PC 070903 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Kemeny noted that every subdivision normally had a sales office so that the developer may market the product- He believed that Mr. C'urrin would like to sell the lots as soon as possible. Mr. Nebel noted that the trail was £ull o£poison oak since the City took over, and that it was difficult to walk through- He believed that the fees paid to the City yielded a minimal bene£t with respect to the trail cleanup. Mr_ Jost advised that he had spoken to Mike Ful£ord about that issue, and had held discussions with Mr. Currie with respect to the trail clearing responsibility- He did not believe it was part of the Landscape and Lighting District, and believed that Mr_ Currie had maintained the area before the development- This year, the City had been asked to blade the trail and clean up the poison oak. I-Ic noted that the City collected an assessment for landscaping and lighting in the subdivision. He was unsure whether the maintenance of the poison oak up to the hill was the City's responsi bility_ Mr. Swig noted that they would review the intent o£ the Landscaping and Lighting District- He added that Mr. Fulford had been the administrator of the District since its inception, and could provide the £ull historical background with respect to maintenance responsibility. Mr. Nebel noted that he would like to receive follow-up regarding the poison oak maintenance issue. Chairperson Arkin invited the applicant back to the podium, and the offer was declined- THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED- In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin, Mr_ Swift confirmed that the trail did not have public access. Commissioner Rober[s noted that i£ the trail did not have public access, she could not see why the City would maintain it_ Commissioner 12oberts moved that the Planning Commissiou feud that them were no substautial changes to the project, or circumstances surrounding the- proj cc-t since the last EIR was certified, that the Supplementary EIR was adequate for the proposed development plan, that the PUD findings could be made as listed in the staff report, and recommend approval of Cas¢ PUD-17 subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit "B_" Commissioner Kemeny seconded the motion_ Cotraaraissioner Sullivan cited the General Plan, which stated that as the urban growth boundary is approached, densities o£development should be reduced- I-Ie had brought this subject up with respect to this development before, and believed that the development was too dense next to the urban growth boundary. He noted that he could support three lots and two houses to the development only if there was an amenity for the community PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 9, 2003 Page 14