PC 083116 - Laserfiche WebLink

I'm a little bit new to your workshop session here so just bear with me a little bit. In my mind, I can answer some questions of the Commission; that there are 14 single stories. I counted one a little different from staff, but we were very careful on how we plotted these houses. If you look on your site development plan, you'll see every single one of the lots have been pre - plotted with a plan type. Why is that? When we met with the neighborhood, we got individual input on all these houses so we were trying to be very sensitive to the one- and the two -story and the spatial relationship between our existing neighbors and the new homes, many of which may meet the existing zoning requirements but many that don't. So our project will meet and exceed the R -1 -6,500 standard as well. With respect to the General Plan Amendment, I think that's been covered quite well by staff. Again, in our discussions with the neighborhood, we agree with them that this proposal is far more superior and will be a less intensive impact to the neighborhood and a typical P &I use; something that will create more traffic, more potential for noise and things of that nature. I think the Commission recently had an application before you with the Masonic Lodge and those are classic situations where you have a P &I use that's adjoining an established residential neighborhood. So we took that well into account in laying out our site plan and putting together our development standards. With respect to the amenities staff mentioned earlier, we are below what would be otherwise considered the mid -point of this proposed General Plan designation; the General Plan designation at the low density being consistent with the zoning of R -1- 6,500. Regardless, we are proposing an amenity package which I do believe you received in your agenda report. We are committing to about $300,000 of improvements that will specifically improve the Valley Trails neighborhood, not Citywide, but specifically for the Valley Trails community at large, and this is in addition to the citywide impact fees that this project will generate in terms of traffic mitigation and park in -lieu dedications. And if you have any questions on that I'll be happy to answer that, but they're pretty far ranging. They involve a lot of upgrades to the public park, other landscape improvements perhaps to the entry area, some traffic calming features. This is more input and feedback that we expect to get as we move further down the road in working with the neighborhood and with City staff. A lot of discussion about the clubhouse— again, this was a strong sentiment that the neighborhood shared with us in their desire to have a community meeting space. They felt that would be the heart of their community so taking that into consideration, we proposed one of two potential locations within our project site that could be for that purpose. We're proposing to construct the building and deliver it turnkey. Our position has always been and it remains that if it is going to be for the public's use, that it be a public facility; however, further down the road we would like to have more dialogue with the City about how we can best help in offsetting those long term maintenance costs. If the public restroom is to be a public facility, if should be accessible by the public. So we're not at this point proposing that our project HOA take on that maintenance responsibility. But again, this is a workshop. We'd love to get your feedback about the site plan and design, and as we go forward and working with the Parks Commission, coming back to you and going to the City Council, refining that dialogue with respect to this type of facility. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 31, 2016 Page 10 of 58