08 ATTACHMENTS 4-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Kevin Close, 871 Sycamore Road, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that the Happy Valley Specific Plan has approved only three lots for this site with a minimum two -acre parcel size for each. He was concerned that reducing the two -acre minimum lot size to half -acre subdivisions would ruin the rural character of the Happy Valley area, and this would set a precedent for future developments in the area. Frank Imhof, 962 Happy Valley Road, spoke in opposition to this project and believed that the City should go back to the annexation agreement between the County and the City regarding the bypass road. He noted that this proposed subdivision would eliminate the minimum two -acre requirement form the Happy Valley Specific Plan. He requested that staff recognize the reason for the two -acre minimum. He was very concerned about the noise and traffic impacts resulting from this proposed project. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Fox invited the Commissioners to comment on the workshop questions. 1. Would it be appropriate to change the zoning to match those of the adjacent developments located at Serenity and Mariposa Ranch? Commissioner O'Connor noted that he did not generally favor Specific Plans, which he believed were created for a reason. He agreed with Kevin Close's comments about continuing to rationalize changes to the Specific Plan and believed that may lead to unintended consequences. He believed he could not support that action. Commissioner Olson believed that the City had already approved projects that did not meet the letter of the Specific Plan and suggested that six one -acre lots be incorporated into the proposal. He noted that the lack of a bypass road was a big problem and noted that the City had already approved the Serenity at Callippe development. He added that the lots were right up against the golf course and did not believe that six lots would pose a problem. Chairperson Fox agreed with Commissioner O'Connor's comments and noted that she rarely supported a Specific Plan amendment, particularly when the density may be increased. She indicated that she would not support this proposed increase in density or an amendment to the existing zoning. Chairperson Fox then asked staff if, given the input provided, the other questions needed to be considered. Ms. Decker replied she did not think that was necessary as the Commission had answered the primary question and had provided sufficient direction to staff and the applicant. No action was taken. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 22, 2007 Page 3 of 3