McGuirk clarified that staff was recommending a 120' set ack, 1,000 sq. ft. <br />second story limitation, 35 ft. north side setback, and the second sto could be set back <br />from the fust story building wall but not to the full 150' setback. It would then come back <br />before the Planning Commission. Mr. Parejo fmds these restriction acceptable. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson stated that the City Planners encourage applicants to co e in with a preliminary <br />plan, a simple sketch, location of second story, etc. to get feedback om staff. Mr. parejo <br />is encouraged to come to City staff with a preliminary sketch plan, d if it is felt that it <br />meets the intent of the PUD conditions, the detailed drawings can th n be drawn. Mr. <br />Parejo requested that once he gets approval of the preliminary drawi gs from City staff, he <br />come before the Planning Commission for approval. The Planning ommission would then <br />not be involved in the details of the final elevations. Commissioner ichelotti further stated <br />that once the Zoning Administrator approves the final plans, it can s "ll come before the <br />Planning Commission, as they have the right to appeal the design if t does not conform to <br />the PUD intentions. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright stated that he felt Mr. Parejo made every g faith effort to mitigate <br />with Mr. Zuffa and the view easement, which is an issue that is not equired. He feels that <br />Condition 3k should be amended to say that the 30 ft. height may be permitted, and the <br />second story portion shall be maintained on the southern portion of e house with an <br />architectural setback of the second-story element. This seems to be workable compromise <br />for both parties. He also feels Mr. Parejo should not have to go thr ugh another design <br />review step with the Commission. Furthermore, if the property is ld, the new owner will <br />be responsible to seek approval of the proposed building design wi n the stated conditions, <br />not the applicant. <br /> <br /> <br />Commissioner Mahern supports the project and concurs with the ch ges to Condition 3k and <br />Condition 6. She doesn't feel Mr. Parejo needs to go through a sec nd design review. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Commi....ioner Hovingh, seconded by Co . ioner Michelotti, <br />rmding the project would not have a significant effect on the env' onment and <br />recommending approval of the Negative Declaration prepared fo Case PUD-93-01. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOTES: <br />ABSENT: <br />ABSTAIN: <br /> <br /> <br />Commissioners Hovingh, Mahern, Michelotti, Wright d Chairman McGuirk <br />None <br />None <br />Commissioner Finch <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />September 8, 1993 <br />