Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br /> <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br />ABSTAIN: <br /> <br />Commissioners Finch, Mahem, Michelotti, Wri ht and Vice Chairman <br />McGuirk <br />None <br />Chairman Hovingh <br />None <br /> <br />AYES: <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC-92-96 was entered and adopted approving Case -92-49 as motioned. <br /> <br />Item 5.b. WIn T <br />Application to subdivide an approximately 20-acre site into 40 sin e-family residential <br />lots ranging in size from 14,800 sq. ft. to 57,600 sq. ft., located a 3710-3760 Trenery <br />Drive. Zoning for the property is PUD (planned Unit Developme t) - Low Density <br />Residential District. <br /> <br />Mr. Swift presented the staff report and recommended approval subj t to conditions listed in <br />the staff report. He called attention to the revised conditions of app val handed out tonight. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />Commissioner Michelotti questioned Mr. Swift about the open fencin for the project. Mr. <br />Swift replied that as approved by Council the only open fencing that s required is on the <br />comer lots; the interior lots and rear of lots are allowed to have stan good neighbor <br />fencing. <br /> <br />Commissioner Finch questioned Mr. Swift about Condition 4 in reg <br />growth management approval. Mr. Swift replied that Condition 4 h been deleted in the <br />revised conditions of approval. He further noted that growth manag ment approval would <br />have lapsed in 1994, not 1993 as noted in the deleted condition. <br /> <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright referred to page 5 in regard to grading and th wood retaining wall. <br />He noted that he did not see a condition in regard to this, and wond ed if the retaining wall <br />is really necessary and should be the responsibility of the developer. Mr. Swift said the <br />PUD and the grading plan in the adjacent property, which is the Da es property, is the <br />property that will have the fill in that location. The PUD conditions satisfy the requirement. <br /> <br />Commissioner Finch questioned Mr. Swift as to why a pier/grade foundation system is <br />required in the Tentative Map Findings. Mr. Swift stated he was no sure, but thought there <br />was no problem with the soil. A spread footing beam will be used i the soils report <br />indicates that is acceptable. <br /> <br />Commissioner Mahem questioned Mr. Swift as to the walnut trees 0 the site. Mr. Swift <br />affirmed that there are about 200 walnut trees, but only 20-30 will saved. The only trees <br />studied on the site are those that will be impacted by installing the s t. The trees on the <br />house sites have not been studied at this point. He indicated there . be no mass grading <br />on the site. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />November 30, 1992 <br />Page 5 <br />