PC 08/10/88 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Hovingh supported the project while not enamored with hillside developments. He hoped that this development help to set standards for other hillside developments in the area. He asked that a copy of the geological report be sent to the responsible state agency. Commissioner Hovingh agreed with the comments of Commissioner Mahern relative to Conditions No. 26 and 27. Commissioner Berger stated that the project is very-well designed and takes advantage of the terrain. She shared some concern with regard to park access but felt that to be in the purview of the Park and Recreation Commission. Commissioner Berger felt that the City should be responsible for all, or nothing, relative to the sewer and water items discussed. Chairman Michelotti stated that the Commission is very pleased at having reviewed the renderings presented, noting the open space and other amenities. Chairman Michelotti asked about the fencing proposed. Mr. Swift reviewed the fencing plan for the project. Chairman Michelotti discussed the tree survey and if Court "G" were reversed if the trees could be saved. Mr. Swift explained the changes as a result of the geotechnical report done for the site. Commissioner Tarver asked if it would be an administrative nightmare to have fence plans come before the Design Review Board for approval. Mr. Fairfield stated that this is already built in as part of the process. A motion was made by Commissioner Berger, seconded by Commissioner Mahern that Case PUD-85-15-2D be recommended for approval as it conforms to the zoning and General Plan land use of the area, subject to the conditions of the staff report (as revised) but deleting Revised Condition No. 26 and reinstating Conditions No. 26 and 27 as originally proposed. ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: Commissioners Berger, Hoyt, Mahern, Tarver, and Chairman Michelotti NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hoyt ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. PC-88-88 was entered and adopted recommending approval of Case PUD-85-15-2D as motioned. -10-