SR 06:201 - Laserfiche WebLink

no more than 25 feet high; however, the PUD includes language that allows building height and other development standards to vary with the PUD as long as they meet the intent of the Specific Plan to limit visibility to the greatest extent possible. He noted that because most of the proposed homes, particularly those on the upper lots, would be well screened by trees, the applicant is proposing two-story homes with a maximum height of27 feet on all the lots, with the additional criteria that the second floor would be limited to 20 percent of the area of the first floor and that the design of the second floor would have to be set into the roof of the building through the use of dormers and other design techniques. Mr. Iserson then described the visual analysis done for the project, presenting aerial pictures and photosimulations from different viewpoints showing how the proposed homes would be screened. He noted that the one-story houses shown on Lots 6 and 7 would become two stories if approved for such. He also presented a slide taken from the Brozosky home in which the road cut into the hill and the slope bank were visible and noted that a condition was added that vines be planted on the retaining wall to help soften the view from the Brozosky home. He advised that staff is proposing that the design of each of the homes be reviewed by the Commission on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the additional height does not cause any visual impacts and that visual analysis be conducted for each lot at that point. Mr. Iserson noted that the road was an issue that was of concern to both the Commission as well as the neighbors and stated that it was important to view the road in relation to both the project site and the water tank. He indicated that staff recommends that the road be kept at the existing grade and not be lowered as this would require more grading and cut as well as a higher retaining wall and would be a potential for more soil off-haul and tree impact. He stated that any visibility impacts on Lot 1 could be addressed by lowering the pad elevation by several feet on that lot. Mr. Iserson then presented the issue of the emergency vehicular access (EVA), noting that the Specific Plan requires that this property provide an EVA, which would go up the steep slope at the back ofthe property, then down an even steeper slope on the south side of the ridge, connect with the Berlogar property, and provide a looped vehicle access way. He indicated that the Fire Department had expressed concern about the feasibility of constructing this road due to the slope and supports instead that a connection occur in the Lot 3 area by the property line of the Roberts home, then connect to the Roberts driveway and back to Old Vineyard Avenue. He explained that this proposal would be more feasible in terms of topography, and it would also provide two ways such that in case of a fire, residents would be able to get out of the area on one way and the Fire Department come in on another, thus avoiding any conflict. He stated that additionally, should a fire occur, it would be counter intuitive for residents of this development to assume that the best way to exit the area would be to go up the hill, the presumed direction of the fire. Mr. Iserson advised that preliminary discussions regarding the proposed EVA have been held with the Roberts and the applicants and that the condition on the EVA was modified accordingly to reflect the change. Mr. Iserson stated that questions were raised during the review process regarding the project's conformity with the Specific Plan as it relates to changes made to the development. He explained that the Specific Plan allows for flexibility with regard to issues such as street alignment, house locations, and development standards. He advised that most of the changes DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 24, 2006 Page 2 of9