PC 03/11/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

_ Mr. Iserson presented the staff report describing the application, site, and zoning. He noted that the subject property is located within the North Sycamore Specific Plan area. He also noted that there is an existing home and three other structures on the property which are owned by the applicant. He stated that the applicant would like to receive PUD approval and eventually subdivision approval to separate the 3.29 acre parcel into three lots. The applicant has submitted proposed design guidelines, but no proposed house plans have been submitted. Mr. Iserson also noted that the Greenbriar Development would be to the west of the subject property and the New Cities Development to the north. These two developers will be required to provide the infrastructure for the area, and the surrounding property owners would have to pay back their pro-rata shazes for the infrastructure to the funding developers. Mr. Iserson further reported that due to legal concerns, staff has recommended that all three parcel maps not get recorded until the infrastructure has been completed. Therefore, staff has included a condition that will allow the approval of the development plan at this time, and approval of the minor subdivision, but will not allow the final parcel map to be recorded until the infrastructure is in place. He noted that this condition has created an issue with the applicant who would like to be able to sell the property as 3 sepazate lots as soon as possible. He noted that it could take up to two years or longer for the infrastructure to be developed. Staff is very hesitant to allow the creation of lots which do not have utilities and proper access. This could create a problem for future buyers. However, staff is willing to propose another option if the Commission approves the three-lot development plan. They propose that the property be split into two, with lot one parcel consisting of the applicant's home and the second lot being the undeveloped "remainder" parcel. This may facilitate the sale of the property without fully completing the infrastructure. Once the infrastructure has been completed, then the remainder lot can be further subdivided. He noted the actual minor subdivision is handled at the staff level. However, Mr. Iserson stated that in this situation, some of the conditions for approval would need to be changed. Mr. Iserson also described the permitted land uses, noting that the NSSP excluded many of the conditional uses in the City's Agricultural District. Staff has recommended that the property be subject to the permitted uses of the City's Agricultural District and the conditional uses of the Single Family Residential District. Since, staff has received feedback from some of the residents in the North Sycamore area that they are concerned with some of the uses that could be established under the conditional uses of the Agricultural District. The site development standards were also detailed, and Mr. Iserson described the setback requirements. He also reported that the applicant's proposal for some of the development standards differ slightly from the NSSP and, therefore, staff does not entirely support the applicant's proposal. It was also reported by Mr. Iserson that the applicant has recommended relocating the public "- trail from along the creek to along the City maintenance road which also serves as a driveway to Planning Commission Page 5 March I1, 1998