SR 06:201 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commission may wish to discuss this topic with applicant at the hearing and, if desired, add a condition requiring a contribution to the forestry fund. V. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of the proposed application was mailed to the surrounding property owners and tenants within 1,000 feet of the subject property. At the time this report was written, staff had received a letter from Ms. Mary Roberts, adjacent neighbor at 1666 Frog Hill Lane, identifYing several concerns she has with the project or process: 1. Specific Plan Amendments should be required to move one of the upper HR home sites to the lower area of the property and to adjust the location of the EVA road. With respect to moving one of the upper HR home sites to the lower area of the property, staff notes that the Specific Plan indicates that all HR home sites must be located within the designated development areas as generally depicted on the land use plan. Staff believes that the phrase H...as generally depicted on the land use plan. "would allow the Planning Commission and City Council to adjust the location of the HR home sites without a Specific Plan Amendment. Also, the Specific Plan indicates that the location of streets shown on Figure V-2 (see attachment #10) are conceptual and subject to more specific alignment during the PUD development plan review process. Also, refer back to the workshop comments. 2. Fill shouldn't be added to Lots I and 2 simply to prevent the City from having to off haul excess water tank soil from the property. Fill is being added to Lots 1 and 2 to meet the road alignment elevations. Staff notes that the 12 Berlogar/Chrisman lots along or near Old Vineyard Ave. were limited to one story due to view concerns raised by the Commission. 3. Questions if the home on Lot 3 should be placed downslope on the lot. Staff believes that moving the home downslope on Lot 3 by the elbow in the private road would increase grading and require more tree removal. Furthermore, although keeping the home site upslope places the future home at a higher elevation, the home would be cut into the slope to minimize view impacts from Ms. Roberts' property. Therefore, staff believes that it would be acceptable to keep the home site for Lot 3 as shown on the proposed site plan. Page -17