PC 04/10/96 - Laserfiche WebLink

. . 4' b. PUD.96-04. Judv Backer Grav Application for Planned Unit Development development plan approval for a three-lot sinsle-fllDlily re~illeDtial ~Ubllifi.5iQD IQcatell at ~JQ l5ycamore Road. ZOning for the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development) - LDRI A (Low Density Residential! Agriculture) District. Mr. lserson presented the staff report for the subdivision of a 6.61 acre parcel into three parcels located at 530 Sycamore Road. This area is within the North Sycamore Specific Plan (NSSP). There are two existing homes, and the proposal would encompass these homes on separate parcels, and the larger third parcel would be a remainder parcel. The applicant contemplates Parcel B would be further subdivided into two more lots. There would be a total of twelve lots, which is what is called for in the NSSP. Mr. Iserson described the needed infrastructure to support the proposed development. The NSSP calls for all infrastructure plans and cost estimates be addressed before any development can occur. The applicants are proposing a waiver to this provision in this three-parcel subdivision. The applicants are proposing a funding mechanism that would address the division of the funding responsibilities among the properties. Parcel A would have no responsibility for funding, Parcel B would be responsible for two shares of the overall improvements, and Parcel C would bear the remaining ten shares of the infrastructure costs. Staff advised that the Planning Commission approved a similar request in October, 1995 (pUD-95-05). Approval of this application would allow a status quo subdivision and would not allow the construction of additional units until after the requirements of the NSSP have been met. Access would be from Sycamore Road. Staff reviewed the plan regarding development potential and the proposed lot sizes meet the minimum lot sizes as specified in the NSSP. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of PUD-96-04, subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit B. Commissioner Wright inquired about the one well servicing two residences, and Mr. Iserson advised the well would be considered a community well allowing use by both residences. Commissioner Dove inquired if the proposed collector road location were to be changed, would the 20-foot roadway be sufficient to service the back parcels. Mr. Iserson feels that if for some reason the collector road is changed or moved, staff will work with the fIre department to ensure acceptable access for the three parcels. In response to Commissioner Hovingh, staff advised that the future infrastrncture costs will not be borne by the existing houses whose parcels will not be further subdivided, Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 Aprll 10, 1996