3.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/00 July 12, 2000 Page 7 Commissioner Vitu appreciated the concerns expressed but they need to look at the original subdivision and the approved building site and the fact that 18 acres are in a conservation easement. The applicants have done a good job trying to minimize the impact on the site. She felt the house was low profile and they have certainly been through much effort trying to have the driveway meet the engineering criteria and the retaining walls meet the planning department criteria. Regarding the reduction in square footage, her understanding was that the increase was to include the water tank which is considered desirable. Regarding the pathway, she was concerned that there was uncontrolled public access very close to their home and would be sympathetic for a relocation. Regarding grading moratorium and storm drain, she felt the applicants could work with staff. She was not sure about the grading needing to be completed by July 1St but if staff was convinced that it could be accomplished in time, it would be agreeable. Commissioner Cottrell stated that this is an approved lot with two building sites. He believes in preserving ridgelines but landscaping will mitigate the house and driveway. He knows the road is a challenge but they have the fire department's okay. They have heard that the engineering can be solved but with high retaining walls. He could support the project. Commissioner Wong also moved to the town for the rustic atmosphere. Looking at the house, the issue is consistent with the General Plan and objective by treating everyone fairly. When building, you are going to see neighbors. The Town approved this as a building site. He felt this was consistent with the General Plan and meets codes. There is no reason to deny the project. The landscape plan will mitigate the site. He also agreed to realign the pathway. Commissioner Clow agreed with the previous comments. The original approval indicates there was a building site on the upper site. The applicants have done everything they can do to make the project as compatible with the area and surrounding neighbors as possible. The argument regarding grading earlier to get the mitigating vegetation in place during the winter is a good one. He is not in favor of the off road pathway but if they have a pathway he would hope it would be realigned. Chairman Gottlieb noted that they do not allow nine foot retaining walls. Staff mentioned in previous reports that it was the total earth that will be moved and all the retaining walls which were the problem. Also, on a ridgeline, there should be a single story house. This will be extremely visible to surrounding areas. Originally they were to have a house on either the top or lower site. The approved lower site house is not compatible with the upper site (defacto subdivision). The secondary dwelling should be subordinate and compatible with the main residence. The applicants had a choice of either building at the top of the hill or the bottom but not on both. She did not feel this was in keeping with the General Plan or ordinances. If approved she asked that the landscape plan return to the Planning Commission for review and approval. She was in favor of the staff recommendation for grading no later than July 1St and asked staff for an explanation of the request which was answered by Jeff Peterson. He indicated that the recommendation was a practical issue. He reviewed the cut and fill, the retaining walls, and the width of the road indicating it was very optimistic to think they could complete the grading in two months. The basis for the condition was due to the big job and it would be better to have a good long construction season rather than starting at the end of a construction season. Regarding condition#1 (drainage), he has no problem working with the applicants to see if there