SR 06:060 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 6 DRAFT PUD-49, Silverstone Communities Application for rezoning from RM-4,000 (Multiple-Family Residential) District to PUD-HDR (Planned Unit Development - High Density Residential) District and for PUD development plan approval for a 45-unit residential condominium development on a vacant lot located at 3909 Vineyard Avenue. Also consider the Negative Declaration prepared for the project. Commissioner Blank disclosed that he met with the applicant's representative on this project. Commissioners Maas and Fox and Chairperson Arkin disclosed that they had met with the applicant before the last hearing. Ms. Decker presented the staffreport and provided the background and scope of the project. Neighborhood residents have expressed concern about traffic impacts; parking impacts were not as much of a concern. The Initial Study and Negative Declaration provide mitigation by payment of fees and rely on the previous Bernal retail traffic study. Staff had anticipated doing a traffic study for this specific site, but the same intersections were included in the previous traffic study. Staff concluded that payment of traffic fees would be adequate for this situation. Two neighborhood meetings had been hosted by staff. The project had been peer reviewed by Mr. Larry Cannon, the City's peer review consultant, whose comments were incorporated into the design, with the exception of a request to have the exposed rafter tails incorporated into the project. Staff believed that would be too busy and that they could be added for interest along the eave ends for character. Condition No. 17 was added in relation to this design element. Ms. Decker stated that staff would like to deleted Conditions 6, IS, 19,24,70-72,79, and 82 because there were duplicate conditions. She described the contents ofthose conditions in detail for the Commission. Staff believed this infill use in a high-density zone was appropriate for this site and believed the project was attractively designed and would be compatible with the neighborhood. Staff recommended that the Commission find that the project will not have a significant affect on the environment, that the Negative Declaration is the appropriate document as shown in Exhibit C, that the project has a de minimus impact, and that the proposed PUD development plan is consistent with the General Plan and purposes of the PUD ordinance; make the PUD findings I through 7 identified in the staff report; and adopt a resolution recommending approval of PUD-49 to the City Council for a rezoning of2.76 acres from RM-4,000 to PUD-HDR and for development plan approval for a 45-unit residential condominium development and a common area located on one parcel. Ms. Decker stated that Condition No. 34.a. required conduit and cabling for photovoltaic readiness. She stated that there are different kinds of cabling that could be used and added that pull strings should be provided. The applicant had requested that it be limited to electric conduit, not knowing what kind of panel would be desired or what kind of cabling would be appropriate for that panel. DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, Page I of 4 January 25, 2006