PC 10/23/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ Commissioner Horan asked for clarification as to clustering on Parcel A and B and how many lots could actually go there. Mr. Iserson said there are two there right now, along with the Kliment lot. Only the Kliment house is in the clustering definition and would be one of the five adjoining Foothill Road if the new homes on Lots I and 2 were approved. Further discussion ensued regarding this matter. . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Peter Shutts, architect for the project, represented the application. He commented that he has worked closely with staff during the last eight months in trying to come up with something that would represent the spirit of the West Foothill Road Overlay District. He stated that no building plans are in place at this time. He addressed the matter of the private drive and the landscaping. He said he has changed the design guidelines to reflect the 30 ft. height; the 30 ft. height is measured exclusive of decks and patios. He gave the Commission a handout which pointed out the area. He felt that decks and the lower level of a house go a long way to breaking up the mass of a house as viewed from the downhill side. He briefly touched on grading issues, noting that at this time these are not definite. He felt the terraced landscaping would also make a big difference in breaking up any large mass view of the house. Mr. Shutts felt the solution to concerns of staff in regard to height of houses on Foothill Road would be to treat them on a case-by-case basis and not to try to have a black and white issue. Commissioner Hovingh commented that much care should be exercised so as not to end up with a house similar to the Dave house. Mr. Shutts responded that he did not think there was any comparison between the two applications. Commissioner Horan further discussed the concept of decks and porches with the applicant. Mr. Shutts addressed the following conditions: Condition 4 - In regard to the height, he noted that the DRB had conditioned the area underneath the deck to be to the discretion of the DRB as to whether it would or it would not count against the 30 ft. overall. Conditions 10 and 11 and 28 - All three deal with setbacks along the easement property line between lots 1, 2, and 3. This would provide the back easement to the Starnes property. Mrs. Ku's concern is that she is now providing two accesses to the Starnes property, and wondered if this is required. She is agreeable to the one along Foothill Road, but questions whether the one going to lot 3 is necessary. Condition 14 - he had no problem with this and would negotiate with Mr. Hempy on the matter. He noted for the record that he would be happy to plant the trees as required, but said they would not completely screen the house for at least 10 years.. Condition 37 - Mr. Shutts said he has no real problem with this condition, but does not understand the term "upon demand of the City" in regard to the applicant's cost for interim street improvements for the western half of Foothill Road. He felt it was reasonable to ask for this sum when the property is developed, but he felt the condition is worded so that the City could ask for the contribution at any time. Minutes Planning Commission Meeting October 23, 1991 Page 9 -