PC 05/27/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

He noted that the tentative tract map contains the same number of units, the same street, and the same lot sizes as approved under the PUD. He described the circulation through the development and reported that the developer would be required to extend Rose Avenue from Rose Lane and dedicate a 50-foot right-of--way. There would be 2 12-foot travel lanes, and the applicant would be reimbursed by the developers for the extension of Rose Avenue in front of the Rose Lane development. In addition, Mr. Iserson reported that the General Plan identifies the eventual extension of Rose Avenue to Valley Avenue, although that is not being proposed at this time because the applicant does not have rights to the properties along Valley Avenue. Mr. Iserson explained that the access street to the 91ots terminates in a hammer-head in order to meet fire department requirements, but it has the ability to be extended further to the north. It could also eventually loop azound and meet Rose Avenue again. Mr. Iserson pointed out that the application contains a minor deviation from the PUD plan in order to try to narrow the streets from 36 feet to 32 feet, and a condition of approval has been included to address this issue. Mr. Iserson also described the infrastructure that would be installed for the development and stated that the application would be required to extend a new water line to the site to increase the water service to accommodate the new development. As development increases, the line would eventually extend to Valley Avenue. In addition, the sewer service will temporazily flow to the existing sewer connection neaz Rose Lane. Under the PUD conditions, the applicant is required to participate in a pro-rata shaze of future sewer improvement costs to take the sewer to Valley Avenue. - Staff reviewed the application with respect to the PUD conditions and finds that it is consistent with the PUD plan. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of the tentative tract map subject to the conditions in Exhibit B. Mr. Iserson noted for the record that the Planning Commission is the final approving body for this applicant, and it will not be heazd by the City Council unless it is appealed. Commissioner Roberts asked for clarification on the City's definition of "rural" for the property site. Mr. Iserson explained the General Plan's intent to try to maintain the existing semi-rural character. He also noted that the City's direction in this area has been to encourage lower density on larger lots. Also, the design guidelines require certain colors and materials as well as front porches and open fences in order to capture as much rural feeling as possible. Commissioner Roberts asked why the property is zoned MDR if it was intended to be semi-rural. Mr. Iserson was not sure, but stated part of the reason had to do with funding the cost of development of the infrastructure and that this is an infill site. Commissioner Kumazan asked what the width of Rose Avenue is and how staff initially arrived at 36 feet for the width of the road. Mr. Iserson explained that there aze two standard sized streets for residential areas. The 36 foot streets generally serve lazger areas and the 32 foot streets aze for smaller Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 May 27, 1998