CCMIN061990 - Laserfiche WebLink

301 requested that the stairwell windows which overlook the parking space for the adjoining neighbor be exempted the use of obscured glass, as indicated in Condition No. 5f. He then asked Council to approve the project. Mr. Brandes requested a clarification of Condition No. 3e regarding the landscape maintenance by individual homeowners. Mr. Winter replied that the individual homeowners would maintain their own side and front yards and the homeowners association would be responsible for the common area by the Arroyo and the landscaping in front of the sidewalk. Mr. Carl Gutermann, 1211 Summer Court, homeowner across the Arroyo, indicated his support for the project. He stated that the property is difficult to work with and that the project is better than what was originally proposed. Mr. John Redmond, 1046 Harvest Circle, homeowner across the street, stated that he was in favor of the project. There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing closed. It was moved by Mr. Brandes, and seconded by Mr. Tarver, that Resolution No. 90-115 be adopted, based on a review of an initial environmental impact study done for this project and on a finding that no significant environmental impact would occur as outlined in the City's guidelines and on a further finding that a negative declaration is appropriate in connection with PUD-90-6, the application of Division Street Partners for PUD development plan approval to construct nine detached single-family dwelling units on an approximately 1.1 acre portion of an approximately 2.4 acre site located at 1045 Division Street, in the area generally bounded by Division Street and the Arroyo del Valle. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Mohr, Tarver and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Butler ABSTAIN: None Ms. Mohr inquired what the purpose of the recreation easement on Condition No. 7c was. She also asked if the trail system would lead to the creek and what the City's liability would be if public access were allowed in the area. Mr. Swift replied that unless the City accepts a recreational easement over the property, Zone 7 would then require 20 feet across the top bank and a fence. With that dedication and improvement, nothing can be built on the property. Zone 7 has agreed to a compromise plan which would provide an easement over Zone 7's road to get access to the channel rather than have its 26 foot setback from the top of the bank. He explained that it was a normal City practice along the Arroyo del Valle to have the arroyo - 25 - 6-19-90