17 ATTACHMENT 06 - Laserfiche WebLink

changes in the back of the property. He had been originally opposed to the project but after working with the applicant and seeing the changes that had been made, he no longer opposed the project. Mr. Aminian advised that he would be available for further questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Narum noted that she liked this project and was pleased that the applicant went out of his way to improve it as much as possible and to accommodate the neighbors. She noted that she could not find examples of roof colors on townhouses that appeared to be significantly different from the color board; she believed the roof looked piecemeal and that there was a difference in the shades. She would prefer the roof to be of one shade than as indicated on the sample boards. She disclosed that she talked with the applicant about the color. She understood that they tried to make the units look individual and articulated, but was concerned about the roof colors. She liked the different rooflines. Commissioner O'Connor liked the appearance of the homes and noted that they looked like the San Francisco row houses. Acting Chair Pearce noted that she liked the articulation in the differences between the homes and trusted that the architect would select colors that would not be jarring. Ms. Decker noted that the following modifications should be made to the conditions: 1. Condition No. 53: Standard construction hours of Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The Planning Director shall allow earlier start times... ; and 2. Condition No. 71, requiring that the developer install street frontage improvements on the west side of'~~r^'' r'r°°'~ Vine Street and Vineyard Avenue. Commissioner O'Connor moved to find that the proposed PUD development plan and related materials, Exhibit A, is consistent with the General Plan and purposes of the PUD ordinance; to make the PUD findings listed in this staff report; and to recommend approval of PUD-71 to the City Council, subject to the development plan as shown in Exhibit A and the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B, with the modifications that the applicant install a fence on the west side of the property and that the CC&R's include language that the garage shall be used exclusively for parking and not for storage Commissioner Narum seconded the motion. Commissioner Narum suggested an amendment to add a condition for the applicant to install a play structure if it can fit into the open space area and could meet minimum guidelines. The amendment was acceptable to the maker of the motion. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 27, 2008 Page 2 of 3