3_Exhibits A & C-G - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. PC-2020-04 Page Three 2. Whether the plan is consistent with the City's General Plan and any applicable specific plan: The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of "Low Density Residential" on the General Plan Map. However, the General Plan Land Use Element indicates that General Plan Land Uses, densities and street alignments that are within specific plan areas are only conceptually shown on the General Plan Map while the Specific Plan provides additional detail. Therefore, the proposed development will need to conform to the Land Use Designation and density indicated by the NSSP. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed development is not consistent with the NSSP land use designation and density. The overall goal of the NSSP is to provide a clear plan to guide future land use and development within the plan are, and the objectives of the NSSP include facilitating the orderly development of lands with the plan area which balances the potentially competing interests of current residents of the planning area and potential future residents of the planning area. The proposed development does not follow the NSSP as it requests amendments to the NSSP to change the land use designation and rezone a portion of the site to gain additional lots for development opportunity. The Planning Commission cannot support the proposed density increase and finds that the project does not conform to the NSSP. 3. Whether the plan is compatible with previously developed properties in the vicinity and the natural, topographic features of the site: The existing residential homes on Sycamore Creek and vicinity include a mixture of one-and-two-story residences with a variety of architectural styles while the majority of the existing homes on Sycamore Road and vicinity reflect the rural character of the area. The Commission finds that the design criteria listed in the Design Guidelines would require future homes to be constructed so as be compatible with the land use pattern in the neighborhood and previously developed properties in the vicinity. However, the Commission is concerned that, by allowing for construction of an additional home on the proposed Lot 1, it would be less consistent with the existing rural character of the neighborhood compared to what exists today. The Planning Commission requested detailed visual where the exact building parts would be placed along Sycamore Road; a streetscape visual to assist in understanding FAR, and appropriate structure/building setbacks in respect to Sycamore Creek. The applicant decided not to include such visual in the application submittal. Hence, in absence of a streetscape visual, the Planning Commission cannot support a future home on Lot 1. The Commission cannot find the proposed development would be compatible with the existing neighbors; thus, cannot make this finding. ce with State-mandated findings. As noted earlier, staff does not support the proposed five-lot residential development, and thus does not support the Vesting Tentative Map as proposed. However, should the Planning Commission support a version of the PUD that would increase the allowable density on this project site, a conforming Vesting Tentative Map (for 5 lots), or Parcel Map (for 4 or fewer lots) could also be recommended for approval, subject to the necessary conditions of approval. PUD-135, P19-0030, P19-0031 and Vesting Tentative Map 8528 Planning Commission 990 Sycamore Road 21 of 23 .+� s1. i� '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