10-15-2007 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

Page 4 of� } ❑ Melanie further stated in her assessment, "The applicant has responded to the Planning Commission's direction from the August meeting with the most recent version of the proposed plans.� The general opinion of staff with Option#1, the applicant's revised proposal may be more reasonable than was initially proposed.❑ The massing on the point end of the house has been somewhat minimized, the building's height continues to meet code requirements and the rooflines are not extreme." ❑ It was certainly our intent to meet the clear direction of the Planning Commission.❑ We think the direction was clear with the two specific changes requested. ❑ We believe that we fully met the Commission's requests andOMelanie's staff report, we believe, clearly supports that staff both believed the direction was clear and that the options met the requests. ❑ The staff recommendation in the September 12 memo stated that, "Should the Commission find that the applicant's revised plans meet their direction then an approval recommendation should be forwarded to the City Council for their review." . . Planning Commission Meeting Two � ❑ Per the above, we believed that the second meeting would agree with staff that the requests had been met and vote to approve the recommendation and sent it on to the Council. ❑ Three of the four commissioners present at the second meeting had not attended the first meeting, so did not have the benefit of the "detailed" discussion that took place at that first meeting regarding the plans and why the Commission had provided the clear and specific direction we were given. ❑ Melanie indicated that she had discussed the driveway options with the Fire Department and they � would prefer that the driveway be left as is at its current width.❑ Melanie also indicated that staff would be okay with the additional hardcover that this would entail from plan Option#3. � It became clear it would be best to table the discussion since the second group of Commissioners was taking a completely different approach than the first meeting. ❑ Hopefully, at a third meeting, at least one of the Commissioners that provided the direction for the development of new plans will be present to review and comment on the changes they requested. Summary Of Options � � I would prefer to narrow the driveway in order to make the proposed plans hardcover neutral with what is there today. ❑ I understand that the Fire Department would prefer to keep the driveway as is and I'm amenable to that: ❑ We believe both plan Options#I and II presented at the second Planning Commission meeting met the direction provided by the Planning Commission following the detailed discussion at the August 20 meeting, as neither adds hardcover toward the point and both employ a reduced roofline, as requested. � I would like to implement plan Option#II as I think it can be executed in such a way as it would not appear to be more mass that what is there today.0 The site where the patio and trellis are is landscaped in such a way as to be virlually unseen from the lake.❑ Being on the end of the point, the location can also be seen by only one neighbor (Echtenkamp's, who have written the City expressing strong support for the plan).❑ I would plan to use the retractable screens that would only be put down when the porch is in use and a clear plexiglass railing on the deck that would be virtually unseen.❑ I think the net effect 10/11/2007