PC 011409 - Laserfiche WebLink

unsure what the consensus might be with the project and wanted to have the PUD project come before the Commission. In response to Commissioner Fox's earlier question, Ms. Decker stated that it is not atypical to have a project come before the Commission more than once; however, in the past, the City has experienced times where projects have come back numerous times prior to the PUD process when there is controversy or concern or where it does not quite meet the underlying documents and zoning. Mr. Dolan stated that he was not part of the Planning Division during the first workshop but that the applicant essentially came back to staff and expressed concern that there were only three Commissioners at the workshop and whether it was an accurate reading as to what might happen. He noted that staff contemplated it, had a meeting with the applicant and the City Manager, and he and the City Manager collectively concluded that there was no harm in revisiting it at a better- attended workshop. Commissioner Narum inquired howthe site development standards on rear yard setbacks compares with the Mariposa project. Ms. Amos replied that she was not familiar with the Mariposa project setbacks but that it was likely the same. Ms. Decker indicated that staff has not done a comprehensive evaluation or analysis between the two projects but that the setbacks were greater in some cases and smaller in others. She added that staff could bring back this information at a future meeting. Commissioner Fox inquired if it would be helpful, if Commissioner Narum is asking questions, to bring back the information and hold a workshop with the combined information rather than have a piecemeal workshop. Ms. Decker replied that the purpose of a workshop is to find out what concerns or questions the Commission may have regarding a project and that a workshop is a perfect opportunity to ask those questions. She added that staff can return, as directed by the Commission, either as another workshop to fully discuss those questions or as a hearing item. Mr. Dolan stated that it would be most useful to staff to know whether or not the Commission supports the fundamental question, which is that the applicant is asking for more units than are currently allowed by the General Plan and the Specific Plan and would require changes to those Plans. He added that the rationale presented by the applicant is that surrounding properties have a development pattern more similar to what he is proposing than what he has been assigned in those Plans and that there are leftover allocations because not all the developments in that area have used up all of their total units. He noted that the expectation of what would happen in that part of the community has not played out the way it was original thought. He stated that in this respect, the rear setbacks are a minor matter, but would certainly need to be addressed once the fundamental question has been addressed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 14, 2009 Page 18 of 35