PC 08/10/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ be more than first anticipated. Additionally, during the sale of the lots, the two remodeled houses will give a better marketing presence relative to the new subdivision development. Mr. Dommer stated he had read and agrees with the staff report, the conditions in Exhibit "B" and the amended conditions dated 8/10/94. Chairman Wright stated he would like to delete a sentence from Condition 18 which states "should any proposed construction of a new home on this lot ... be proposed without removal of residence A or B, it shall necessitate the application and approval of a PUD major modification." Mr. Swift stated the condition could be so modified, although the Commission cannot stop an individual from seeking a major modification to the PUD to keep the two existing residences. Chairman Wright would like to impose a deadline for the demolition of the two residences after construction of the new home, and also feels the future property owner should not have the option to keep the houses even after seeking a major modification. Mr. Beougher advised that the property owner could consider one of the residences a "granny flat," and the City would have difficulty denying him that use. Chairman Wright has concern that these two residences are within the 50 foot toe of the geotechnically sensitive hillside. Mr. Swift advised that a major modification is the process allowed by Code, although the City may not allow the use, thereby requiring the demolition of the houses. Chairman Wright also noted Condition 24 regarding the use of asphalt or other acceptable material for the driveway. He does not want oil and gravel to be used in this location. Mr. Dommer advised that asphalt already exists in front of the garages, and he advised that oil and gravel would not be used. Chairman Wright agrees to letting the Planning Director approve the design of the windows. He noted a discrepancy between the staff report description and the renderings of the front porch design. Mr. Dommer stated their intent was to dress up the front of the house. Commissioner McGuirk inquired about the possibility of subdividing the subject lot. Mr. Swift stated that most of this lot is in the nonbuildable zone, and the footprint of the buildable area is quite constrained. Furthermore, the individual would have to go back to the development plan to add another lot and would have to get both the Planning Commission and the City Council's approval to a major PUD modification. Commissioner McGuirk's point was that scenario may be feasible before any other building has taken place, whereas, it would be unfeasible after the 33 homes have been built. Mr. Swift advised that if any exchanging or trading of lots was to occur in order to accommodate a deviation in street layout, it would have be done with the developer, which is unlikely. If the lot had been sold to an individual, any subdividing would have to be incorporated within the property lines of that particular lot. Mr. Dommer advised Commissioner Barker that residence "A" is occupied by a family with children and the residence "B" is occupied by a senior couple. Planning Commission Minutes Pag~ 4 August 10, 1994