PC 09/25/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

changing and that reforestation was now necessary. He said it was the first time he was aware he had to make his house invisible from view. He felt this would be difficult as he has no trees on his lot. He is concerned as he has been waiting for the last 4-5 months to find out what is going on. In response to Mr. Cahoni's comments, Chairman Mahern pointed out to him that every house plan that goes before the Design Review Board is subject to submitting a landscape plan. Sometimes the applicant simply does not agree with the amount of planting that the Board conditions to the application, which appears could be the case in this application. Mr. Fairfield returned to the podium. He responded to Mrs. Javahari's comments about the trees being required as a condition of Design Review. Those trees are within the reforestation plan and the intention is that they will be installed by the developer. Because of the financial situation as it stands, if permits for the purchasers of those lots will be held up because the reforestation is not complete, he would suggest the lotowner plant their required number of trees and then expect recompense from the developer. He further indicated that he felt a bond previously discussed tonight regarding reforestation would be adequate security for the homeowner. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Horan suggested that some type of document such as a maintenance lighting agreement be in place between the City and the developer to ensure a satisfactory conclusion to the required tree planting. Mr. Iserson pointed out that Condition 2 does state that the developer shall provide satisfactory security to the City to ensure tree planting. Commissioner Horan felt that Condition 2 should be more specific in listing out the milestones that should take place. Discussion ensued as to what would take place if the milestones are not met. Mr. Higdon pointed out that the agreement going to City Council does indeed list out the milestones as noted by Commissioner Horan. Commissioner McGuirk referred to the Options for Addressing the Visibility Issues on page 5 of the staff report. He said he would like to further explore Option 2 in regard to augmenting the planned reforestation with additional, large-sized trees, and also Option 4 which would direct the Design Review Board to scrutinize proposed houses on the visually sensitive lots, paying attention to mass, form, color, height, etc. He would also favor the tree planting to coincide with the priority of those who are ready to build. He would also wish to look further at Option 5 in regard to the remaining 35-36 lots not yet sold, and perhaps some of the lots in escrow, as far as tightening up some of the design guidelines as to height limitations, placement of lots, size of houses, etc. Lengthy discussion ensued between the Commission as to whether it was feasible to pursue Option 5. Commissioner Horan indicated the option deserved consideration as long as it did Minutes Planning Commission September 1St 1991 Page 7