3_Exhibits A & C-G - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Allen asked who would be responsible for maintenance and be liable if this property is turned into an official trail. Ms. Clark stated this information would be determined through easement language, which Assistant City Attorney Larissa Seto added, could be part of the PUD process. Commissioner Allen asked and confirmed with Ms. Clark that there is a maintenance association that maintains the trail next to this on Sycamore Creek Way. Commissioner Allen confirmed Dale Way was included in the 3.2 acres for the entire project site and if it were to be excluded, Ms. Soo indicated the area occupied by Dale Way is approximately 5,048 square feet. Noted Present: Chair Nagler arrived and was noted present. Commissioner Allen asked if the Dale Way trail was considered an amenity or not. Ms. Clark explained the trail is an amenity but it is something that would be required as a basic condition of any subdivision. The question being asked is what additional amenities go beyond those that are basic requirements that should be requested of this project, and anything above and beyond the trail dedication would be an amenity. Commissioner Allen referred to the General Plan designation for this site versus the Specific Plan designation which is Agriculture (Ag) (one unit per parcel) and how to think about those two and which one guides them. She noted the General Plan says this broader area can be low density residential. Ms. Clark stated the General Plan land use map designates the entire North Sycamore Specific Plan area as Low Density Residential (LDR). The General Plan does not distinguish between the Ag and the LDR parcels in the same way the Specific Plan does, and instead points to the Specific Plan to provide more specific guidance. In response to Chair Nagler, Ms. Clark confirmed that the project as proposed falls within the guidelines of the General Plan. Chair Nagler commented that this property has a bit of history to it and asked for an explanation of the differences between what was last approved by the City, versus this current application. Ms. Clark stated the only entitlement for this property was a 3 lot subdivision that has since lapsed. The City was later approached with a similar proposal to what is being requested today. She noted, at that time the prior proposal came before the Planning Commission, the majority of the Commission was supportive of the 5 lot proposal, with some modifications. The major difference is how the split between Lot 1 and Lot 2 is now reflected in the plan, but overall the plan is quite similar. Chair Nagler called upon the applicant to speak. Excerpt: Planning Commission Minutes, July 11, 2018 Page 2 of 11 the applicant who confirmed that they are the owner. A gate exists where the home was built. Excerpt: Planning Commission Minutes, July 11, 2018 Page 1 of 11 owing questions are where staff would find the Commission's input most helpful. Please also see Exhibit A. A. Would the Planning Commission support the requested NSSP amendments including the following: • Amending the land use designation for a one-acre portion of the site, from PUD- A to PUD-LDR, to allow the site to be developed with five lots instead of three; • Amending the NSSP text to allow one of the PUD-A lots to be less than an acre in size, so the creek can be located within one of the two PUD-A parcels; P18-0075, 990 Sycamore Road Planning Commission 15 of 16 standards. P18-0075, 990 Sycamore Road Planning Commission 14 of 16 north side of Sycamore Creek Way, existing lots range from 15,033 sq. ft. (5769 Hanifen Way)to 20,313 sq. ft. (1008 Sycamore Creek Way). P18-0075, 990 Sycamore Road Planning Commission 11of16 'Y a 0421 0 0 �I ,�� r •u"' - 36. ,`a yy�� n2+a /'�. oM 'le' k� W, k 3S 94 '@ g 'via R T3 1:5,300 0 0.05 0.1 mi PUD-89-06-08M, Gabriela Marks, 4210 Rosewood Drive Planning Division _ January 7 2020 `( �� ""�� 0 330 660 Feet I Y I , I I