SR 05:069A - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pavan noted that a neighborhood meeting had been held with a previous project where the majority of the participants spoke in favor of retaining the sidewalk and also encouraged staffto pursue the immediate construction of the sidewalk with the Bozorgzad application. The issue of deleting the sidewalk was raised by Mr. Bozorgzad and was discussed in detail by staff, neighbors, neighborhood meeting participants, Planning Commission, and City Council. The resulting consensus was that the sidewalk should be retained. As conditioned with the project, it was stated that the location and the timing of the sidewalk was to be determined with the development of the Bach property. He noted that the public sidewalk was shown on the development plan. Mr. Pavan advised that Mr. and Mrs. Bozorgzad have stated their opposition on the basis of potential impacts on the privacy of their home, particularly the family room, through an open wrought-iron-style fence. In the ensuing discussions between staff, the developer, and the Bozorgzads, Mr. Bozorgzad stated that he could support the sidewalk ifa solid wall/fence is installed on his property and if the sidewalk be moved farther away from his property. There was also a discussion regarding the transfer of funds between the applicant and himself as to how costs would be shared. Mr. Pavan detailed the history and layout of the easement on the Bozorgzad property. Mr. Bozorgzad wished to have the fence wall moved farther away from his driveway so he could install a landscape strip. The underlying water line, located in the easement, must be moved as well. The cost to move the water line would be approximately $19,000-$20,000. With respect to the solid wall fence, Mr. Pavan advised that although the Specific Plan stated that open fencing is encouraged in this district to maintain views, staff would support Mr. Bozorgzad's installation of such a wall on his property. In addition, the original PUD development plan showed solid fencing on that property line. He stated that Mr. Bozorgzad could install such a fence any time that he wished. He pointed om that the present proposed installation on the trail easement area conformed to the Specific Plan, reflects what was done with the previously approved PUD development plan, and is situated within the easements created for that purpose; therefore, staff would support it. However, if the applicant and Mr. Bozorgzad were able to come to an agreement regarding relocating the sidewalk, the easement, and the water line, staff believes there is flexibility within the conditions to accommodate that change. Mr. Pavan noted that this item was not brought before the Parks and Recreation Commission; although a Specific Plan Amendment was submitted, staff does not support it. Staff believes there are good reasons to retain a sidewalk; therefore, the sidewalk should be retained, and the Specific Plan Amendment should not be supported. James Wolf, Director of Parks and Community Services, stated to staff that he did not consider it necessary to have the sidewalk reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission; unlike a public trail in a natural setting, this sidewalk functioned as a typical City sidewalk. Also, it is similar to the sidewalk which connects the sports park to an adjoining neighborhood. The applicant requested that staff consider construction timing before issuing a building permit for Parcels 2, 3, and 4. Staff noted that the neighborhood sentiment is that the project should be built as quickly as possible and that the project was PLANNiNG COMMISSION MiNUTES February 9, 2005 Page 9 of 22