PC 052406 - Laserfiche WebLink

~.,, of the design guidelines was being deferred until the Tentative Map stage and the conditions refemng 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 aze 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 atwo-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 atwo-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 abuilt-in flexibility to allow any deviation from the one-story requirement. Mr. Iserson continued that the Vineyadd Avenue Specific Plan differs in the sense that it provides the flexibility that allows deviation on development standazds on a case-by-case basis. He pointed out that although the houses being proposed for this PUD are two stories, the actual height increase would only be two feet, and other mitigations were being built into the project; hence, these changes could be allowed without a Specific Plan modification. Commissioner Fox expressed concern regarding setting a precedent with this variation. She noted that she had indicated her preference for one-story houses above the 540-foot elevation when the Commission considered the two-story, 14,000-square-foot home being proposed on the Sazich property neazby. Chairperson Arkin pointed out that Mr. Iserson had indicated that the Vineyard Avenue Specific Plan allows for this exemption on a case-by-case basis. In response to Commissioner Fox's inquiry regazding whether the road ends within or outside the required 100-foot setback, Mr. Iserson replied that the road would end within the required setback. He explained that the Specific Plan allows for this to occur where PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 24, 2006 Page 13 of 34