26 ATTACHMENTS (B) - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Fox inquired whether the lots would be graded all at once prior to the buildout. She further inquired whether the landscaping would be installed around the grading until the house was built. Ms. Decker clarified that this action was not to modify the tentative map, which was already approved for all the lots. She noted that the final map was not approved and would return to the City Council for review, approval, and recordation. The final map would carry a list of conditions of approval through the tentative tract map that must be fulfilled, as well as development fees that must be paid. She noted that this action before the Planning Commission did not address or change the tentative tract map and that the lots would remain. The grading as proposed under the tentative map would also remain. The only item to be considered by the Planning Commission at this time is the Planned Unit Development modification from production homes to custom homes. With respect to landscaping, Ms. Decker noted that the site may be graded once the final map and improvement plans had been approved. She noted that mass grading would then follow, similar to that on the Berlogaz property. She noted that the neighbors had expressed concern about the timing of the landscaping within the common area, which was a frontage area. During the July 11, 2007, hearing, staff clarified that those improvements were accepted at the same time the other improvements were accepted. Staff included a condition of approval that outlined the timing of the landscaping and believed it was reasonable to have the common azea approved by the Planning Department and landscaped prior to the first lot being sold. She noted that it would not lie fallow and that it would have more growth on it prior to the first lot being sold. She noted that there had been discussion in terms of landscaping in the rear of Lots 6-10, and there was a question regarding whether it would be maintained by the developer or the Homeowners Association (HOA) until the lots were sold. She noted that was a problematic condition as that condition had never been required on any other subdivision. She noted that these were private properties, and as the front parcels were sold and built, it was unlikely that the retaining walls would be seen. She added that the landscaping would probably be removed by the future owners, which was a waste of resources, energy, and funds. She noted that the City wished to be good stewards. of the environment. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether the City would need an agreement from both parties in order to go forward with an easement, Ms. Decker replied that the project would be conditioned and that an agreement would be needed from the Chrismans to have an easement within their property to the property line in order to access the water line. The meter on the Brozoskys' side would need to be under a City easement as well. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether the 200V line as discussed in the Brosozky letter was part of the easement, Ms. Decker replied that it referenced the easement within the Brosozky property to which the Chrismans had access. She noted that would not be modified with this action as far as requiring an easement going up the Chrismans' new driveway for the purposes of maintaining a public water line to the meter that would then be placed for temporary water service to the EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 27, 2008 Page 2 of 13