CCMIN060501 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Swift said the lots in the Apperson development were l~om sixteen to twenty thousand square feet. In the Mohr-Martin area, with similar lots, there is hardly ever parking on the street The proposed development allows parking on both sides where there are houses on both side of the street and on one side when there are houses on only one side of the street. That parking is there for when people have parties or occasions when there are more visitors than will fit in the driveway. He said most of these houses had four-car garages and long driveways, so he did not feel parking would be a problem. With regard to the question of grading to the Brozoski property line, Mr. Swift said 3:1 is the standard requirement. The geotechnical report indicates 2.8:1 is as steep as should be allowed and 3:1 is flatter than that. The idea is to have fight of way up to the Brozoski property, in the event his future hillside residential lot would desire access offthis street, rather than adjoining the trail area, that it could traverse the area. The natural slope is 25% and this is well within the requirements of the geotechnical report. Mr. Swift said the Specific Plan specifies that the Berlogar portion of the trail not be open to the public until it is connected at the future community park. It will ultimately connect through the Lin property to the Kottinger Ranch Phase II project, if there is one. The Specific Plan clearly states the Berlogar portion oftha trail will not be open until it connects to something on both sides. Mr. Roush responded to the request regarding the effective date of the Specific Plan amendment. He believed a better course of action would be to add a condition that if a final map is not recorded consistent with the proposed plan, that there would be an initiation of a change to the Specific Plan. Ms. Michelotti felt a lot of work had gone into reducing the twelve lots on the site and sh~ did not want to consider adding those lots back. Ms. Ayala inquired about the wall on the Chrisman driveway. Mr. Swift said the road will be in a cut and cannot be seen from off-site. There is a low re~aining wall and it will not be visible from the Bmzoski house or from any of the off-site areas. Ms. Dennis asked for further discussion about the day care and how critical it was to the plan. She was concerned about the power line question. She wanted to preserve the day care but also wanted to maintain a consistent standard regarding the location of the power line. Mr. Switt said there is no plan for the day care center other than creating a site in the development plan. The center would have to apply for a use permit and design review. If the one hundred foot setback is imposed, it would make half the site unusable for anything but a parking lot. Therefore, this site would have to handle far fewer children than proposed or the day care use for the site would have to be discontinued. It takes the place of two houses that were allocated to this site. The other option is to relocate the center and modi~ the development plan. The simplest solution would be to slide everything closer to Vineyard Avenue, but that has drawbacks because it narrows the vineyard area. If the site were moved fiRy feet, then a parking lot could be put in the location and that could solve the problem. A number of locations for the day care site were considered, but all were abandoned for one reason or another. Ple, asauton City Council 14 Minutes 06/05/01