SR 06:201 - Laserfiche WebLink

were driven by the need to relocate the water tank for construction and engineering reasons, the infeasibility of the EVA shown on the Specific Plan, and conflicts between the original road location and pedestrian use of the trail. He noted that visibility issues would be addressed when the custom home designs are reviewed by the Commission. He indicated that staff finds the plan to be environmentally superior to the Specific Plan in terms of reducing grading and tree removal and that as such did not require Specific Plan amendment on these issues. He noted that the Commission had agreed to this assessment at the workshop for the project. Mr. Iserson then referred to the memos handed out to the Commission, briefly summarizing the PUD and the water tank design review conditions that were being revised to respond to neighborhood issues: the PUD conditions included changes in the EVA and clarification of its mechanics to be secured by the Tentative Map; the Commission's review of custom lot house designs and consideration of two-story custom homes on a case-by-case basis; various disclosure statements; clarification on the timing of tree replacement in terms of plan and planting; construction hours to preclude work on Saturdays; preclusion of sports courts due to their visibility and potential noise impacts they would create; and undergrounding of utilities. He advised that staff is still working out the details of the design gnide1ines conditions with the applicant; hence, consideration of the design guidelines was being deferred until the Tentative Map stage and the conditions referring to the design guidelines have been removed from the PUD conditions. Mr. Iserson noted that a condition was added to the water tank design review regarding the tree replacement plan and the planting of vines along the roadway to screen the retaining wall to soften the view from the Brozosky property. He suggested that findings be added to both the PUD and the design review for the water tank that would provide the rationale for approving plans that were slightly different from the provisions of the Specific Plan in relation to the fact that these changes are considered to be environmentally superior. He then recommended that the Commission approve the design review and conditional use permit for the water tank and recommend approval of the PUD to the City Council. Commissioner Fox noted that an amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan was considered to allow a two-story building at 325 Ray Street and inquired why no amendment was being considered for this project in relation to the construction of two-story houses on the five lots located above the 540-foot elevation. Mr. Iserson replied that the property owners next to 325 Ray Street had major concerns regarding visibility, privacy, and view impacts, and the two-story height limit was specifically worked out with the Downtown Specific Plan. He added that when the developer proposed a two-story building for the site, all those concerned found the design acceptable because the building would be set back considerably from the neighbors and the street. He pointed out that the number of feet in height being added to the building was fairly high, even if they would be limited to certain portions of the building; in addition, the Downtown Specific Plan did not include a built-in flexibility to allow any deviation from the one-story requirement. Mr. Iserson continued that the Vineyard A venue Specific Plan differs in the sense that it provides the flexibility that allows deviation on development standards on a case-by-case basis. He pointed out that although the houses being proposed for this PUD are two stories, the actual DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 24, 2006 Page 3 of9