PC 011007 - Laserfiche WebLink

this scenario, staff recommended that a condition of approval be added that a fire truck hammerhead still be required on the project site if deemed necessary by the Fire Department. Ms. Giffin noted that two existing residents on Clara Lane expressed concern about the extension of Clara Lane. The City was granted land and easements from neighboring property owners for this extension; staff will continue to meet with the neighboring property owners to ensure that all outstanding issues are addressed. A resident on Ingrid Court expressed an initial concern about construction traffic on Clara Lane. After discussions with staff, he appeared to accept the City’s standard condition regarding construction hours. However, he would like language to be added to the condition, stating that no trucks can arrive at the site before 8:00 a.m. This resident would also like to modify the Hatsushi property PUD, as noted during the public comment period of this meeting. Staff believed that the applicants had adequately addressed all the standards and guidelines of the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan for this area. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission find that there are no new or changed circumstances or information which require additional CEQA review of the project. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission find that the proposed PUD development plan is consistent with the General Plan, the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan, and the purpose of the PUD Ordinance. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission make the PUD findings in the staff report, and adopt a resolution recommending approval of Case PUD-56 subject to the conditions of approval, either as shown in Exhibit B or as shown in Exhibit B with a modification requiring the applicant to dig down the grade under the house on Lot 1 by at least two feet and reduce the roof height by 1.5 feet. In the latter scenario, this would be a modification to Condition 7.a.2. Staff displayed a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate the proposed plan. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding whether the building on Lot 1 as proposed was in compliance with the Specific Plan without any changes, Ms. Giffin confirmed that it was in compliance with the height requirements of the Specific Plan. As conditioned with the darker colors and additional screening trees, it would also be in compliance regarding the design. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding whether there were any aspects of this application that were not in compliance with the Specific Plan, Ms. Giffin replied that as conditioned by staff, it was in compliance with the Specific Plan. Commissioner O’Connor noted that if the applicant was willing to implement staff’s suggestion to grade down the site by five feet and if that necessitated removing some trees, the City would require him to replace twice as many trees as he removed and pay a fee into the Urban Forestry Fund for any value difference. He felt that was a bit harsh to impose that on the applicant and would agree with waiving the fee. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 10, 2007 Page 3 of 27