PC 010908 - Laserfiche WebLink

2. Should the dwelling and tennis court be divided into two separated structures or two separate structures connected by a breezeway or similar structure? Commissioner O'Connor: He noted that his answer would depend on staff's research regarding building heights for separate structures. He stated that if separating the structures would put the tennis court outside of the primary buildings envelope and limit its height to 15 feet, it would be impossible to build an indoor tennis court. His answer is "no." He noted that the massing would look larger if a breezeway was built or if the structures are separated by just a few feet. He added that it would also move the structure closer to the property line, making it more visible to the neighbors; massing would go in the wrong direction. Commissioner Fox: She indicated that before she made any comments, she would first like to see staff's memo on the ramifications of separating the structures and the composite elevations with perhaps one of the buildings turned a little bit more to look less massive.. She noted, however, that at this point, her preference is to keep them together as one structure. Commissioner Pearce: No. She stated that it would not matter if they were separated. She noted that the massing comments from the neighbors have nothing to do with the connector between the house and the tennis court and that she was not certain separating the structures would affect the visual massing. She indicated that she does not see any point in separating the structures. Commissioner Olson: He agreed with Commissioner Fox that he would like to see staff s memo first; however, his inclination is not to separate the structures. He added that he would not like to see the Commission preventing the building an indoor, regulation-sized tennis court. Commissioner Narum: No. She expressed concern that separating the structures would shift them more into the view corridor and end up closer to someone else's property; while it may alleviate some of the massing, it would create more significant issues. Commissioner Blank: He indicated that he is inclined not to separate the structures. He stated that while the memo is important, he did want to get tied down by a strict interpretation of the rules. He indicated that barring the unforeseen, they should remain together; separating them is worse than if they were kept together. 3. Is there additional detailing that the Planning Commission may wish to see added to the structure ? Chair Blank inquired if staff is looking for general comments or detailing of the design elements. Mr. Pavan replied that it would be both general and specific comments. He requested the Commissioners to provide comments regarding the elevations such as if the structures would benefit from additional detailing, for example, adding more stone and where or adding wood detailing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 9, 2008 Page 21 of 28