PC 051402 - Laserfiche WebLink

abstain on all of the agreements. She noted that they could still address the Commission as r members of the public. Brian Swift presented the staff report, describing the purpose and intent of the development agreements. He noted that while the agenda lists a development agreement for the Simoni property, an agreement for this property was not needed and is not included. He advised that the development agreements would allow for the Vineyard Corridor infrastructure that would be necessary for the school district to build an elementary school within the Vineyard Corridor area. He reported on the proposed PG&E 230 KV underground power line, noting that if the new Vineyard A venue right-of-way is not constructed, the line will be installed along the old Vineyard Avenue right-of-way, which will place the cable closer to many of the proposed houses and the elementary school buildings. He advised that in order to meet the deadline for PG&E, the City needs to have the right-of-way acquired and the rough grading of the road needs to be completed sometime this summer. He further advised that in order to provide completed infrastructure for a school to open in the fall of2003, the construction of the infrastructure needs to begin this summer. He reported that if the development agreements are found to be satisfactory by the Planning Commission, this item will be heard at the City Council's May 21 meeting. He described the Phase I and Phase II infrastructure and the proposed financing for the infrastructure. r In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Arkin, Mr. Swift described the cost reimbursement process. Commissioner Arkin stated that he thinks the City should be reimbursed by the developer prior to building the streets within the project. Discussion ensued regarding the reimbursement process as structured in the proposed development agreements. Mr. Swift advised that most ofthe right-of-way dedication comes from Lonestar. He noted that Lonestar was required to dedicate some right-of-way at no cost and was going to be paid for some of the other right-of-way property. He further noted that this cost and the total amount of acreage is still being discussed. He commented on the form of the individual development agreements. He noted that the vesting sections of the agreements have been intentionally simplified and provide that the existing land use rules will stay in effect for ten years. Chairperson Maas asked for clarification as to the effect that the development agreements would have on general fee payment requirements. Mr. Swift advised that the PUD conditions require that the fees will be based on those in effect at the time the building permits are issued. He further noted that the agreements do not prohibit adding any new fees. Commissioner Arkin questioned why development agreements are being proposed for properties that are not providing right-of-way dedications. Mr. Swift eXplained that the property owners that are not dedicating right-of-way are participating in other ways to construct the infrastructure. He noted that they have shared in the cost of preparing the actual improvement drawings, and they have agreed to manage the actual construction ofthe Phase I infrastructure. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Swift described the proposal for financing the construction of the infrastructure and reimbursement to the school district and City. Discussion ensued regarding the financing of the infrastructure costs and the responsibilities of ".-. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 14,2002 Page 4