PC 082802 - Laserfiche WebLink

r- applicant, which would allow the solid wood fencing only in the portion ofthe lot where the building pad was located. At the rear ofthe lot, which slopes up, he recommended switching to an open fence. He suggested that the item be modified slightly to accommodate those changes. With respect to the PUD development plan conditions concerning the Tentative Map, there were several conditions that were required to be met at the Tentative Map stage. Mr. Iserson noted that Condition 14 of the PUD Development Plan required the applicant to discuss with the Homeowners Association of the preserve to look into combining the two open space areas into one. The applicant did this, but the Preserve Homeowners Association did not go along with that action at this point. As a result, there will be a separate Homeowners Association for the development, but they have agreed to continue that dialogue. Mr. Iserson noted that Condition 16 of the PUD required a wildland fire management plan to be presented with the tentative tract map. The fire marshal believed that a complete plan was not necessary, and felt that a 40 to 50 foot wide fire break between the lots and the perimeter of the open space would be sufficient. Mr. Iserson advised that Condition 18 of the PUD required that a final planting plan be submitted for Parcels Band D of the open space areas. With the Tentative Map, the applicants have requested diverting that to the Final Map. Staffwas comfortable with that request, and the landscape architect has already specific through the PUD the trees that r- would be planted there. Mr. Iserson noted that in Condition 28, the applicants were asked to discuss with the Preserve Homeowners Association an access easement from Laurel Creek Drive to Parcel E, which was the proposed City park site. The applicant pursued that with the Preserve Homeowners Association, which was not interested in granting that access easement at this time. Mr. Iserson advised that there was a condition which required site-specific inventory of parcels F and G with the Tentative Map. Those parcels contained the existing homes, and the staff report originally recommended that those inventories be turned in at the Design Review stage. Staff would like to modify to be turned in at the Final Map stage, because if those lots were already developed, they would not be involved in the Design Review process. Mr. Iserson advised that Condition 51 concemed the conservation easement details to be worked out with the Tentative Map. Contrary to what was contained in the written report, there was no written easement to give to the Commission at this time. In working with the City Attorney, staff determined that the document would be a straightforward item that would state the open space area would be preserved, and that it would not be further developed or subdivided. ,--. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2002 Page 15