Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner O'Connor noted that Condition No. 16 was redundant; Ms. Decker agreed <br />and added that it could be struck. <br />Acting Chair Pearce noted that the road that served as the grading and hauling route was <br />made of a newer permeable surface and inquired how effective patching the road would <br />be in the event a truck damaged it. <br />Mr. Jost replied that repairs were performed with the open-graded asphalt or with <br />conventional pavement. He noted that repairing the new surface with conventional <br />pavement material in small azeas had been effective. <br />Commissioner Fox noted that the original approval stated that the grading would be <br />located across the street because of a concurrent project. Since that was not the case at <br />this time, there were 148,000 cubic yards of dirt to be hauled. She inquired about the <br />hauling route and destination. Mr. Jost replied that he did not know where the dirt would <br />be going and that the City examined the best route through the City when there was a <br />known site for the material. He noted that if there were a site within the City that needed <br />to be filled such as Bernal Park, an intra-city route would be used. Otherwise, Vineyazd <br />Avenue may be used towards Highway 84, or the dirt maybe transported out of town. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br />Christopher Schlies, attorney representing the Chrismans and Jim Happ, noted that Jim <br />Gorny, the architect who developed the design guidelines, was present for technical <br />questions. He noted that he had submitted a letter to the Commission and added that the <br />application was focused on the single issue of going from the production homes to the <br />design guidelines. He believed that action would result in a better project and that the <br />custom homes would be more consistent with the Berlogar project. He understood the <br />concerns expressed by the Brozoskys as well as those in the staff report; he hoped his <br />letter satisfied those concerns. He recalled that in the July 11, 2007 meeting, Mr. Happ <br />had stated that they wished to keep the same square footage, which was acceptable to the <br />applicants. With respect to the FAR's, the proposal in the staff report would fall short for <br />the homes in the reaz; he noted that they could accept 35 percent if the Planning <br />Commission so desired. He believed the Centex sizes were fine. <br />He commended staff on changing the water line since the Council recommendations from <br />2002. They would be happy to work with Option 2, which he believed would be best for <br />the City and the involved parties; they would also be happy to work with the Brosozky <br />family. He expressed concern about Condition No. 23, which did not have a format for <br />obtaining the bids and putting up the money that he believed was sufficiently detailed. <br />He had prepared and distributed a suggested format and noted that the Chrismans would <br />give the Brosozky family notification that they were ready to move ahead. At that time, <br />the Brosozky family would have a fu1160 days to talk to several contractors and get <br />several bids; the applicants would put up an overage of 125 percent of the lowest bid. He <br />expressed concern that if the bids did not come in, they would have to come up with a <br />EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 27, 2008 Page 4 of 13 <br />