SR 05:069A - Laserfiche WebLink

considered to be a subdivision improvement; therefore, it should be built in conjunction with the subdivision itself. With respect to ADA standards, Mr. Pavan noted that at the end of San Carlos Way, there is a five- to six-foot grade differential between the height of the street and the height of where the sidewalk would end. The applicant proposed to deal with the change in height with a combination of stairs and landings. This was shown in principle in the PUD 99-02 plan, and staff determined that the sidewalk would not meet ADA standards. One option to make the sidewalk ADA-compatible would be to depress the sidewalk in a trench with very tall retaining walls on both sides, possibly installing a ramp inside the actual right-of-way of San Carlos Way. He noted that it would be infeasible to contain the ramp in the public right-of-way at the end of the cul-de-sac between the street and the property line, which is City property. He added that would necessitate condenming property to adjoining neighbors on either side, or the ramp must project into the cul-de-sac, which would reduce the diameter. Because San Carlos Way was built approximately 20 years ago, it did not meet current Fire Department standards for turning radius. In addition, the steep grades on Sycamore Terrace and San Carlos Way did not meet ADA standards. Staff determined that Sunol Boulevard and the existing EVA pedestrian connection from San Antonio Way to Sycamore Creek Lane would be ADA-accessible. For the City to approve the sidewalk as proposed, the Commission must make the finding that it is infeasible to build the sidewalk to ADA standards. Staff also included a condition that the applicant would install a sign at the base of Sycamore Terrace identifying that it was not ADA-compliant and identifying alternate routes that are ADA-compliant. Mr. Pavan summarized the design guidelines for the parcels and noted that neighbors had requested that building heights be limited to one story only. Staff has stated that second-story buildings can be allowed; however, staff has conditioned the proposed project to provide computer-generated view analysis studies with the site-specific design plans. In past similar projects, the Planning Commission has stated that house designs covered by guidelines be reviewed by the Commission at a public heating. That requirement was not included because staff believes that the design questions for a relatively small project could be addressed by staff. If the Commission did not agree with that condition, it may require that the house designs be considered in a public heating. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Make the determination as to whether the pedestrian sidewalk should be deleted or not from the PUD development plan; 2. If the Commission believes that the sidewalk should be deleted, it should adopt a resolution recommending approval of PSP-08; 3. If the Commission determines that the sidewalk should remain, it should adopt a resolution denying PSP-08; 4. The Commission should make the appropriate PUD development plan findings as stated in the staff report; and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 9, 2005 Page 10 of 22