17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commercial) District to PUD-MDR/OS-PH&S/WO (Planned Unit Development — Medium Density Residential/Open Space — Public Health and Safety/Wildland Overlay) District; and (2) a PUD Development Plan to retain the existing residence, to remove the 32 mobile home spaces and related accessory structures, and to construct 12 detached single-family homes, subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit A, Attachment 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENT The proposed development would have a negligible financial impact on the City. Increases in property and sales taxes would be used to provide services, such as police, fire, etc., for the increased demand generated by the new residences. The applicant would also pay development impact fees (e.g., public facilities fee, traffic fees, water/sewer connection fees, etc.) that are used to pay for the cost of new City facilities and infrastructure necessitated by development. BACKGROUND The proposed development is located in the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) Area and was considered as one of the potential high-density residential sites (luring the City's General Plan Housing Element update. Staff notes that it was ultimately not selected for rezoning as a high-density site. The Specific and General Plan land use designations for the subject site are Medium Density Residential. The Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's preliminary rev ew proposal to demolish the existing residence that faces Stanley Boulevard and construct a 14-unit development at a public workshop hearing held on November 28, 2013. After the Planning Commission reviewed the application, took public testimony and provided feedback, the applicant revised the plan and submitted a formal PUD application. The Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's formal proposal to retain the existing house that faces Stanley Boulevard and construct 12 detached single-family homes at its public hearing held on July 10, 2013. After reviewing the application and hearing public testimony from the applicant and their architect, the Planning Commission found that it couldn't support the application without having a plan or proposed improvements to the existing house and its designated lot and unanimously recommended denial of the proposal. For a detailed description of the discussion at the Planning Comm ssion meetings, please see the attached Planning Commission staff report and minutes (Attachments 5 and 6 and Exhibit C in Attachment 6). Since the July 10, 2013, Planning Commission hearing, the applicant and staff collaborated on two possible alternatives to the project. Option 1: Retain the existing home and in addition to residential use, allow limited, commercial personal services and/or office uses (e.g., law office, counseling services, consulting services, beauty salon, etc.) to occur within the home, and invest a minimum of$30,000.00 in building and site improvements (i.e., new roof, paint and landscaping). Page 2 of 17