PC 03/11/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to a question by Commissioner Kumazan relating to staff s two alternatives on the subdivision, Mr. Iserson stated that the applicant would like to have the PUD plan approved so she could sub-divide and then sell the property as three lots. Since staff is not able to support that proposal, they tried to come up with a compromise. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Susan Frost, 990 Sycamore Road, stated that she would like to have the subdivision recorded after the final map is approved. She noted that it would create a financial hardship for her if she could not record the lots because she would not be able to sell them. She also pointed out that she could not get a loan to pay for development fees if she does not actually have the lots subdivided. She is also concerned that she will lose her interested buyer if she is not able to get permission to record the final map before the infrastructure is put in. With regard to Condition 4, Ms. Frost is asking that she be allowed to pay the funding developers for the infrastructure improvements after recordation, noting that the fees aze quite substantial. With regard to Condition 8, she noted that the creek has not overflowed since it was realigned in 1983 and, therefore, believes it is not necessary to proceed with an expensive engineering study. In addition, she feels that a levee would take away from the natural characteristic of the creek. - She also noted that at the buyers' request regarding Condition 10, she would like to dedicate the land to New Cities Development and have it work with the City in constructing the East/West collector road. Ms. Frost also stated that the buyer has requested that Condition 14.d. be deleted because they want a fence that is less than 50 feet from the creek. In response to a question by Commissioner Kumaran, Ms. Frost stated that she would like to pay the developers for the infrastructure at the time the building permit is received. Mr. Iserson pointed out that the NSSP requires the fees to be paid when the lots are recorded and staff wants to stay consistent with the NSSP. He, again, cited staffs concern with potential problems with deferring payment of subdivision fees to building permits since a third party would become responsible to pay the fees. A brief discussion ensued relating to the difference in selling one two-acre parcel or two one-acre parcels. Mr. Iserson pointed out that if the PUD plan were approved, it would identify three lots and what could be built on them, although the timing for recordation of the parcel map would be dependent on the placement of the infrastructure. Michael Hazlan, Greenbriar/Sycamore Company, 4340 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 260, San Jose, stated that he is in favor of development in the area. However, he expressed concern with the possibility of the creek overflowing and noted that it could have an impact on their project. He also stated that he is concerned with allowing the applicant to subdivide and record three lots Planning Commission Page 7 March 11, 1998