PC 082802 - Laserfiche WebLink

r- Staff believed that that the Tentative Map is consistent with the PUD, and that it was not inconsistent with the usual procedures to defer the requested items to the Final Map. If the Plarming Commission would like, these items may be made available to the Commission before the Final Map stage in order to gain input. Staff believed that the PUD modifications were minor, and that the additional height ofthe structure and the additional floor area of the garage would be minimal based on the legal analysis that was completed. Staff recommended that the PUD modification be processed as a minor modification, changing Condition 4 regarding open fencing. Staff recommended approval of the Tentative Map subject to the conditions of Exhibit B, changing Condition 21 to read "Final Map" instead of "Design Review." In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Kameny, Mr. Iserson replied that the residents were noticed, and that no comments to the contrary had been received. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Bill Kolb, 11393 Dublin Canyon Road, applicant, thanked the Commission for their assistance, and looked forward to the approval of the Tentative Map. r- Peter McDonald, 400 Main Street, Suite 210, represented the applicants. He noted that the applicants had all grown up on this ranch. He detailed the history of this property, and noted that they agreed with almost all of the staff recommendations. He did not object to using the tubular steel fences further up the hill. He noted that because the fences resembled wrought iron, that's what he believed was submitted. Chairperson Maas expressed concern about the visual impact ofthe wood fences. Mr. McDonald did not believe there the fences would be visual, and noted that the lots had a top-of-house view. He did not believe that they would be visible from 1-580. A discussion of the visual impacts from the various lots ensued. Mr. McDonald noted that Condition 20 of the Tentative Map discussed undergrounding for the Miller and the Strom houses. He noted those were two existing homes had been there for a long time. There was no problem with undergrounding the lines to the Stroms' house, which was adjacent to the development. He would make that a condition to the developer. He noted that Donna Miller's house was on the Foothill side of the road, and he understood that staff would support not conditioning the undergrounding requirement for that home. He added that it would be an expensive and difficult proposition for her to meet that requirement. Mr. Iserson offered his apologies and noted that question had been raised that afternoon. He noted that the undergrounding would not be required of the Millers. ---- Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2002 Page 16