PC 020806 - Laserfiche WebLink

~- Lynn Jansen, applicant, Lynden Homes, P.O. Box 417, Diablo, CA, noted that there were no changes at the City Council level and that the proposed Tentative Tract Map was in conformity with the PUD approval. He agreed with City staff on the amended conditions of approval. John Nasser, 5531 Calico Lane, asked that the Planning Commission not approve the Tentative Tract Map until the plans could be completed for Lot 9, the custom home lot. He had objected to the lot remaining as a custom home lot and would like to know what would be behind him. He believed the applicant should provide a design prior to the Tentative Tract Map approval. He realized he would lose some privacy whether the house were one or two story but would like to be consulted on the design to ensure that his privacy and views were not impacted. He noted that he was not able to speak at the Planning Commission or City Council meeting due to his travel schedule but that he had sent several letters outlining his concerns. Dave Jones expressed concern about PUD Condition No. 64 regazding fire hydrants and did not want them to be near his father's easement. He added that he would like PUD Condition No. 115 to include the cleaning out of his father's storm drains. He stated that he would like PUD Condition 119, in correlation with PUD Condition No. 51, to include mention of soil compaction taking place on his father's property. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin regarding whether he had been able to discuss these items with staff, Mr. Jones replied that he had been unable to meet with ~ staff. Ms. Decker advised that the conditions under discussion by Mr. Jones were part of the approved conditions of approval for the PUD Development Plan Ordinance No. 1932, which have been adopted by City Council on Januazy 17, 2006. She added that the item under consideration at tonight's Commission meeting is the Tentative Tract Map, whose conditions of approval are attached to the staff report as Exhibit B, Attachment 2. In response to some of the concerns, Ms. Decker noted that the PUD development conditions of approval require an exclusive easement for the Jones residence and that there aze also certain infrastructure and underground utilities to service that pazcel. She indicated that Condition No. 24 of the Tentative Tract Map requires that access be exclusive for the Jones property but non-exclusive for underground infrastructure needs. Mr. Jones requested to continue speaking and noted that PUD Condition No. 126 did not mention maintenance or removal of the temporary gate. He added that Condition No. 130 discussed drainage towazds the arroyo, and he did not want any spillway off the top of the bank of the arroyo. He was very concerned about erosion, and would like an engineer to review it. Mr. Jones returned to the conditions of the Tentative Tract Map and stated that the Jones family had not agreed to construct a concrete V-ditch on their property and wondered how this could be a condition when no one had talked to them about it. He added that he ~-^ did not want to end up in an eminent domain situation in the future. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 8, 2006 Page 4 of 18