PC 052406 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ 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 vehiculaz access (EVA), noting that the Specific Plan requires that this property provide an EVA, which would go up the steep slope at the back of the property, then down an even steeper slope on the south side of the ridge, connect with the Berlogaz property, and provide a looped vehicle access way. He indicated that the Fire Depaztment 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 Vineyazd 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 azea 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 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; vazious 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 guidelines conditions with the applicant; hence, consideration PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 24, 2006 Page 12 of 34