Laserfiche WebLink
minimum of approximately 10 feet. Staff has reviewed the compatibility and feels that as <br /> proposed, the project meets the goals and intent of the DSP and the neighborhood. <br /> Commissioner Pace asked and confirmed the 10-15 feet mentioned was between the homes <br /> and the property line. He asked for clarification on the heritage trees. <br /> Ms. Hagen responded that the large heritage oak trees will remain, but another heritage tree, <br /> which is a plum tree closer to Stanley Boulevard, will be removed. She noted the Arborist <br /> Report as Exhibit B to the agenda report and stated that none of the other trees qualify as a <br /> heritage tree and therefore, would be removed. <br /> Chair Allen stated for the audience that Exhibit D of the agenda report relates to comparable <br /> projects which was what Ms. Hagen was referencing. <br /> Commissioner Brown referenced the heritage trees, as referenced in the Arborist Report in <br /> Exhibit B, noting the plum tree as #6 and #17, stating their location can be seen on the report. <br /> Commissioner Pace questioned and confirmed that all trees to be planted would be 15-gallon <br /> trees. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor inquired about what species of tree would be the 15-gallon. <br /> Ms. Hagen clarified it is a Canyon Oak which is an evergreen tree. It will remain leafy and <br /> green all year round. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor asked how tall a 15-gallon tree is versus a 24-inch box tree. <br /> Acting Director of Community Development Brian Dolan clarified that better and higher <br /> screening can be achieved immediately with a box tree yet at some point the smaller <br /> 15-gallon would surpass it. The tree can get quite large at up to 60 feet, depending on its <br /> location. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor said his concern is for the existing property owner as opposed to the <br /> long-term growth of the tree. <br /> Mr. Dolan noted that the Commission can require the 24-inch box size tree as a condition. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor then asked for the history of the zoning for this property and density <br /> with a PUD. <br /> Ms. Hagen referenced an aerial photo of the site and said it was originally zoned in the 1980's. <br /> At that time, the original development did not move forward, but the zoning remains with the <br /> site even though that PUD wasn't constructed. Later in the 1990's, the property owner no <br /> longer had the right to consolidate all of the properties so this subject property and the property <br /> directly to the east weren't included in the PUD plan. The PUD high density residential <br /> remained in place so it includes high density zoning, high density General Plan and Specific <br /> Plan but there are no PUD development standards in place. The Reflections neighborhood <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 16 August 28, 2019 <br />ave set development standards. As a PUD, <br /> development standards are established on a case-by-case basis, through project review. Staff <br /> provided a chart of other properties with similar densities within the DSP that have been <br /> approved in this area. As proposed, the project would have a 10-foot rear setback from the <br /> garage and the habitable space on top of the garage will be required to be set back 15 feet. <br /> There is a five-foot separation between the side yard setback, which is consistent with <br /> adjacent neighbors, with the exception of the homes on Rachael Place, which are set back a <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 16 August 28, 2019 <br />