PC 010908 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Fox inquired if there would be a height limit on the tennis court building if it were built as a separate structure from the main house. Mr. Pavan replied that the height limit refers back to the R-1-20,000 standard with a 30-foot maximum measured from the lowest grade to the midpoint of the sloped roof. He stated that he would have to research if a detached tennis court would be considered a second primary residence or an accessory structure and that he would bring that information back to the Commission. He added that staff had looked into separating the tennis court with a view of minimizing the building mass. Commissioner Fox inquired if the separate structures connected by a breezeway in the Mariposa Ranch homes are considered to be one or two building or an accessory structure. Mr. Pavan replied that the height requirement would be a consideration in this case. He indicated that a garage would be a detached accessory structure with a maximum height of 15 feet, generally located in a setback area, thus requiring a shorter building as it is a lot closer to the property line. He noted that whether the tennis court is dictated by the primary structure setback would be something he would need to research. Chair Blank requested staff to look into this and bring back the information possibly at another workshop. The Commission then proceeded to consider the different questions. Does the Planning Commission conceptually support the proposed siting of the structures on the site with respect to location, setbacks, and the buildings' orientation? Commissioner Narum: Yes. She indicated that she supported what the applicants have done in trying to find a compromise to mitigate some of the concerns of the neighbor to the rear. She noted that considering the lot as it is and where the structures might have been placed if the neighbors' concerns were not taken into account, what the applicants are proposing is less than ideal but they have done so as a compromise with the neighbors. Commissioner Olson: Yes. Commissioner Pearce: Yes. She agreed with Commissioner Narum and expressed her appreciation for the applicants' efforts to maneuver the building within the lot. Commissioner Fox: Yes; however, she stated that she would like to see a composite elevation showing both structures together before giving her final "yes." Commissioner O'Connor: Yes. He noted that in terms of the siting of the structures and the setbacks, the landscaping was missing which would have a big impact; however, since the building has been moved, the siting on the lot itself is fine. Chair Blank Yes. He expressed concern about the building mass but noted that it could be remedied by architectural tricks. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 9, 2008 Page 20 of 28