PC 070903 - Laserfiche WebLink

over Old Vineyard Avenue, but all of the other areas would relinquish their access to Old Vineyard Avenue. The City will not be vacating Old Vineyard Avenue because it would be used for trail purposes. He noted that it was important that the owner of Lot 19 not be able to drive into that lot off of Old Vineyard Avenue, rather than the new street. Mr. Brozo sky noted that the City Council staff report for this PUD in Tune, 2001 , stated that Centex Homes was the signatory to the revised City School District Developers Agreement, which would contribute $6.50 per foot for the development_ It would also assume a portion of the District's obligation toward Vineyard Corridor's infrastructure in the short term. 7t was assumed that this development would go in prior to the school to allow the school to begin operations. TIe noted that the money offered by the developer is no longer an amenity to the City. He noted that Condition 1 13 stated, "The light pole design shall be submitted with the Tentative Subdivision Map application for review and approval by the Planning Commission." He inquired whether that had bean done at the time of the PUD_ Mr_ Swift noted that he did not have that information, but believed that it had not been done. Mr_ Brozosky expressed concern about the retaining wall at the front of the property, which was 2 to 5 feet high and 750 feet long. He believed that was a. significant change to the PUD. He noted that the eight-foot high retaining wall at the street entrance was a very large wall_ In response to Chairperson Arkin's question regarding the amount of dirt to be removed under the PUD, he noted that the May 9, 2001, Ylanning Commission staff report stated, "Staff estin-iates about 1 1 8,000 cubic yards of earth would be required to be moved" He noted that the current plan called for the removal of 166,500 cubic yards, which is a 40% increase; he believed that was also a significant PUD change. Mr. Brozosky inquired who maintained the land between Old Vineyard Avenue and the gate_ He believed that because the Chrismans maintained a fence there, they may assume that the area between the gate and the road belonged to the Homeowners Association; he did not believe that was part of the Homeowners Association. Mr_ Swift advised that area was required to be added to street right-of-way in order to provide a link to Mr_ Brozosky's future building site at his request. It would be maintained by the Homeowners Association, as would other areas of the right-of=way. Mr_ Brozosky expressed concern that the Chrisimans had not ~mai retained their fire breaks for the past two years, and noted that anyone living in a rural environment was vuhierablc to wildfires. He emphasized that fire mitigation was effective only if everyone participated, and noted that a lien had been placed against the Chrisman property by the City for not performing the fire break work. He wanted to ensure that he was adequately protected against fire danger, and noted that he still did not have City water up to his house_ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 9, 2003 Page 7