3_Exhibits A & C-G - Laserfiche WebLink

• Allowing three lots to access Sycamore Creek Way. and not just have all take access on Sycamore Road, and • Realigning the multi-use trail as shown in Figure 5; If not, is some alternative number of lots (more than three) or lot configuration more appropriate? (Alternatives include, for example, two lots fronting Sycamore Creek Way and two to the south; or three lots along Sycamore Creek Way. and a single large lot to the south)? B. If the Planning Commission supports a Specific Plan amendment for a density increase; should the applicant be required to provide additional amenities beyond those required for a three-lot subdivision? If yes, what amenities should be considered? C. If the proposed specific plan amendment is supportable, does the Commission support staff's other recommendations with respect to the project including: • Requirement for PUD-LDR lots to conform to a 15,000 square foot minimum. • Reduction of proposed FARs to be more consistent with adjacent development. • Re-grading of the site to make future pad heights more compatible with adjacent lots. • Modifying the trail design to be a minimum 12 foot-wide, multi-use facility, consistent with the existing trail. D. What other information would assist the Planning Commission in its decision on the proposed project (e.g., additional photo simulations, additional technical reports or other information)? PUBLIC NOTICE Notices for this workshop were sent to surrounding property owners and tenants within a 1,000-foot radius of the site. Staff has provided the location and notification map as Exhibit F for reference. Harold Roundtree, property owner at 986 Sycamore Creek Way, contacted staff after receiving the notice. Mr. Roundtree asked a few questions regarding the proposal. Staff had not received other public comments about the project. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Since the Planning Commission will take no formal action on the project at the workshop, no environmental document accompanies this workshop report. If the applicant proceeds with a formal application, a determination will be made as to the appropriate level of CEQA review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the proposal, hear all public testimony, and provide comments to staff and the applicant. Primary Author Jenny Soo, Associate Planner, 925-931-5615 orjsooa(�cityofpleasantonca.gov. Reviewed/Approved By: Steve Otto, Senior Planner Ellen Clark, Planning Manager Gerry Beaudin. Community Development Director Larissa Seto, Assistant City Attorney P18-0075, 990 Sycamore Road Planning Commission 16 of 16 ion can be made through the PUD process. With the above considerations in mind, the following questions are where staff would find the Commission's input most helpful. Please also see Exhibit A. A. Would the Planning Commission support the requested NSSP amendments including the following: • Amending the land use designation for a one-acre portion of the site, from PUD- A to PUD-LDR, to allow the site to be developed with five lots instead of three; • Amending the NSSP text to allow one of the PUD-A lots to be less than an acre in size, so the creek can be located within one of the two PUD-A parcels; P18-0075, 990 Sycamore Road Planning Commission 15 of 16 standards. P18-0075, 990 Sycamore Road Planning Commission 14 of 16 north side of Sycamore Creek Way, existing lots range from 15,033 sq. ft. (5769 Hanifen Way)to 20,313 sq. ft. (1008 Sycamore Creek Way). P18-0075, 990 Sycamore Road Planning Commission 11of16 'Y a 0421 0 0 �I ,�� r •u"' - 36. ,`a yy�� n2+a /'�. oM 'le' k� W, k 3S 94 '@ g 'via R T3 1:5,300 0 0.05 0.1 mi PUD-89-06-08M, Gabriela Marks, 4210 Rosewood Drive Planning Division _ January 7 2020 `( �� ""�� 0 330 660 Feet I Y I , I I