PC 03/25/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chairman Mahem asked staff how the need for a traffic signal earn about. Mr. Swift replied that this developed out of meetings with the neighbors. He further explained how the right and left turn lanes would be configured. Mr. Swift pointed out that if the Commission wishes to approve th project they need to address what kind of retaining walls they want and how high they hould be. Mr. Hirst then recounted the history of the project, noting that it s with 99 units, commenting that the ElR was based on 99 lots. He stated that the project then went down to 84, 52, and now 46. He noted that the neighborhood has advoca only 22 units; the neighbors are very concerned about traffic and Mr. Hirst felt that educing the project down to 46 units would make the traffic levels very acceptable. He no that tonight the applicant is going to suggest that the sideyard setbacks be increased and the istances between the two- story houses be increased. Mr. Hirst further stated that they have n told they should sell the site to the City for park use. Mr. Hirst addressed Page 5 of the staff report in regard to the sta ment noting that the General Plan Housing Element has identified this site as a potenti site for affordable housing. He stated the applicant has never suggested that these w uld provide affordable units. He felt to do so would be inconsistent with the adjoining n ighborhood and would be very insensitive to the neighbors. Page 6 referred to the design g ide1ines; Mr. Hirst noted they have submitted design guidelines, but no house plans simply use of the time constraints. He said they have made a number of changes, some late as this afternoon, so have not had sufficient time to provide house plans. Mr. Hirst further addressed the Conditions: Condition 5.I.D.3. - He agreed that Lots 37 shall be eliminated, but not Lot 38. Condition 5.I.E.I. - He ag that Lots 17 could be eliminated, but not Lot 16. Condition 5.I.F.I. - He would agree to eliminating Lot 7, but not Lot 6. Condition 5.5. - He needed clarification on this and ndered about limiting the size of trees and shrubs that a neighbor could grow. He sugges that this be reworded to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and be handled at the Te tative Map stage. Condition 7.6. - He noted this is very important to all the neighb rs as it is in regard to adequate capacity in the sewage system. He indicated they are a hie to doing as the condition requires, on the stipulation that every lot that ties into t line (westbound sewer line) shall contribute to the cost of the sewer line, whether the 10 is presently improved or not. That would include all the existing homes in Carriage Gard ns, Romeo Court, Blossom Court, etc. He would also request that contributions and reimb ments to that sewer line have no time limitation. Condition 8.18 - He said that is simply not an acceptable condition as he knows there will be between 80,000 and 86,000 yards of 0 f-haul. That would probably create a 50 ft. high berm. Condition 11 - He said that s acceptable as long as the hammerheads are limited to the lots on Happy Valley Road, and ot the other 40 lots. Minutes Planning Commission March 25, 1992 Page 14