3_Exhibits A & C-G - Laserfiche WebLink

Alaina Bringhurst, on behalf of the applicant, stated her family has owned the property since 1998 and had adjusted their property's lot lines to accommodate adjacent projects and trails. She discussed the homes, lots, adherence to the North Sycamore Specific Plan and said they would be willing to add a small amount of additional square footage to allow each lot to be 15,000 square feet as requested by staff. She discussed adjustments of the lots, asked that they be able to use the flexibility of a PUD to achieve the best functional design, and asked that a portion of the existing home be grandfathered in which will also conform to the guidelines and the NSSP. They are requesting approval of new lots and said all necessary roads and utilities are in place. The zoning change they are seeking was ratified with the General Plan Amendment in 2009 designating their entire parcel as low density residential. Ms. Bringurst remarked that they have reached out to neighbors and received unanimous support. They are allowed the density of two dwelling units per acre or 6 lots, but are proposing only 5 lots because they believe it is the best design to conform to both neighborhoods on the south and on the north. She asked that the Planning Commission address the questions they submitted on Monday and for the Commission's support. Peter McDonald, attorney on behalf of applicant, spoke about key amenities provided several years ago which should be used in favor of the development. He discussed the history of the area, previously- approved PUD projects and said he takes issue with the City being compensated for allowing any increase in density. He shared a copy of Government Code section 65985.J.1 which was adopted to flatly prohibit the compensation approach to planning. He asked that the City use generally applicable City requirements be reasonably applied to achieve City goals and not to negotiate compensation from people who want to provide needed housing. Most important, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the land use pattern used in the Specific Plan. The applicant is only before the Commission now because in 1992 the City did not know what route Sycamore Creek Way would follow through that southeast quadrant of the Specific Plan area, and now that they know where it is, the City should follow the same density pattern established everywhere else in the Specific Plan. He asked the Commission to expeditiously move this simple infill project towards approval. John Spotorno reiterated what the applicant has stated, said this proposal seems perfectly logical and he voiced support for it , stating his family still has a designation for five units at the end of where their sheep field is and even if the bypass road never gets built and ends right at the sheep field, there is the potential someday for five units in what they call their trust parcel and where his house is now. Lecia Roundtree introduced her husband, Harold Roundtree and said they both support the proposal. She described access for the homes on lots 3, 4 and 5 as being on the Sycamore Creek Way side and said the entrance to their home is across the street from that between lots 3 and 4. She asked that the Commission request the applicant match the architecture aesthetics with their project to the Sycamore Heights neighborhood. Harold Roundtree said he serves on the Sycamore Heights HOA Board and while he is not representing the Board, the owners met with them to present their plan. He thinks consistency Excerpt: Planning Commission Minutes, July 11, 2018 Page 3 of 11 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