PC 031401 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Kameny returned to the dais. ,- Mr. Swift presented the staff report regarding PUD-6, providing an overview of the proposal. He noted that the Planning Commission had previously held a workshop on the proposal, at which time the Commission indicated that it found the application complete and indicated that it felt favorably with the key elements of the plan. He provided an update on the issues which had not been resolved at the time of the workshop, noting that staff feels all of the issues have been satisfactorily addressed. He advised that the geotechnical peer review for the vineyard portion of the application has not been completed, and that any recommendations from the review would be incorporated into the overall planting plan. He commented on staff's preference to realign a portion of the trail and Centex's proposed setbacks for the detached garages. Mr. Swift advised that Centex Homes has requested that Condition 4.c.(3) be modified to allow them to work with staff to provide for some flexibility on the issue of the retaining walls. He stated that staff would support a modification to allow the applicant to work with staff in order to delete or reduce the pad differentials so that retaining walls could be minimized. He also noted that Condition 4.d.(3) should read: ". . . at entrances to "D" and "E" Streets. . ." ".- Staff responded to questions posed by the Planning Commission related to growth management allocations, landscaping maintenance responsibilities, and the Roberts' driveway access. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Arkin, Mr. Swift advised that parking will be allowed on both sides of Street "A," but that there would only be a sidewalk on the side of the street along the front of the school. Discussion ensued regarding the sidewalk proposal throughout the project. The Planning Commission also discussed the contract with Wente for maintenance of the vineyards and the time frame for the planting plan. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Arkin, Mr. Swift advised that State law requires that school facilities must be setback 100 feet from a 60 KV line, but there is no such requirement for a day care center. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Swift advised that the South Livermore Valley Trust is in agreement with the way the easement is structured. Mr. Swift also noted that in order to abandon an agreement, all parties must agree. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED COMMENTS FROM THE APPLICANT Trece Herder of Centex Homes represented the applicant. She stated that Condition 4.d.(7) refers to the requirement that orchard trees be incorporated into the school-vineyard setback area, noting that the original plan showed sycamore trees that could create a canopy along that street. She noted that the applicant is not opposed to using orchard trees, but they feel they might be bettered used in another location, and would like to work with staff to relocate the orchard trees. Mr. Swift advised that the intent was not to replace the sycamore trees as the street trees, but the orchard trees be planted in the setback area between the vineyard and the school. He noted that ".- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2001 Page 7