PC 061307 - Laserfiche WebLink

architectural review board to say that a certain square footage was not automatically allowed and that the design criteria must be met. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the height of the homes, Mr. Berger confirmed that the houses would be limited to a maximum of two stories at any given point; no element of the house may be three stories. He provided an example on the overhead showing how only two stories would be visible. He noted that Oak Grove was designed around the heritage trees, keeping the grading to a minimum and with a natural look. He displayed the building envelopes and displayed and discussed the key aspects of the residential guidelines and the housing prototypes. Mr. Fotheringham displayed and discussed the on-site development standards. He noted that bubbler irrigation would be used and that zones around the properties would follow fire management guidelines. He noted that there would be an emphasis on the streetscape in front of the house, with minimum lawn, and would use native and naturalized shrubs throughout the 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 13, 2007 Page 18 of 29