11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

property. Based on the current guidelines for the on-lot requirement, the minimum number of trees was 710, between 10-15 trees per lot. Mr. Inderbitzen noted that they wanted to go the extra mile to ensure there would be strict controls in place to address all the concerns that had been expressed. He noted that Chapter 4 (page 45) of the Draft EIR, on Aesthetics and Visual Resources, stated that "The EIR visual simulation has portrayed two-story houses, of a maximum 35 feet tall, which are approximately 7,500 to 10,000 square feet in size, and which generally conform to the mandatory guidelines summarized in Table 2." He thanked City staff, particularly Mr. Pavan, for working with them for nearly four years and for providing valuable input and feedback about items that had to be included in the documents to protect the City. He also thanked Mr. Roush, Ms. Decker and Mr. Iserson for their valuable efforts during this process to protect the City's interests. He also thanked the City Manager for facilitating a City process to solicit the surrounding residents for their input. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O'Connor regarding the remaining issues with Grey Eagle Estates that the applicants would be willing work on, Mr. Inderbitzen replied that the issues outlined in the staff report were the bulk of concerns that they had heard about. Most of the comments addressed the EVA, the desire that they not come into their community and reconstruct portions of their project; they wanted the applicants to maintain their construction to their property line, and at the very most, to connect to the current paved portion of the EVA past the water tank on the City's access road. To the extent they will be able to respect that, he supported those wishes; he understood that 17 feet versus 20 feet was a major issue. He also understood that the existing street pavement of Grey Eagle Court was a major concern, as was members of the public accessing their private streets from Oak Grove through the EVA. He noted that he was committed to do whatever they could in terms of fencing and signage to prevent that from happening. However, he could not guarantee that would not happen because people break the law. He noted that if people violate the law by using their street or in an emergency situation, they would do what they could legally to protect them, including direct indemnification or indirect indemnification through the City, as well as through the acquisition of an insurance policy. With respect to visual impact issues, Mr. Inderbitzen noted that they spent a good portion of their presentation demonstrating how they planned to address those issues from all portions of the surrounding properties. If there are still issues on an individual lot basis, he believed there would be an opportunity to deal with the specific lot and housing design project. He noted that houses would be proposed on the lots, and they have done visual analysis from a number of locations inside Grey Eagle Estates subdivision. He noted there was a substantial concern about a public extension of Arbor Drive through Red Feather Court and into the project as an additional public access. That has not occurred as part of the project, and it was not perceived to be one that provided a significant benefit to traffic patterns; he noted that the City owned a public right-of--way to the project property line off of Red Feather Court. He noted that was taken off the table, and was a specific concern of Grey Eagle Estates residents. He noted that there was a lot of planning yet to be done before the tentative map and final map, and they were willing to continue working with City staff, the Fire Department, and the residents to the extent that was EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 13, 2007 Page 11 of 19