Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Commissioner Blank commented that the property does not look like it is well <br />maintained. <br /> <br />noted that the lot next door is zoned for two homes or three <br />homes in the North Sycamore Specific Plan. <br /> <br />Ms. Stern indicated that they are zoned for either residential or commercial use, but <br />could be developed commercially only if developed together. <br /> <br />if one <br />sold and the other did not, there could be five to six homes in those next two lots. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pentin stated that ultimately, if all the lots around the site are developed, <br />the ten-foot flagpole could have a wall on one side and a wall on the other, or a <br />fence on both sides, and it will not be blight. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank recalled that that a while back, the Commission was informed that <br />it should not burden the current property developer with what might happen in the <br />future. <br /> <br />it is as it is already zoned, and what <br />will go there is already known. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank stated that it is not certain as the parties could partner up. <br /> <br />Chair Narum agreed that the property owners may sell the sites and that she believes <br />there does need to be a chain or gate at the Sycamore Road end. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank noted that it is currently fenced off at the end. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson noted that the tree report is over four years old and inquired if this <br />Landscape Architect or if staff is comfortable <br />with an old report. <br /> <br />Ms. Stern replied that she believes all the trees that are to be removed have been <br />removed at this point; hence, the fact that the report is older is not an issue. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank moved to find that the project would not have a significant <br />effect on the environment and that the amendment to the North Sycamore <br />Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan; to make the PUD findings as <br />identified in the staff report and that the proposed Major Modification to the PUD <br />and the PUD Development Plan are consistent with the General Plan, the North <br />Sycamore Specific Plan, and the purposes of the PUD Ordinance; and to <br />recommend approval of the Negative Declaration prepared for the project and the <br />Major Modification, Case PUD-65-01M, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit A <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 12, 2011 Page 8 of 10 <br /> <br />