PC 07/08/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Further, he stated there is a minor change on Condition No. 7 to delete the reference to the location of the EVA. This would allow the EVA's location to be determined by the planning director, public works director, and fire mazshal based on emergency needs and grading. Mr. Iserson noted that staff has determined that the tentative map is in conformance with the PUD. He continued by stating that the applicant has developed a proposed phasing plan to proceed with the project in two phases with the first phase being Lots 1 - 111 and the recreation azea, and the second phase being Lots 112-143 and the dedication to the City. In addition, if the Stoneridge Drive alignrnent is implemented, the plan would have to be revised on Lots 112-143, In regazds to growth management, Mr. Iserson stated this project has been approved as an entire PUD 390-unit development for Village I, II, and III, and growth management was allocated for the entire project through 1999. Mr. Iserson noted that due to the City Council approving the Village III PUD, growth management has been extended to the year 2001. Further, he stated there aze 170 units left for completion, with 131 units being allocated for 1998, and 39 units allocated for the yeaz 1999. In conclusion, Mr. Iserson stated that staff has ascertained that the map is in compliance with the PUD and that the tentative map findings can be made. Further, that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map subject to the conditions in the staff report with an amendment in Condition No. 7. Discussion ensued among the commissioners and staff relating to landscape and houses backing onto Stoneridge Drive due to the alignment, there having been no objections from residents relating to Monday through Saturday construction, and the type of drainage along Arroyo Mocho. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Douglas Krah, 3825 Hopyazd Road, Standard Pacific of Northern California, stated Standazd Pacific concurs with the staff report and conditions. Further, he responded that an attempt was made to extend work hours, but it was rejected; therefore, posted work hours aze being adhered to. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Kumazan stated he has visited the site and questioned whether this development is in the best interest of the City. Further, he expressed concern with the density of the project and the access and circulation elements. Therefore, he stated he will not support the motion as recommended in the staff report. Chairperson Cooper stated his disapproval of the project, and questioned staff s professional recommendation due to the project not being consistent with the General Plan in terms of mid-range density. Further, he stated this plan brings no amenities to the City, and he will not support vesting for the Tentative Map. In addition, he requested that this project be given the lowest priority for consideration for growth management. Chairperson Cooper concluded by requesting that the City Council delay implementation of the project, unless the developer is willing to renegotiate. He reiterated his disapproval of the project. Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 July 8, 1998