PC 101806 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Olson noted that he had seen a house in that azea that appeazed to be purple and inquired whether there was any process to prevent that from happening in this development. Acting Chairperson Fox noted that particulaz custom house was denied by the Planning Commission several yeazs ago by a vote of 4-1, which was then appealed to the City Council with staff s recommendation to change the colors. The City Council approved the appeal by a vote of 5-0. Ms. Decker noted that the design guidelines provided a color palette, and if a house were to be painted contrary to those guidelines, it would be a code enforcement issue. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O'Connor regarding whether it was staff s recommendation to change the proposed development guidelines back from the proposed 30-foot front and rear yazd setbacks to the Specific Plan 35-foot front and reaz yazd setbacks, Ms. Decker replied that the City is reluctant to process Specific Plan amendments in general. She noted that these documents aze typically written whereby the decision-makers, staff, and the applicants aze provided with the flexibility of interpretation. In this particulaz case where the Specific Plan defines the setbacks, there appeazed to be less flexibility. The City typically uses the PUD modification process to vazy setbacks or other variances from the PUD development standazds. The applicant is ~ requesting consideration to modify the design guidelines as a part of the proposed action to allow the reduced front and reaz yazd setbacks to 30 feet. Commissioner O'Connor suggested that if the setbacks were to remain at 35 feet to be consistent with the Specific Plan, and if a specific lot had difficulty and needed a variance, that may be the best procedure, rather than setting setbacks differently from what is required in the Specific Plan. Ms. Harryman noted that it would not be so much a vaziance than a modification to the PUD, along with a Specific Plan amendment. Ms. Decker requested afive-minute recess to allow staff and counsel to confer on this matter. A recess was called at 7:42 p.m. Acting Chairperson Fox reconvened the meeting at 7:52 p.m. After conferring with counsel, Ms. Decker clarified that with respect to Commissioner O'Connor's question regazding a PUD modification to allow a setback reduction in the future, not only a PUD modification but also a Specific Plan Amendment would technically be required to actually reduce those setbacks. !" THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 18, 2006 Page 5 of 22