PC 03/25/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. PC-98-19 was entered and adopted as motioned. RECESS TAKEN AT 11:05 P.M. RECONVENED AT 11:10 P.M. Chair Cooper announced that due to the late hour, Item 7.a. will be continued to the Apri18, 1998, meeting. He apologized to the members of the audience for any inconvenience. Commissioner Kumaaan asked Brian Swift to include some additional information regarding growth management at the next meeting. Mr. Swift agreed to do so. A motion was made by Commissioner Kumaran, seconded by Commissioner Barker, recommending that Item 7.a., Review of Growth Management Ordinance, be continued to the Apri18,1998 meeting. ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: Commissioners Bazker, Dove, Kumaran, and Wright, and Chair Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. d. PUD-98-O1 Equus Hei¢hts, Done Yu Real Estate Development Application for PUD development plan approval for asix-lot custom home development located on the west side of Foothill Road at Equus Court. This development plan consists of a portion of a previously approved plan for this site (PUD-87-19, Yee). The 7.68 acre project site is zoned PUD-LDR/RDR/OS (Planned United Development -Low Density Residential/Rural Density ResidentiaUOpen Space) District. The Planning Commissioner will also consider the negative declaration prepared for this project. Mr. Iserson gave a history of the application, nothing that in 1989 the City Council approved a PUD rezoning and development plan created 22 single-family residential lots on the Yee property located at 4100 Foothill Road. In 1990, Yee received vested tentative tract map approval for the project, and in 1991, the final map was recorded for 6 lots on the southern portion of the project. However, due to expenses of repairing landslides for the entrance road on the northern portion of the property, the final map for the remaining 15 lots on the higher elevations was never recorded. The Yees have stated an intention to revise the development plan for those 15 lots at some point in the future in order to make development on those lots feasible. However, Mr. Iserson noted that staff recently learned that the applicant would like to keep the rest of the 151ots valid so they have an opportunity to propose a modification for that. Therefore, staff is recommending that Condition No. 17 be deleted. Mr. Iserson stated that there aze several reasons for the proposed modifications. One is that the applicant would like to relocate the entrance road to the project. He stated that, from the City's point of view, the proposed change would have some benefits because when the PUD was originally approved, it was prior Planning Commission Page 17 Mazch 25, 1998 __ __ ---r