SR 06:060 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT parking a car. Ifthe homeowners association did not enforce the garage requirements, the CC&Rs give the City the ability to enforce them. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin regarding whether he would agree to putting the tot lot back in, Mr. McMorrow stated that he would like to but expressed concern about the neighbor who objected. He added that there was a sitting area near the arroyo and other benches towards the middle of the site. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Maas noted that she had no issues with this project but was concerned that one renter could disallow the tot lot. She noted that the patios were very small and believed the tot lot was needed in the project. Chairperson Arkin agreed with Commissioner Maas' comments and believed this was a very good infill site with smaller-scale market-rate housing. He believed the applicant has done a phenomenal job in trying to work with the community, the Commission, and the City. He strongly supported the tot lot and added that they generally were not very noisy. He noted that an 8-foot by 12-foot lot was not very big and was meant for very small children. He added that older children would be more likely to play at the park rather than at the tot lot. Mr. Roush noted that because this application was a PUD, it would go to the City Council. He added that the neighbor who had concerns about the tot lot could be informed to make comments to the Council. Commissioner Blank did not support placing the tot lot near the arroyo, near the seating areas, or by the water amenity in the center. Commissioner Maas moved to find that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment, that it has a de minimus impact, and that the proposed PUD is consistent with the General Plan and the purposes of the PUD ordinance; to make the PUD findings identified in the staff report; and to recommend approval ofthe Negative Declaration for the project and of Case PUD-49 for the rezoning of the 2.76-acre site from RM-4,000 (Multiple-Family Residential) District to PUD-HDR (Planned Unit Development - High Density Residential) District and for a development plan to construct a 45-unit residential condominium development located at 3909 Vineyard Avenue, subject to the conditions of approval as listed on Exhibit B of the staff report, as recommended by staff, with the following amendments: 1. Delete Conditions Nos. 6, 15,24, 70-72, 79, and 82, as these are duplicates of other conditions. 2. Delete Condition No. 19 regarding the requirement for recessed windows. 3. Modify Condition No. 12 to indicate the setback requirements of the site development standards. DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, Page 3 of 4 January 25, 2006