PC 10/13/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ Mr. Green will get used to the noise level and will not notice the number of trips. Commissioner Wright feels that to keep the balance of the neighborhood the same, he cannot agree to the seven foot fence along Mr. Green's property. Commissioner Hovingh also concurs with the Commissioners, altho~gh he does not support adding the extra two feet to the rear of Plan 1. He also feels that a4ding another half-bath will substantially increase the cost of the house. Commissioner Finch believes the half-bath would be a needed additipn. He would also like to give the developer the option of adding the two feet to the rear o~ Plan 1. Regarding the fencing for Mr. Green, he would like to maintain a six foot fence t~ mitigate the light problems. He would also like the Homeowners Associations rules fPr fencing consulted to avoid future problems. ' Chairman McGuirk supports this project, although he does not suppcllrt adding additional square footage to the six Plan 1 lots. He would rather have the marlket determine if they are marketable. Chairman McGuirk would like Mr. Green to decide wijat type of fence he would like. He does not feel the developer needs to match the backfard fence to the sideyard fence. : In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Hovingh, Mr. Swift statCd that the Final Map cannot be approved until there is a solution to the fencing problem. : If a plan cannot be worked out between the homeowner and the developer, the Plannin~ Director would make a decision on the fencing. Furthermore, Mr. Swift stated that decisioq. is appealable to either the Planning Commission or to the City Council. A motion was made by Cornrni...~ioner Mahern, seconded by CO~rni"5ioner Wright, regarding Case PUD-90-20-1M and Tract Map 6291, rmding no ~ew information of significance had been discovered which would affect the previouS approval of the Negative Declaration. : ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: I Commissioners Hovingh, Finch, Mahern, Wright, and Chairman McGuirk , None . Commissioner Michelotti None A motion was made by Cornrni...~ioner Mahern, seconded by CO;Ei . ioner Wright, making the PUD rmdings and recommending approval of Case 9O-20-1M, subject to the conditions in Exhibit "B.1" and with the following modifi tion: , . Add Condition #16 allowing the developer to decrease the backyard set back by two feet to allow flexibility in the design ot Plan 1. A discussion ensued among the Commissioners concerning the livab~ity of Plan 1 with the increased footage in the floor plan versus the reduced rear yard. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 October 13, 1993