PC 010908 - Laserfiche WebLink

shifted totally to the new neighbors. He indicated that there is a limit to what can be done with respect to the impact of the use but that they had done what they could. Mr. Townsend explained that the location of the solar panels is shown on the roof plan, Sheet No. 5 of the house plans. He stated that the panels are not above the roofline or above the 30-foot height of the building but are imbedded into the roof wells that are integrated into the structure. He indicated that solar panels are not reflective and actually absorb the daylight in order to work. He added that the panels for the pool would not be reflective either, with a dull-finished and a plastic coating. Commissioner O'Connor inquired if the parapet wall on the roofline is eight feet tall. Mr. Townsend confirmed that it was. He added that it would be 22 feet high to the ceiling with a total of 30 feet in height. He indicated that the roof comes up on one side and sinks back down on the other side in slopes such that the panels would not be visible as they are reset within the structure. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chair Blank indicated that there are three specific questions that staff would like the Commission to address and that he would like to add a fourth for other general questions and comments not covered by the three questions that the Commissioners may have. Commissioner Pearce inquired if there were any fencing standards or open-fencing requirements that need to be met such as in a Specific Plan or the PUD. Mr. Pavan replied that the site is not covered by any Specific Plan; he added that he would have to check if there were any conditions on the PUD with respect to fencing requirements. In response to Chair Blank's inquiry if this is straight-zoned, Mr. Pavan replied that it is a PUD zone that references an R-1-20,000 development standards with additional standards that are part of a PUD plan. He added that this workshop focused mainly on the building, massing, and location and noted that the neighbors have expressed their preference for open fencing. He indicated that the fencing issue will be addressed in the staff report for the public hearing. He explained that the purpose of the one wall was to enclose and screen the garage court from view from Crellin Road and Gray Fox Circle in order to hide parked cars and other garage activities. Ms. Decker noted that the packet for this prof ect includes the Ordinance No. 1076 that approved this PUD, and Condition No. 24 provides that all fencing would be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. She indicated that staff would work with the applicant and the neighbors on an appropriate fence design. With respect to the various drawings on the elevations, Commissioner Fox inquired if these renderings needed to be combined to get a complete picture of the east elevation, and if so, would it be feasible to have them. Mr. Pavan replied that the east elevation would be a composite of the elevations for the tennis court and the house. He added that it would be possible to have that done. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 9, 2008 Page 19 of 28