PC 06/10/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

grounds crew to do this. In this project, however, the trees would not have the same kind of attention because the developer would be providing only athree-year guazantee. Commissioner Sullivan asked how the lots were arranged in the court on the previously approved map. Mr. Iserson indicated that a copy of the PUD plan provided in the upper right hand corner of the proposed map shows the previous lotting and street pattern. Lot 1 is located more westerly of the cul-de-sac at Equus Court than it was previously, which was more to the south. He added that while both maps are very similar, the benefit of this project is that the proposed houses will have their front yards rather than their back yards facing Foothill Road, which is in conformance with the West Foothill Corridor Overlay District standazds. This would eliminate the requirement for soundwalls or solid fences to screen reaz yard amenities such as accessory structures and pools from Foothill Road. Referring to the PUD modification staff report, Commissioner Roberts inquired if "voiding the development plan approval for the remaining 15 new custom home lots" meant that these lots would need to go through the entire process again should the applicant desire to develop them in the future. Mr. Iserson said yes. He added that the Yees are not contemplating anything near the scope of the 15 lots but rather a minor increase of a few additional lots in the future. Commissioner Roberts inquired what the cut-off number was beyond which development may not occur, noting that some of the lots appeazed to be above that point. Mr. Iserson replied that no development was allowed above elevation 690. He added that none of the upper lots would be above 690 because the restriction already existed in 1989. Mr. Higdon explained that the lots were not farther up the hill but - were farther north along Foothill Road. Commissioner Kumazan noted that Lots 3-6 adjoin Foothill Road and aze, therefore, subject to the provisions of the West Foothill Corridor Overlay District; however, Lots 1 and 2, which are not along Foothill Road, would not. He indicated that he would like to avoid the anomaly that a lot on a higher elevation and far more visible could have a house that is bigger and more massive than one along Foothill Road. He inquired how it could be ensured that the conditions that apply to Lots 3-6 apply likewise to Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Iserson replied that that was handled through the PUD process, during which the development standards and design guidelines were addressed. He stated that the requirements of the PUD cannot be changed through a tentative map and that the only way to change the conditions would be to bring back the PUD modification. Commissioner Maas stated that aside from visibility, noise is also an issue with back yards facing Foothill Road. She added that while the back yards of Lots 1 and 2 will not face Foothill Road, she would like to see some restrictions on the visibility of the front of those houses. Mr. Iserson indicated that a conscious decision to provide landscaping along Foothill Road as shown on the plan addresses the visibility issue through a strong frontage planting plan to screen the houses from Foothill Road. Commissioner Roberts inquired if the homes are required to be painted a color that blends with the azea. Mr. Iserson said yes; it is part of the design guidelines. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 June 10, 1998