Laserfiche WebLink
Item No. 9 <br /> PC : 11-21-85 <br /> SU-85-6 <br /> Page 2 <br /> STAFF ANALYSIS <br /> BACKGROUND: <br /> On September 19, 1985 , the Planning Commission approved Major <br /> Subdivision application SU-85-6 of Paul and Helen Rinauro to sub- <br /> divide a 23 . 58-acre parcel into 14 rural residential lots. <br /> Numerous conditions were placed on the approval of the tentative <br /> map. The applicant is requesting, pursuant to Section 9-9106 of <br /> the Planning Title, that three of the conditions be changed . <br /> CONDITIONS TO BE CHANGED: <br /> Condition No . 1 (h) : <br /> This condition requires MacArthur Drive to " . . .be improved on <br /> the subdivision side in compliance with County standards for an <br /> 84-foot-wide right--of-way. " The applicant is requesting that <br /> this condition " . . .be modified to reflect the same conditions <br /> imposed on the recently approved subdivision to the south <br /> ( Etcheverry Estates) . " Staff concurs that the same modifica- <br /> tions are warranted; however, the condition should require <br /> dedication at this time of an adequate right-of-way for a major <br /> collector and the guarantee that the road be improved to County <br /> standards when development in the area warrants . <br /> Condition No. 1 (i) : <br /> This condition required the provision of " . . . 20-foot right-of- <br /> way radius returns at Cherry Court and Fairoaks Road with a <br /> setback of 30 feet from the centerline of Fairoaks Road, with <br /> improvements . " The applicant is requesting that this condition <br /> be eliminated. The applicant states that the radius returns <br /> should have been required in 1971 when the opening for Cherry <br /> Court was established. Since the property is under different <br /> ownership, it will be difficult to comply with this request . <br /> They also note that other recent divisions along Fairoaks Road <br /> have not required a 30-foot half road. They also have sub- <br /> mitted drawings indicating that an adequate return can be <br /> placed in the existing right-of-way. Staff concurs with the <br /> applicant ' s analysis . <br /> Condition No . 1 ( j) - <br /> This condition requires that a " . . .secondary emergency access <br /> from Bates Court to Etcheverry Drive . . . " be provided. The <br /> applicant is requesting that this condition be omitted. The <br /> reasons involve the complexities of dealing with the property <br />