15 - Laserfiche WebLink

• Directed staff to clarify the condition that indicates when the "poor health" trees could be removed. The dissenting Commissioners did not feel that the project conforms to the Specific Plan, did not feel that the project sufficiently changed from the last workshop to address the Commission's concerns, and did not feel that the location, size, and design of the home was acceptable for the hillside location. DISCUSSION The attached Planning Commission staff report dated November 14, 2007, provides a detailed description and discussion of the proposed application including: uses, the access road, home site location, building envelopes/designated development areas, future development on the HR sites, building height and stories, building design, building colors and materials, grading and drainage, geotechnical report, utilities, shared well, photo simulations, tree removal and mitigation, landscaping, fencing and entry walls, Open-Space Management and Wildland Fire Protection Plan, Integrated Pest Management Plan, fireplaces, specific plan fees, Planning Commission workshops, and public comments. Staff notes that neighboring property owners, Mary Roberts, Steve Brozosky, and Greg Reznick oppose the project and had filed "appeals" of the Planning Commission's decision. However, the Planning Commission's action on the project was a recommendation for approval to the City Council and the PUD application is automatically forwarded to the City Council; therefore, these appeals are not necessary. This report includes additional discussion regarding the concerns raised in the neighbors' emails and a revision to the condition of approval regarding the use of the well shared between the Sariches and the Roberts. Mary Roberts, Steve Brozosky, and Greg Reznick do not believe that the proposed plan conforms to the Specific Plan and have expressed concerns regarding the siting of the home, grading, building height and number of stories, building design, and building size, to name a few. Staff believes that the proposed development plan conforms to the intent of the Specific Plan. Staff notes that land use plans are generally considered conceptual, thereby providing flexibility for the development of actual projects. For example, the Specific Plan indicates that all HR home sites must be located within the designated development areas as generally depicted on the land use plan. The VACSP Land Use Plan shows a large asterisk indicating the approximate location of the home sites. Staff believes these home site locations are conceptual and are not intended to be specific in that at the time these plans were made, the home site was not connected or related to topographic constraints. For the seven custom home sites in the nearby Reznick PUD on Lot 25 of the VACSP, the Commission and Council allowed some of the HR home sites to be relocated without a Specific Plan Amendment. Likewise, staff believes that the Sarich home could be located within the general vicinity of the location shown on the land use plan without a Specific Plan Amendment. Staff evaluated locating the Page 5 of 9