PC 09/10/86 - Laserfiche WebLink

Minutes Planning Commission September 10, 1986 last meeting, she spent a lot of time with the architect going over plans. Ms. Black stated she didn't think a meeting with Mr. O'Callaghan and others would change anything. She stated she does not want any more delays in her plans. Chairman Lindsey asked Ms. Black how far along she is with her plans. Ms. Black stated they have designed the interior of the structure. Chairman Lindsey asked Ms. Black if she was set on the location of the house. Ms. Black said it will be as represented and she will not change it from that location. Chairman Lindsey asked if the neighbors have had an opportunity to see the plan. Ms. Black said Mr. O'Callaghan was looking at the plan at the time she talked to him on the telephone. Commissioner Innes asked how the property was represented to her when she was considering purchasing it. Ms. Black said Mr. Boatright made no representations whatsoever. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Innes couldn't support this application, because of the visibility, extensive grading and drastic change in the view of the hill Further there will be a road on one-half of the entire hill. The original concept of the PUD was to have houses placed where they were the least obtrusive and would have the least amount of visual impact on the entire area. He could not support a cut of 10,000 cubic yards of dirt for one buildable pad. He felt that an effort is being made to build a large single-family flatland house on a hill. Commissioner Michelotti said the original pad cannot be used because of the road configuration. Commissioner Michelotti and staff then discussed the grading required, steepness of the slope at the bottom of the hill, and possible terracing of the yard. Commissioner Hoyt didn't feel the house could be put anywhere without the hill being torn apart. He could not support this application. Commissioner Wellman supported the previous comments of the Commissioners. Commissioner Michelotti stated that it is her understanding from the speakers that the pad itself if it is located behind the tree or next to the tree would have a less visible impact on the roadway. Chairman Lindsey said the applicant can have a choice to have this matter continued for negotiations with the neighbors or have a vote taken. He announced that personally he could not support this application. The applicant chose to have the Commission vote on the application. A motion was made by Commissioner Innes, seconded by Commissioner Hoyt to deny Case PUD-82-10-3M without prejudice for the reasons stated in the testimony. - 5 - _r