PC 09/23/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Sarah Straw, 3928 Fernwood Way, stated that she would like the masonry wall to end at her kitchen window. She noted that if it continues to the EVA it will be right beside her front yazd. Mr. Summers stated that he will work closely with the homeowner regazding the masonry wall. Mr. Wurzelbacher of Summerhill Homes, the builder of the production homes, stated that Summerhill Homes will have the responsibility of placing and maintaining the trees in the reaz lots. He referred to Condition 22 which states that future residents shall have some voice as to the selection of species of these trees, within some limitations. He commented that this would be a cumbersome process and that Summerhill Homes would prefer to submit a plan with the species selection satisfactory to the staff, as recommended by the landscape architect, that simply alternates a couple of suitable species on the north side of the site and a couple of different suitable species on the south site. He stated that this would provide the project with a considerable border. He noted that the builder would like to have the trees in upon completion of the grading and that the home buyers would not be known by that time. Further, he stated it is Summerhill's plan to plant healthy, young trees and to install a temporary irrigation system to maintain the trees in a proper and consistent manner throughout the course of construction. Mr. Summers concluded by expressing his appreciation to staff for their hard work and for the neighbors proactivity in expressing concerns. He requested that the Planning Commission vote in favor of approving this application. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Sullivan commended the developer for his cooperation in working with neighbors. He referenced the staff report, page 15, second paragraph, and expressed his concern with the 1998 Base Line Traffic Report and the build out of General Plan land use. He stated that to mitigate traffic issues, circulation elements of the General Plan may need to be modified to satisfy the proposed land use including traffic mitigation, building additional roads, trip reduction programs, or changes in the General Plan. He stated that traffic from this development will be a problem, and that since TSM measures won't be available for this project, the extra units above the mid-point should not be put on this site. He expressed his concern with moving forwazd with projects until traffic issues are examined. Further, he suggested postponing approval of the application until clazification and an analysis of the traffic study is provided. Commissioner Sullivan continued by expressing concern with the amount of daily trips projected for the project and impacts on traffic using the available housing bonus on this project and not on other locations. He spoke in favor of exploring mixed-use development in other locations that would facilitate pedestrian or bicycle transit and an in-lieu transportation fee to deal with traffic issues. He expressed concern with the negative impacts on school enrollments and with not knowing what the density bonus should be and for what it would be used. He suggested that the Planning Commission conduct a workshop on density bonus and amenities issues and obtain community input on the amenity issue. He concluded by stating his reluctance with approving the application at this time until information is received relating to the traffic report. Commissioner Roberts stated that she would have a concern with a project which would have rural density on this site and stated that estate size lots would not be practical here. She said that this project PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 September 23, 1998