PC 122706 - Laserfiche WebLink

THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Pam Hardy, Ponderosa Homes, indicated that after the City Council approved the project, they went back to the neighborhood to address traffic palming. She noted that they have voluntarily agreed to install the speed table as an amenity they aze bringing to the neighborhood, as opposed to mitigating the project, and that they would be happy to comply with the smooth-surfaced speed table. With respect to pazking on Cameron Avenue, she stated that their intention is to have pazking on the north side because homes front that side of the street. As regards vermin control, she reiterated the neighbors' concerns about rodents and stated that there is a wide population of field mice, who do not respect property lines, because these aze big, heavily vegetated lots. She added that they periodically experienced mice while working on the Busch Property project due to the heavy rains the past year that caused new growth and grass. She indicated that there is not a big population of pocket gophers, and the ground wire mesh is a preventative measure for new homeowners to avert re-infestation from the existing surrounding properties. She noted that they will be providing more information on this at the appropriate time. She added that they will be installing quarter-inch mesh 12-18 inches below grade around the new perimeter of the entire property to serve as a permanent barrier. Acting Chairperson Fox noted that the old staff report noted that the home locations for Lots 10, 18, and 29, would be reversed and asked if this has been taken out. Ms. Hazdy replied that this has been modified to allow some flexibility to push the houses to the north to meet the return requirement. Acting Chairperson Fox noted that at the City Council meeting for this project, there was a comment made by the Councilmember that seconded the motion that the masonry wall from Cameron Avenue not be visible. She added that the preliminary fencing plan showed a seven-foot masonry wall surrounding the "U" shape. She inquired if the masonry wall would end at the portion where it gets close to Cameron Avenue or if it would continue all the way to Cameron Avenue. She further inquired what discussion ensued at the Council meeting at that point regazding the masonry wall. Ms. Decker replied that Councilmember Brososky added to the motion that he did not want the masonry wall fronting on Cameron Avenue. She noted that the discussion did not encompass any reference related to the "U" or the seven-foot masonry wall bounding the project site. She indicated that Councilmember Bmzosky did not wish to have the masonry wall showing along the frontage. In response to Acting Chairperson Fox inquiry regazding the original masonry walls for the side yazds for the houses, Ms. Hazdy replied that they had originally asked that the conditions provide some flexibility to allow the return of the fence on Lots 9 and 19 either of masonry or wood. She noted that the adjacent property owners wanted a masonry wall but not along the road frontage and that the wall between Lots 10 and 18 was intended to be an upgraded wood fence. Acting Chairperson Fox inquired if the wall between Lots 9 and 19 would be wood or masonry and if the masonry wall would be visible along the adjoining property boundary. Ms. Hardy replied that a masonry wall would sepazate the lots from the existing adjoining property, but a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 27, 2006 Page 6 of 19