PC 082306 - Laserfiche WebLink

~, Mr. Otto noted the following revisions to the PUD plan: 1. The infiltration planters, intended to treat the stormwater from the lots, were individually located on each lot. The applicant has since consolidated the infiltration planters previously located along the access road into one lazger infiltration planter along the project's frontage. 2. Relocating the infiltration planter required that the three pazallel retaining walls that were previously located in the Old Vineyazd Avenue right-of--way be removed upslope on Lot 1. This change did not affect the Lot 1 pad location, elevation, or grading. 3. The retaining wall along the frontage of Lot 2 used to be a single six-foot tall retaining wall and has been changed to two smaller pazallel retaining walls. Staff believes those minor changes could be made with the tentative map approval by the Commission. The tentative map was also required to address the following deferred items from the PUD review: 1. With respect to the location of the EVA on the property, several EVAs were discussed at the PUD stage, and the one shown on the tentative map is located on Lot 3, which connects to the Roberts' driveway. Staff believes this was the best location for the EVA on the property, given the site topography. 2. Because custom homes were proposed on each lot, the applicant is prepared to set architectural design guidelines for the project. The guidelines address architecture, height, grading, fencing, landscaping, and site lighting. Each custom home will ~" be separately subject to the Commission's review and approval. Staff believes the guidelines are consistent with the requirements of the Specific Plan and present a good set of development standazds for this project. Staff recommended several minor changes to the guidelines, as discussed in the staff report. 3. To address recent comments made by Mary Roberts, the adjacent neighbor to the south, staff recommends that the guidelines be modified to match the construction hours approved by the PUD, to match the Planning Commission review requirement of the PUD, and to prohibit upligh6ng of the homes. 4. As stated in the tree replacement plan, up to 90 trees would be removed from the site. Three hundred fifty-six (356) native trees would be planted, consisting of blue oak, valley oak, live oak, and buckeye trees. Seventy-two (72) trees will be located on the water tank pazcel in the landscaping plan previously approved by the Commission. Future homeowners will also be required to plant 112 trees. In total, 540 trees will be planted on the site, consistent with the PUD condition and Specific Plan requiring a 6:1 replacement ratio. Staff believes the plan to be acceptable and has recommended several minor changes as outlined in the staff report. Staff understands that the Roberts have a concern with the proposed planting of the buckeye trees as their leaves die off very eazly in the summer, which leaves the trees looking unattractive. Staff believes that another native tree could be easily substituted for the buckeyes and noted that the Commission may add a condition to address that concem. The Commission may wish to substitute another type ~--, of tree, reduce the number of buckeye trees from 62, or locate them farther away from the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 23, 2006 Page 4 of 17