PC 101007 - Laserfiche WebLink

14. Would the Planning Commission consider it appropriate to establish home sizes but allow greater square footage if there are increased green points? All the Commissioners in attendance agreed that it is appropriate to establish home sizes and would favor allowing greater square footage if the green points were increased. Ms. Decker noted that with respect to the traffic safety analysis, staff would bring forward a qualitative traffic safety study. With respect to green building points, there may be a benefit to increase green building points with larger houses. She noted that the ordinance only required 50 points and suggested that the Commission consider opportunities to include increased square footage contingent upon an increased number of LEED points. She added that the design guidelines would support having the review done by staff, as is typically done; staff did not believe that every home should come to the Planning Commission. The design guidelines would probably require detailed visuals such as those with the Mariposa Ranch and Serenity at Callippe developments. Commissioner Narum inquired what would happen to the other eight lots that were approved as part of the original PUD if the Commission were to approve the six lots; she assumed that the eight lots were being counted towards the housing cap. Ms. Decker noted that she would look at the Housing Element to provide the answer. Commissioner Narum inquired whether it was within the Commission’s purview at the time of approval to stipulate that those houses be counted towards the transit-oriented development (TOD). Ms. Decker replied that the number of units would be thrown into the “pot” that can be used anywhere in the City, such as for a TOD or elsewhere. She did not believe it would be reasonable to require the applicant to buy a particular site on which to place the homes because it was a market-driven issue. In response to Commissioner Narum’s question regarding whether the developer would be obligated to build the homes elsewhere if a lesser number of homes were to be built at this site or if the number of homes would return to the “pot,” Ms. Harryman replied that they would not be obligated to build the homes elsewhere. State law requires the City to find a place for those homes; a specific parcel would not be identified, but the City must re-establish where the homes would go. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED. Mr. Hirst noted that they were trying to reduce the number of approved lots from 13 to six. He noted that one reason was to reduce the amount of grading as well as eliminate an approved roadway and man-made recreational facilities. They were attempting to make a significant improvement and maintain a rural image. He noted that the LEED points were applicable at the time construction is to be considered and that there was little they could do on a land plan with respect to LEED points and believed that the project would comply with LEED, but the checklist should not be required at this time. With respect to the tree removal and replacement, he noted that the tree report identified approximately 74 trees in poor condition; Hort Science recommended that they be removed. He had looked at the swale and identified scrub and brush PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 10, 2007 Page 18 of 21