PC 09/08/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commission's recommendations for the Specific Plan. He noted his concurrence with Commissioner Maas relating to the architecture of the homes and noted that the design of homes were not pedestrian friendly. He noted his concurrence with Commissioner Maas's request for design review of the project to come back before the Commission. In addition, he noted his support with side-loading garages to reduce the prominence of garages. Further, he expressed his support with the new condition on trees replacing what is contained in the staff report. He noted he had issues relating to the Specific Plan as it relates to the noise/dust issues. Further, that this is an incompatible land use for property while quarry operations are being conducted and that a disclosure or a noise/duslYvibration easement does not solve the problem, and only provides a disclaimer for the City. He stated that building of homes is premature until mining operations are ceased. Mr. Swirl noted that mining operations will continue for 50-odd years and Commissioner Sullivan noted that the length of time does not change his view. Commissioner Sullivan commented on the flat pad versus contour grading, and that due to the transition of this area from urban area to rural area he would be in favor of more contour grading and narrower streets to retain the ruralness of the area. He expressed concern with the landfill soil and possible contamination, and stated even though the vapor collection lines are a good idea, he requested that soil adjacent to landfill be tested for contamination from old landfill including toxic solvents, petra chemicals and any other contamination from dumping prior to any existing regulations on dumping. Further, he requested there be a disclosure statement of dumping in this area for open space. He noted that the visual analysis denotes the roofs on houses as green and that this is an inaccurate visual representation. Further, if visual analyses are going to be used, they should be accurate. In conclusion, he stated that these are some of the reasons he did not vote for the Specific Plan and that these are still issues, in his opinion, and he would not be in support of approving the applications. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Mr. Sullivan stated that he still has concems with the Specific Plan and if he has concerns, he has every right not to support the applications. Further, he noted it was his understanding that a traffic study was going to occur on Vineyard Avenue prior to development and he expressed his desire for that study to be conducted. Mr. Swirl noted that additional testing would be performed on the park land and Mr. Higdon noted the properties covered by the applications this evening were never part of the dumping site. Chairperson Roberts noted she did not vote on the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan due to her living in the vicinity of the area; however, she is voting on these applications due to her property not being adjacent or within a 1000 feet of these properties. She noted that sub-area 1 is different than sub-areas 2 and 3. She expressed sympathy to the people involved in the area and their involvement in the CAPP initiative process. She noted that the Vintage Hills area is unique and that the grading for Montevino is an example of poor grading. She noted that the Commission has attempted, as an approval of projects, to retain more natural grading. Further, she suggested that this project be conditioned prior to the Tentative Map approval and that grading pads be defined on the Tentative Map. She noted this area is steep and that areas with two-story residences could utilize a split pad to preserve views. She noted her pleasure with half the homes in the project being single story, which will preserve views. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 September 8, 1999