PC 052406 - Laserfiche WebLink

three-step process: the PUD development plan, the Tentative Tract Map, and the design review of the individual proposed homes. Commissioner O'Connor further inquired whether the Commissioners would have the latitude to address the size of the tree replacement when it comes before them at the Tentative Tract Map or if the tree ordinance would simply be enforced. Mr. Iserson replied that the ordinance does not generally go into that level of detail. He continued that the plan typically requires a mix of tree sizes because the larger sized trees provide immediate impact and the smaller sized trees tend to grow faster than the larger trees and do better in certain cases. Commissioner Fox noted that the staff report indicated there was a difference between the manner in which the applicant measured the height of the house and what staff was recommending. She inquired what this difference was, whether the photosimulations were based on the applicant's or staff s way, and what the net change might be. Mr. Iserson indicated that what staff is recommending is derived from the Specific Plan, the traditional measurement in which the vertical measurement is from the lowest elevation of the building, where the house meets the finished grade, to the highest elevation of the building, as opposed to the applicant's measurement which defines the proposed finished grade as six inches below the top of the foundation. He added that quantifying the difference between the two measurements would depend on the amount of grading done and the design of the house. Commissioner Fox commented that based on the Specific Plan's definition then, it would not make a difference if, from a neighbor's standpoint, the rear of a house, which is not visible from Vineyard Avenue, is measured at 32 feet high. Mr. Iserson clarified that this would depend on where the neighbor is standing in that if the neighbor's view shows the lowest and the highest points of the house, the neighbor would perceive the building to be that high. He added, however, that this may not occur considering the large amount of trees and the location of the few neighbors in the area. Commissioner Blank moved to make the Conditional Use Permit findings as listed in the staff report, noting that this is an environmentally superior location for the water tank, and to approve Cases PDR-520 and PCUP-162, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit B of the staff report, as recommended by staff, with the modifications to the conditions listed in the various staff memos to the Commission. Commissioner Fox seconded the motion and proposed an amendment to the motion that the landscaping for the retaining wall be fully irrigated to ensure that the wall is fully screened year-round. Commissioner Blank accepted the proposed amendment. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 24, 2006 Page 17 of 34