Laserfiche WebLink
_ adjacent properties, and staff concurs with the suggestion. The landscaping plan was also <br />described, and Mr. Iserson stated that it must be consistent with the NSSP. In addition, all <br />landscaping plans will be reviewed with custom home design reviews in the future. <br />Mr. Iserson also stated that staff is concerned with the possibility that the creek could overflow <br />and affect homes on this site and on the Greenbriar development. Therefore, staff has <br />recommended a condition requiring a study by an engineer on ways to prevent future flooding. <br />He also noted that since the staff report, staff has recommended some changes to Condition 8 <br />relating to this issue, which is described in the March 11, 1998, Memorandum. <br />Mr. Iserson further reported that Mrs. Locke has notified staff that she does not want the trail to <br />be relocated to her driveway. However, he pointed out that the easement for this area is not an <br />exclusive easement and, therefore, the trail could legally be relocated to that azea. <br />Mr. Iserson also pointed out that staff would like to make a technical change to Condition 5 <br />which would allow staff to grant an extension to the PUD and additional time to record the final <br />map if the infrastructure has not been completed within the two-year time limit. He stated that <br />staff is generally pleased with the proposed plan as conditioned and recommends approval <br />subject to the conditions identified in Exhibit "B". However, he also pointed out that staff feels <br />another option could be explored if the applicant is not comfortable with the recommended <br />option regarding subdividing the lots. <br />Commissioner Wright asked Mr. Iserson if Lots 1, 2, and 3 could be recorded if the wording in <br />Conditions 2 and 3 were modified. He responded yes, but with the proposed condition, the <br />applicant would only be able to sell the property as one lot, and would be restricted from any <br />further subdivision or development until the infrastructure was in place. He noted that the PUD <br />plan and vesting minor subdivision would be in place at that time and, therefore, it would <br />certainly be known what was intended for this site. However, staff feels that the conditions as <br />written protect the City from any legal exposure, and he clarified staff s position on the issue. <br />Commissioner Wright stated that whether the property was subdivided or not at this time, it <br />could not be developed until the infrastructure was complete, and he, therefore, does not see any <br />legal exposure to the City. Mr. Iserson advised him that the City has had problems in other <br />similar situations. <br />Commissioner Barker stated that she agreed with staff s position on the legal issues and does not <br />want the City to risk incurring any liability. She asked whether the PUD is premature at this <br />time and whether it should be postponed until the infrastructure has been put in by Greenbriar <br />and New Cities Development. Mr. Iserson responded that, in essence, that what staff is saying <br />by recommending that the lots cannot be subdivided or developed until the infrastructure is in <br />place. However, he stated that the PUD plan could be approved at this time. Staff is <br />comfortable with that approach. <br />Planning Commission Page 6 Mazch 11, 1998 <br />