PC 10/13/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

does not deal effectively with the concerns expressed. Further, that the applicant's preference is to retain the original PUD submittal dated September 10, 1999 which does not provide for a berm and does not relocate any homes into the flat. He noted that tonight's comment will be based on the original PUD. Mr. Champion stated that the developer feels the project is in compliance with the Happy Valley Specific Plan specifically relating to areas of land use, breakdown by sub-areas, flat area compliance, terms of the preservation of the semi-rural character, including rural ranch design elements of homes, grading, road layout, plotting of the homes, protection of environment, medium-density homes designed to eliminate views from Happy Valley, protection of view sheds, wetlands, heritage trees, fencing to preserve view corridors, and no identification of threatened species. He noted that an attempt has been made to stay away from slide zones, that drainage into the creek has been minimized, and detention basins will be provided in the medium density area. He noted that the project complies with the Specific Plan as it relates to traffic circulation, and that a by-pass road has been provided with the issues of alignment of the by-pass road previously being settled. He commented on the provision of trails and EVA's. He noted the significant benefits of the infrastructure including the provision of the off- site - sewer and water throughout Happy Valley, with T.T.K, New Cities, and SummerHill Homes being the funding developers. Mr. Champion noted that SummerHill is providing the construction for the most difficult portion of the by-pass road, which is a benefit to the City. He noted that the developer is making a recommendation that the by-pass road right-of-way be considered for future study. He noted that the developer questions whether the by-pass road right-of-way needs to be 44 feet in width and that to the extent that it can be reduced, will reduce the amount of grading impacts. He stated that SummerHill Homes is a participant in the North Sycamore financing plan in the amount of roughly $800,000, and that if the project is not approved, that SummerHill's share of the financing plan would need to be borne by others. Mr. Champion commented on the staff report and stated that the Specific Plan does not restrict single- family detached product type, that this project is providing 4.6 units an acre against a target density of five units an acre, which will lessen impacts on City services and by-pass road traffic. He noted that it was not feasible for the developer to do an attached product. Mr. Champion stated that this property is a steep slope property and to provide recreational amenities is another burden the property has to bear compared with the other properties in the Specific Plan area. He noted that a good portion of the medium- density area is being taken up by the by-pass road and trail system and that a recreational amenity will not work in this area. He noted that the developer's grading and lotting plan provides the best approach to deal with impacts on views, including the use of single-story homes, landscaping, screening, and limited amount ofberming around detention basin. He stated that the only grading that would be proposed in the flat area is what cannot be accommodated in the medium density area, and the design allows for the bulk of the grading to be against the toe of the slope. He noted that the developer is opposed to staff s recommendation for removal of four lots in the medium-density area to minimize grading in the flat area. He noted that as many lots as possible are desired for this property. Mr. Champion noted his pleasure with staffs comment on the architecture of the homes in the project. He encouraged the Commission to acknowledge that the architecture will be the most endearing and have the most dominant impact. Further, that the homes were designed with the quality of standards Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1999 Page 13