PC 06/10/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

and does not automatically go before the Planning Commission unless it is appealed or if it is brought up to the Planning Commission because of disagreements. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Sullivan had several concerns regarding the project: (1) With respect to landscaping, he stated that planting small trees will not screen the homes for several years. He noted that a lot of money is involved in projects such as this and that the expense of putting in or transplanting more mature trees to satisfy visual requirements should probably be included in the cost of building the project. (2) In connection with the second tentative tract map finding, he indicated that he had a problem accepting that the project is an infill site. He stated that an infill site is one that is within the city and is already surrounded by development. While the site is within the urban growth boundary and utility and roadway infrastructure exist in the area, this is part of the ridgelines, which is not an infill site. (3) With regazd to the third tentative tract map finding, he pointed out that while negative declarations and environmental impact studies for individual projects may indicate that no significant environmental damage will occur with each project, the combination of all the impacts do result in some. He believed that this development on the ridgelands will definitely cause environmental damage to wildlife and habitat. Mr. Sullivan then commented that staff did a good job at applying as many requirements of the West Foothill Corridor Overlay District as possible to the plans of the original PUD approval; however, he was concerned that the project still does not meet other District guidelines: the project will have more than three units clustered along Foothill Road; there is insufficient landscaping to screen and soften the - view, particulazly for Lots 1 and 2 which may potentially break the skyline; and the lot sizes and setback requirements aze less than the minimum required for the site. Commissioner Roberts inquired if the developer's responsibility for new plantings could be extended from three to five years after final map approval to ensure that the landscaping is stable enough to survive. Ms. Seto replied that the City typically requires the developer to post a maintenance bond after the various public improvements are completed as a guarantee that those public improvements would be maintained. In general, the lots are sold a few years after project approval and the developer's interest in the development decreases as individual property owners move in. She indicated that it would not be reasonable to recommend extending the developer's responsibility beyond three years. In addition, three yeazs is sufficient time for the vazious plantings to become established on the site. Commissioner Roberts expressed concern that new owners may not properly maintain the trees. Ms. Seto replied that while there is no guazantee for this since not all people are qualified to keep the trees in their best condition, the City has a property maintenance ordinance which requires people to maintain their landscape in basic ways. Mr. Iserson added that the kind of landscaping being planted is basically drought-tolerant and would have very low maintenance after three years. It is also reasonable to expect that with the amount of money that people will be paying for these lots and houses, they will want to maintain the landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 June 10, 1998