08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Plan, the Happy Valley Specific Plan, and the purposes of the PUD ordinance (PMC 18.68); and is incompatible with relevant previously developed properties in the vicinity and the natural, topographic features of the site; and 2. Adopt the attached draft resolution denying PUD -75 /PGPA -14 /PSPA -3, an application to amend the General Plan and the Happy Valley Specific Plan; and for Planned Unit Development approval for additional lots over the allotted number for the 6.13 -acre parcel. However, if the City Council does not agree with the recommendation above, and should the Council consider approving the project for an increase of lots above three, staff would need to conduct an environmental assessment and return to the Council at a later date before the project could be approved. FINANCIAL STATEMENT If denied, the proposed application would not have a financial impact on the City. BACKGROUND The Happy Valley Specific Plan (HVSP) allocates a limited number of residential lots within the Plan area. The HVSP currently allocates a maximum of three lots for the subject site that can be developed under the existing zoning designation (PUD -SRDR [Planned Unit Development -Semi Rural Density Residential]). This designation allows one parcel per 2 acres. In 2007, the applicant submitted a preliminary review application depicting the development of the site with seven lots; four additional lots above the HVSP allocation. Staff brought the applicants request to a Planning Commission workshop in August 2007 and in January 2008. Planning Commission Meetings The proposed project was first considered by the Planning Commission at a workshop on August 22, 2007 and again on January 14, 2009. After considering the information received during the second workshop session, the Commission concluded that it could not provide direction on the application without receiving additional information. The Commission requested that the applicant return for a third workshop session after providing additional information. Although the direction from the Commission was to return for a third workshop, staff and the applicant believed that there was sufficient information provided by the applicant, based on feedback received from the Commission, for the Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council. The Commission considered the project at a public hearing on April 15, 2009. The Commission felt that a recommendation could not be made until photo simulation viewscapes of potential three five and six -lot projects were provided. Page 2 of 7