PC 081308 - Laserfiche WebLink

on the developers that would highly motivate them because they will want to develop the three lots. Commissioner Narum suggested a compromise of requiring a bond for the mitigation measures but not for staff time. The Commissioners agreed that this was a good solution which would reduce the costs for the developer. Commissioner Narum stated that she would like the design guidelines to come back to the Commission at the tentative map stage. She recommended keeping fencing as open as possible and would not like to see six-foot tall masonry or wood privacy fences. She would like staff to address setbacks off the property line versus the building envelope on page 7 of the staff report and felt that a 144-square-foot tower on page 8 was too big. She noted that the language on exterior lighting on page 21 should be revised to indicate that the light must be pointed downward and that the nine-month timeframe to complete the landscaping is not consistent with the 12 months in the Conditions of Approval. She added that there needs to be a lot-by-lot evaluation for tennis and sports court but that she did not want one on Lot 6, given its slopes. Chair Blank stated that when the project comes back for design review, he would like to see viewscapes similar to those presented for the Staples Ranch Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as they take away any issues of photo comparison. Commissioner O’Connor stated that now is the time to address any concerns the Commission might have regarding the design guidelines so that guidelines would indicate what would be allowed when the project comes in for review. Mr. Pavan indicated that there is still the second phase wherein the guidelines can be revised to reflect the Commissioners’ comments. He noted that they would be reviewed by the Director of Planning and Community Development and that copies will be forwarded to the Commission. Commissioner Pearce moved to find that the project will not have a significant environmental impact and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate; to find that the PUD Development plan conforms to the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan; to make PUD Development Plan findings stated in the staff report; and to recommend approval to the City Council of the Negative Declaration and Case PUD-87-19-03M, subject to the Conditions of Approval as shown on Exhibit B of the staff report as modified on August 13, 2008 with the following modifications:  Condition No. 49: Replace all references to “” Homeowners Association with “”; Maintenance Association  Condition No. 13: Change “Association” to “ Management Maintenance Association”; and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 13, 2008 Page 19 of 26