PC 020806 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ Ms. Decker reiterated that the conditions referenced were conditions per the approved PUD development plan and that she wished to address the issues of Condition No. 17 related to the concrete-lined V-ditch which Mr. Dave Jones referenced. She noted that was a requirement because the natural drainage coming off the Jones property on that particular boundary required water from one side not to travel across and impact properties. The concrete V-ditch was to collect and redirect stormwater from the Jones property into the new stormdrain infrastructure. The City has also requested that Mr. Jansen provide for a storm drainage to be stubbed on Street B that would be capped at the intersection of the Jansen property and the Jones property for future tie-ins by the potential Jones development. Should that site be developed, the infrastructure would be in the place. Mr. Jones also noted that he would still like the house on Lot 7 to be a single-story home. Chairperson Arkin asked the applicant if he would like to respond to the public testimony given. Mr. Jansen noted that Mr. Daue Jones has been raising these questions with him throughout the process. He noted that Mr. Nassaz's concerns were also examined in depth in the staff report for both the Planning Commission and City Council. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding the temporary gate and the 14-inch versus 2-foot maximum retaining wall, Mr. Jansen noted that their agreement with Mr. Ernie Jones regarding the gate were incorporated into the existing conditions of !~ approval. Mr. Ernie Jones has an existing gate with an existing easement, and the new easement would enter his property at the same place. He noted that it would be approximately two feet lower than the mean levels of the land azound it; he agreed to fill in the low spot on his land, extending it onto Mr. Jones' land. Their agreement regarding the existing gate stated that it would remain in the same location with approximately 22 inches of fill. His existing gate would be salvaged and raised, and the automatic gate opener system would be reinstalled in the same location. Regazding the issue of 14 inches versus 24 inches, Mr. Jansen noted that he had met with Mr. Jones many times and that they had a surveyor provide elevations. They found that there would have to be a small retaining wall to pick up the differential, probably with a 14-inch vaziation at the maximum. The plans show a maximum of 24 inches. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Roberts moved to make a Ending that there are no new or changed circumstances which require additional CEQA review of the project, to make the Tentative Tract Map findings stated in the staff report regarding the acceptability and suitability of the project, and to approve Tentative Tract Map 7534, subject to the conditions of approval as shown on Exhibit B of the staff report, with the modifications shown on the staff memo dated February 8, 2006. Commissioner Blank seconded the motion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 8, 2006 Page 5 of 18