PC 08/11/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, Suite 210, representing the appli 18, Boulevard Development and the Moller family, indicated on the map where the whipsnake area exists, noting that the area will become a habitat for whipsnakes, Red Lake g, California pond turtles, other rare and endangered species, etc. A permanent water urce will be created so the pond will be wet year-round. Mr. MacDonald advised that a . system that will allow public access will be resolved prior to the fInal map. Mr. Hamid Taeb, Boulevard Developments, P.O. Box 20567, Cas Valley, also represented the application. He advised that he has improved the P approved design therefore providing a more marketable development by building clus single-family homes as opposed to townhomes. Trails would be of different wid depending on the slope of the terrain. He advised that per staff recommendation, 15 lots w identified that could be used for split pad lots. Mr. Taeb indicated that the roadway was changed to a T'd intersection to slow down traffIc. A landscape plan that includes 25 -300 trees to mitigate the view of homes looking over other homes on the slope has also b n incorporated. Mr. MacDonald expressed concern with Condition 12. He stated t the applicant has no objection with going along with what is required of other projects, b t the wording suggests that they would have to do more. He would like the wording to inc ude "this condition will be applied only to the extent that other residential projects are subj t to comparable school contribution conditions." Mr. Swift indicated that the original PUD had a "school condition," and that this is the current wording that has been applied to the most recent PUD proj ts. He advised that staff would suggest that the condition not be changed. Mr. MacDonald indicated that he also has concern with Condition 5 of the tentative map conditions stating the applicant shall attempt to obtain the complete bandonment of the current access easement, and the applicant shall pay all costs associ ted with eliminating this easement. He advised that the applicant has worked in good faith obtain a widened easement, and to reach agreement to abandon the easement between B Court and Foothill Road. One property owner (the Glenns) did not agree to unconditi nally abandon that segment of the easement. The applicant does not see one user of th easement being a signifIcant impact, and they would prefer to see the owner be able t use the easement. He advised that Dr. Glenn has also suggested it would be acceptable to him if B Court was gated at the entrance. The applicant would accept that if the City approv Mr. MacDonald stated that Condition 15 is of concern to the appli half the cost of undergrounding the existing overhead utilities. Th attributable to the project. t regarding paying one- applicant feels it is not Mr. MacDonald noted that Condition 27 calling for abandonment 0 all driveways off of Foothill Road is inconsistent with Condition 5. He suggested that ondition 27 and the last sentence of Condition 5 be deleted. Planning Commission Minules August 11, 1993 Page 5