Laserfiche WebLink
staff would need to conduct an environmental assessment before the project could be <br /> approved. <br /> CONCLUSION <br /> Staff has considered the issue of potentially increasing the development potential of this <br /> particular site in comparison to what was originally approved in the Happy Valley <br /> Specific Plan. Staff concluded that a significant case has not been made to justify the <br /> requested increase in lots and that the requested increase is not consistent with the <br /> Specific Plan's intention of maintaining the area as "semi- rural." <br /> Submitted by: Approved b <br /> Brian Dolan Nelson Fialho <br /> Director of City Manager <br /> Community Development <br /> Attachments: <br /> 1. Draft Resolution, denying PUD -75 /PGPA -14 /PSPA -3 <br /> 2. Exhibit B, Site Plan, Example Plotting Plan, Example Floor and Elevation Plans, <br /> and Streetscape Plan, dated "Received February 24, 2009" <br /> 3. Design Guidelines <br /> 4. Photomontages <br /> 5. Excerpts of the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes <br /> 6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 28, 2009, without <br /> Attachments <br /> 7. Adjoining Development's Comparison Chart <br /> 8. Applicants Green Point Efficiency Analysis <br /> 9. Public Comments <br /> 10. Revised Photomontages for Five -Lot Layout <br /> Page 7 of 7 <br />