PC 021214 - Laserfiche WebLink

recommended Alternative No. 1 with a home site at the 510 -foot elevation, basing its recommendation on the criteria in the Specific Plan with an emphasis on limiting the amount of grading, reduced off -site visibility, and the 375 -foot distance of the Alternative No. 1 home site from nearby homes. He indicated that the last iteration of the planning process is that home proposals on each lot will go through a Design Review process with public notice and public hearings, and each home proposal will be checked against the 103 Conditions of Approval of this PUD, equivalent to 51'/2 conditions per lot. Mr. MacDonald stated that in his letter, Mr. Flashman complained that one of the lots is not within the development blob shown on the Specific Plan. Mr. MacDonald explained that refinements and application of this Specific Plan are intended and expected to occur when one goes from 500 acres down to a five -acre scale, at which point one knows the exact topography, exactly where the heritage trees are, and where the existing houses actually are; calculations can be made and trade -offs seen between retaining walls, open space disturbance, and tree preservation. He added that the road is narrowed to minimize the visual impact, preserve trees, and minimize grading, the density is lower from three units to two units to maintain an aesthetic setting for the remaining units and neighbors; the second lot is farther from the neighbors than if located in this Specific Plan blob and allows the retention of the heritage trees within the Specific Plan blob. He noted that all of the refinements from the Specific Plan's conformance relate to the planning policies set forth in the Specific Plan, and those are the kinds of refinements that have occurred throughout the Vineyard Corridor as development occurred. Mr. MacDonald stated that the graphic presented by Mr. Berlogar indicates 11 instances where homes are located outside of the blob areas, involving a total of 41 homes, virtually every property that is developed in the Vineyard Corridor. He noted, however, that the overall density and vision of the Specific Plan has been successfully implemented. He pointed out that those are the kinds of on -site refinements that the Specific Plan authorizes on page 118 of the Specific Plan where it calls for development to be in substantial conformance with the Specific Plan. He indicated that it is a question of trade -offs. He further indicated that the courts have repeatedly upheld Specific Plan adjustments against environmental challenges when the refinements maintain the same overall density and character that is contemplated in the original Specific Plan. He concluded by saying that the Alternative No.1 site plan is true to the policies and vision of the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan and that saving heritage trees is more important than saving blobs on a map. He reiterated that they support staff's recommendation. Eric Carlock stated that he is the newest member of the Silver Oaks Estates, moving into the area about June or July of the past year. He indicated that he did not come up here to rehash all of the concerns that his neighbors have raised but to go on record that this is not just one neighbor but the whole Silver Oaks community that has concerns. He stated that he is one of two FICA Board members present tonight. He noted that Mr. Berlogar said he is being a good neighbor and offered the community to design the landscaping, which is great. He indicated that he has not heard of that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 12, 2014 Page 13 of 38