PC 031208 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Fox believed there was a 10 dB decrease for residential uses as well and requested that staff check into that possibility. Mr. Pavan noted that he would explore that possibility; he reiterated, however, that it was 60 dB at the property line for residential properties. Ms. Decker confirmed Mr. Pavan's statement and stated that there was no requirement for the residents to reduce the noise level to 50 dB within those hours. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Narum regarding the wall in the front elevation, Terry Townsend, project architect, stated that the wall was present in the previous visual and that they did not intend to retain it. The only walls they intended to retain were two existing pilasters that will be stuccoed over with the same texture as the house. The existing front fence will also be removed. He noted that the visuals were done by outside consultants and that it was difficult to remove one element in the visual. He described the proposed prof ect in detail and displayed a PowerPoint presentation of the site. He noted that a noise analysis had been performed at Club Sport and at the side of the property. The noise levels at the tennis court were in the upper 40 dB to the lower 50 dB range; the ambient noise at the site matched that noise level. He presented color and materials board and added that the landscape architect had submitted eight sheets of landscape, hardscape, and exterior lighting plans. The grading and drainage plan was provided by the civil engineer. He stated that the drainage on the existing parcel was inadequate, and there were some drainage problems onto the bushes after a recent storm. The existing small concrete V-ditch was inadequate for the amount of water flowing through and would be removed; two new V-ditches would be installed. He noted that the drainage issues had been resolved. He stated that additional point of view visuals displayed the perspective from the Watts' and Allens' homes; he also displayed a conceptual five-year landscaping rendering had been created. Mr. Townsend stated that the property was surrounded by open fencing and described the meetings with the neighbors to review the initial concept plan. The plan was revised based on the neighbors' input. Scott Adams, applicant, noted that after he and his architect met with his neighbors, he spent between $30,000 and $40,000 to make adjustments to their plans. He noted that they produced a digital rendering, put up story poles, moved the footprint, and redid the drainage and tree reports. He acknowledged that the plan was not perfect but went a long way towards addressing the neighbors' concerns. He noted that his home was large partly because it included his home office as well as sufficient room for their elderly parents and grandparents should they need it. He noted that he wished to build the tennis court for health reasons. He was confident that the noise would not be audible past the property line at any time, day or night. He noted that construction activities would only occur on Saturday in special cases. He stipulated that it was a large house and that he would like to have private use of their back yard. He noted that the only solution was a roof and that he did not have any concerns about the neighbors' landscaping preferences. He noted that it was too soon to determine the placement for the solar panels. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 12, 2008 Page 11 of 22