SR 05:320 - Laserfiche WebLink

builder, and the taxpayers a lot of money; he added that the owner tried to talk with the appellant, but the appellant hung up on the owner. He noted that the City approved publications on design requirements and house sizes that were given to every buyer of a lot on this site, He believed this process worked well and that several other projects were underway. He noted that it costs $12.50 to file an appeal and believed it should be higher to prevent harassment actions; he believed this appeal was such an action, Vanessa Kawaihau, 871 Sycamore Road, noted that she was one of two Happy Valley residents who had spoken in favor of this PUD process. She understood this process was to preserve the rural atmosphere of the Happy Valley community and that this was a new development. She noted that the owner only had two feet left for accessory buildings. She noted that part of the charm of the Happy Valley area was that the lots were large, with multiple buildings on them. She noted that several of her elderly neighbors did not attend because this item was to be heard later in the evening; she noted that three of the neighbors were glad that the original square footage had been reduced, They would like to see that change in writing, She noted that the applicant had been approved for the larger ofthe two homes and believed that ifMr. Wagner had not appealed, the applicant would have built the large home, Kevin Close, 871 Sycamore Road, noted that this development was intended to comply with the semi-rural character of the area, He added that in the past staff reports, Wayne Rasmussen and Brian Swift had always conceived the homes to be estate-sized homes at the golf course, He added that the only reference to estate-sized homes was in the developer's handbook; it did not specify that they should be built on this site, He noted that in the original PUD-98-0 16 conditions of approval approved in October 1999, Condition 6, Item C, stated: "Production home design shall be subject to the review and approval." He did not believe that production estate homes were being built, and he added that it had been modified. He could not say that the intention had always been for estate-sized homes to be built. He believed they should be in keeping with the semi-rural character of the community and was concerned about the massing, He was very concerned about large homes being placed on small lots and that the views and character would be destroyed, contrary to the provisions of the Specific Plan. Commissioner Fox returned to the dais. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Maas whether this application has complied with the guidelines proposed with respect to setbacks, height restrictions, and FAR, Mr. Pavan confirmed that the proposed design was compliant. Commissioner Fox noted that she would abstain from this vote because she was not present for the entire public hearing. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding the height of the home, Mr. Pavan confirmed that the height ofthe house was 30 feet, measured from grade to the top edge ofthe ridge. Page 5 of the staff report detailed the setback requirements, EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, October 19,2005 Page 3 of 4 .------