3_Exhibits A & C-G - Laserfiche WebLink

The City will get to the amenities conversation but if the applicant requests a Specific Plan Amendment they are asking to receive the maximum utilization out of this piece of land from a developer perspective. It is legitimate for the Commission to consider the balance between the interest of the creek, maintaining the look and feel and openness of the neighborhood and what the applicant is interested in doing on behalf of the general public in exchange for the maximum utilization for this piece of land. He thinks it is an infill project that raises a legitimate question about alternative dwelling units and further discussion regarding whether one or two lots are to be developed on the back side. Regarding the trail, he agrees with staff's recommendation on the width and construction of it and having hiked this area a lot, he was sensitive to how dangerous it is in this stretch. He also though is flexible on the exact location of the trail so it makes sense relative to the way in which the lots are built. As long as there is an area not on the road, this is a vast improvement. He thinks the long-term maintenance of the trail is an issue to be addressed in the final application. They should not depend on it being part of the larger interest of the HOA. If there are to be two parcels for lots 1 and 2 he supports having the creek be in a single parcel. This gives the best opportunity for the City and it would avoid confusion about responsibilities between neighbors. He is open to looking at the setback as long as they have an updated hydrologist report and it is dependent on what this tells them. Commissioner Allen referred to trade-offs and asked if Chair Nagler were to prioritize what is most important to him, she asked how he would prioritize the importance of maintaining a rural country feel on the road versus a great amenity, such as money for trails extension. Chair Nagler said if the Commission allows 4 lots there is adequate reason to get a public amenity beyond what these current owners bought into. He appreciates Mr. McDonald's comments that they should not ask for additional amenities because they have been put up. When the current owner bought the parcel this was part of the economics of it and now it is a new development, new request, new home prices, and new economics. On balance, he did not know that there was much of an incremental difference so he suggested talking about amenities no matter what happens on the site and supported retaining the rural look. • Whether or not amenities are to be asked for and be brought back as part of the final application and other related issues. Commissioner Ritter said they would not have Sycamore Creek Road if the applicant did not agree to provide the easement which is a huge amenity. Ms. Seto interjected, noting that we do not have the record at this time about how the right-of-way was received for that road; so there might have been a situation where the developer paid that property owner in consideration for that road and then the developer of the larger Sycamore Heights dedicated it as part of their subdivision. In other situations, for example, in the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan area, the City has had developers dedicate right-of-way to the City in advance. In that instance, when the developer entered into development agreements with the City, they also preserved their future rights for development. Excerpt: Planning Commission Minutes, July 11, 2018 Page 8 of 11 e owners met with them to present their plan. He thinks consistency Excerpt: Planning Commission Minutes, July 11, 2018 Page 3 of 11 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