Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r <br /> <br />Commissioner Sullivan took issue with Item 2, and did not believe there was sufficient <br />benefit to the community to extend the PUD. There were other housing needs in the <br />community, and did not believe that it would be beneficial to allocate the capped number <br />of houses to this type of home. <br /> <br />There were no comments on Item 4. <br /> <br />Chairperson Maas expressed concern about the fencing in Item 5, and noted that the <br />Preserve had many kinds of fencing. She was concerned about the visual impact of the <br />fencing on the lots that were visible. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson noted that staff would require shrubs or landscaping to be planted in front of <br />the wood fences, so that the view from offsite would not be ofthe fence, but of the <br />landscaping. <br /> <br />Chairperson Maas agreed with Mr. Iserson's recommendation. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kameny noted that he was not aware of any subdivision this small where <br />two photo voltaic houses were offered. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />Commissioner Sullivan believed that was a good idea, and wished to structure the <br />conditions so that it would actually happen. He thanked Mr. McDonald for proposing that <br />option. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson suggested reopening the public hearing so that the applicant may respond to <br />the Commissioners' comments regarding the minor modification/major modification <br />issue. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. <br /> <br />Mr. McDonald advised that Mr. Kolb's major concern was the extension of the PUD. He <br />noted that the reason the Tentative Map was started in April was so there would be <br />sufficient time for the Final Map. <br /> <br />He noted that the City Council agreed in principal with staffs recommendation to <br />eliminate the 4,500 square foot limitation, if the homes were kept to one story. <br /> <br />In response to the inquiry my Chairperson Maas, Mr. McDonald stated that the architect <br />recommended against a 22 foot height because it would lead to a cramped appearance. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Iserson replied that if the lots <br />for the other homes were excavated two feet in order to reduce the height impact, the <br />grading plan would have to be reworked. He noted that option could be explored. He <br />r-- noted that a low roof was more compatible with a smaller footprint. He noted that the <br /> <br />Plarming Commission Minutes <br /> <br />August 28, 2002 <br /> <br />Page 19 <br />