CCMIN072479 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Ron Brent, Director of Planning for Centex, presented background informa- tion regarding this application. He stated there had been many difficulties in bringing the project to this point but he felt it was a good plan. He stated there had been a good deal of confusion and misunderstanding related to the pro- ject. He stated the development was not ll6-unit as stated in the staff report. He stated that when this item was before the Planning Commission recently there was a great deal of opposition by the Planning Commission based on erroneous in- formation which he was not able to rebutt. Mr. Brent stated the plan to be con- sidered is Plan B, which consists of 79 lots. He compared the similarity of this project with the recently approved Mission Hills development. Mr. Brent urged that the application be approved tonight. He expressed concern regarding Residential Allocation Program allocation and the time element involved. Mr. Bob Douglass, Civil Engineer, M & M Consultants, and Project Manager, stated he was not happy with the Negative Declaration. Mr. Douglass reviewed Plan B stating that it is a large lot, single-family subdivision providing open space giving it a rural atmosphere with private access. He stated there would be no common open space, that he was proposing landscaped maintenance ~n the CC&R~s, and there would not be any homeowners association. Mr. Douglass stated the Planning Commission expressed concern about the drainage problem. He assured Council this matter could be handled satisfactorily. Mr. Douglass stated the creek would be regraded to make it more shallow, there would not be massive grad- ing, and that all the trees would be saved. He reviewed the street system and path system. He stated that Centex was committed to constructing half of Pico Avenue. He stated there would be architectural control of all elevations with respect to the adjacent homeowners view. Mr. Douglass presented and reviewed in detail the following Exhibits: (1) Plan B, showing design constraints for the subdivision; (2) Slope Map - showing percentage of slopes; (3) Grading Analysis- showing cuts and fills; (4) Typical Section - showing cuts through open space; and (5) Perspective View - showing what the finished project will look like. Mayor Brandes asked Mr. Douglass to specifically list the items he disagreed with in the staff report. Mr. Douglass stated the development consisted of 79 lots instead of ll6-units; the terms massive grading and 40 ft. banks were in error; 50 ft. cut slopes, drainage problems and small pads were erroneous. Mayor Brandes asked what the minimum back.yard would be at the base of the slope. Mr. Douglass replied that basically it is 15 ft. minimum flat back yard. Discussion ensued regarding massive grading. Mr. Harris stated the grading involved with this development should not be considered massive. Mayor Brandes asked how many houses would have the front yards landscaped. Mr. Douglass stated that 13 homes would have the front yards landscaped; the remaining would not. Mayor Brandes expressed concern regarding type of back yard fence that would abut Pico Avenue. Mr. Douglass stated it would probably be cement and wood, and that it would be landscaped. Councilmember Butler asked what control there would be that would prevent the open space from becoming a weed area. Mr. Douglass stated this would be the responsibility of the homeowners, however, Centex would install a sprinkler system in the open space. The City Attorney reviewed the conditions that would control maintenance of the open space. 7. 7/24/79