17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ponderosa may choose to construct frontage improvements prior to the Stanley Boulevard improvements. Should that occur, Ponderosa will be required to pay a pro- rata share of the City's CIP to reconstruct Stanley Boulevard along the project frontage. Reconstruction along the project frontage by the City would only be required if Ponderosa's improvements gave the appearance of piecemealing - not having a continuous tie-in with Stanley Boulevard. If it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer at the time Stanley Boulevard CIP project is completed that the street improvements that Ponderosa constructed as a part of the project are consistent in appearance and quality with the balance of the CIP project, the pro-rata share will be refunded or adjusted. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 10, 2013, to review the 13-unit development plan and the applicant's response to the Planning Commission comments of the November 28, 2012, work session. Detailed information on this meeting is provided by Exhibit C in Attachment 6, excerpts of the Planning Commission minutes. The applicants and their architect were the only ones that spoke at the Planning Commission hearing. Staff notes that Pam Hardy, Ponderosa representative, expressed her desire to modify some of the proposed conditions of approval to allow more flexibility regarding pools, easements, raised mullions on the windows, Title 24 requirements, the pedestrian pathway, and requiring a range of Green Building points instead of a "final" number. Mrs. Hardy also noted Ponderosa's objection to staffs requirement of retaining the two Ash trees on the east property boundary. Staff notes that the proposed conditions of approval that were discussed at the Planning Commission hearing have been modified to allow more flexibility for the applicant. After receiving the applicants' public testimony, the Planning Commission determined that they could not support the development plan since Ponderosa was not willing to make improvements to Lot 13 as they considered the existing home that faces Stanley Boulevard to be a "gateway" to the new development. Chair Pearce voiced her concerns regarding the project being presented for formal review before the Historic Preservation Task Force finished its work and said that she may have been able to support the project if the applicant had included a plan for the existing house. Commissioner Ritter noted that the applicant can develop a "beautiful entrance to this whole property" if they included the existing house and its designated lot into the entry. He noted that the lot and existing home should be integrated with the cevelopment and he could not support this project without knowing what would be proposed. He was also concerned that the applicant could not guarantee improvements given their proposal to separate the lot from their development. Commissioner Allen noted that she would be more open and amendable to supporting this project if she saw a plan where the house was upgraded (i.e., new roof and paint). Commissioner O'Conner noted that the Commission informed the applicant during the work session that something needed to be done with the home and felt that it is an amenity and it added "draw" to the development. Page 12 of 17