|
NSSP. Although no formal vote was taken, in discussion, the majority of the Commission was
<br /> supportive of the potential NSSP amendment and allowing some additional development on
<br /> this property, seeing it as a way to logically continue the now-established development pattern
<br /> along Sycamore Creek Road. The Commission indicated the three lots/homes fronting
<br /> Sycamore Creek Way would need to have comparable lot sizes and similar setbacks and
<br /> architecture/design as the homes in the Sycamore Heights development and to provide an
<br /> appropriate transition between new lots and existing lots fronting Sycamore Creek Way at
<br /> either end of the site, noting that the lot size and setback varied between the lots to the east
<br /> and to the west.
<br /> Following the 2008 workshop, no further action was taken by the applicant to pursue the
<br /> development of the site until the current submittal.
<br /> July 11, 2018, Planning Commission Work Session
<br /> In order to receive early feedback from the Planning Commission and any interested
<br /> individuals regarding the proposed project, a Planning Commission work session was held on
<br /> July 11, 2018.
<br /> After taking public testimony, the Planning Commission provided the following comments on
<br /> the work session discussion points (additional comments made by the Commission are in the
<br /> attached minutes — Exhibit C):
<br /> 1. Would the Planning Commission support the requested NSSP amendments including
<br /> the following:
<br /> a. Amending the land use designation for a one-acre portion of the site, from PUD-
<br /> A to PUD-LDR, to allow the site to be developed with five lots instead of three;
<br /> b. Amending the NSSP text to allow one of the PUD-A lots to be less than an acre
<br /> in size, so the creek can be located within one of the two PUD-A parcels;
<br /> c. Realigning the multi-use trail as shown in Figure 5.
<br /> If not, is some alternative number of lots (more than three) or lot configuration more
<br /> appropriate? (Alternatives include, for example, two lots fronting Sycamore Creek Way
<br /> and two to the south; or three lots along Sycamore Creek Way, and a single large lot to
<br /> the south)?
<br /> The Commission was not unanimous in supporting the five-lot proposal. The
<br /> Commission supported the three lots along Sycamore Creek Way and found the
<br /> proposed 15,000-square-foot lot-size is appropriate and compatible with the
<br /> neighborhood. As for the proposed lot front Sycamore Road, the Commission wanted to
<br /> ensure, with the new lot, the existing rural character would be maintained. Commission
<br /> suggested photo simulations be included in the formal application submittal which would
<br /> show the massing of the proposed home in context with the existing neighborhood. The
<br /> Commission indicated it could support the trail realignment.
<br /> 2. If the Planning Commission supports a Specific Plan amendment for density increase,
<br /> should the applicant be required to provide additional amenities beyond those required
<br /> for a three-lot subdivision? If yes, what amenities should be considered?
<br /> PUD-135, P19-0030, P19-0031 and Vesting Tentative Map 8528 Planning Commission
<br /> 990 Sycamore Road
<br /> 8 of 23
<br />about the City's prior decision to
<br /> allow site grading and stubbing of utilities prior to receiving project approvals, and that more
<br /> utility laterals had been allowed than the number of residential lots/homes permitted by the
<br /> PUD-135, P19-0030, P19-0031 and Vesting Tentative Map 8528 Planning Commission
<br /> 990 Sycamore Road
<br /> 7 of 23
<br /> A'17 3. `.r� C� .
<br /> P / 34. a a 9 ,e // l'`* ,7^" �, 3 a �r -)
<br /> NILW� 1� Ply (7) ,3 •" r �� t ', "
<br /> r
<br /> 4,, ./;:'!7*.
<br /> .'/ i 5 tui' "Pi,,, ryp ( ot, S'L,, i .g,, 1i, I .+� s1.
<br /> i� 'Y a 0421 0 0 �I ,�� r •u"' - 36.
<br /> ,`a yy�� n2+a /'�. oM 'le' k� W, k
<br /> 3S 94 '@ g 'via
<br /> R T3
<br /> 1:5,300
<br /> 0 0.05 0.1 mi PUD-89-06-08M, Gabriela Marks, 4210 Rosewood Drive Planning Division _
<br /> January 7 2020 `( �� ""���
<br /> 0 330 660 Feet I Y
<br /> I , I I
<br />
|