Laserfiche WebLink
brief background of the previous development applications for the site. She reported that in March <br /> 2006, the Planning Commission heard the proposal for an NSSP amendment to change the land use <br /> designation thereby increasing the number of lots on the project site from three to five and supported <br /> the proposal. However, no further action was taken by the applicant to pursue the development of the <br /> site until 2018. <br /> Planning and Permit Center Manager Dennis reported the applicant submitted a preliminary review <br /> application for a similar five lot PUD and subdivision proposal. She noted the Planning Commission <br /> reviewed the project and stated it could generally support three homes fronting Sycamore Creek Way if <br /> they were designed to be comparable to the design, setbacks, building mass and bulk, and floor area of <br /> the adjacent Sycamore Heights homes on Sycamore Creek Way. She explained the Planning <br /> Commission suggested the future home on Lot 1 be less visible and maintain the rural character of the <br /> area. <br /> Planning and Permit Center Manager Dennis reported the Bringhurst family filed their formal application <br /> for a five lot PUD subdivision and provided an overview of NSSP amendments, the PUD rezoning and <br /> development plan, the Vesting Tentative Map, and the Growth Management Allocation. She provided <br /> drawings of the proposed project layout. <br /> Planning and Permit Center Manager Dennis reported staff's analysis will focus on consistency with the <br /> General Plan and the NSSP. She advised staff believes allowing an amendment to the NSSP to suit <br /> the project proposal would be inconsistent with the goals of the NSSP. She advised staff does not <br /> support amending the NSSP land use to increase the density for the proposed development. She noted <br /> the Planning Commission considered the proposed project on January 22nd, disagreed with the staff <br /> position, and indicated they may be able to support the project, but requested adjustments to the <br /> building area and setbacks as well as visual renderings for Lot 1 before rendering a recommendation. <br /> Planning and Permit Center Manager Dennis reported the Planning Commission reviewed the <br /> information provided by the applicant and unanimously concluded the development as proposed is <br /> acceptable and thus supported a recommendation for approval of the NSSP amendment and five lot <br /> project as proposed to the City Council. She advised staff continues to believe developments need to <br /> be proposed in a manner consistent with the NSSP based on its land-use plan instead of amending the <br /> NSSP to accommodate proposed development and does not support the amendment. <br /> In response to Councilmember Brown's inquiry, Community Development Director Ellen Clark <br /> explained the City Attorney's Office determined the Bridal Creek Homeowners Association (HOA) could <br /> invite the property to the HOA but the City could not compel that to occur. Project Planner Jenny Soo <br /> clarified the front yard setback for Lots 2, 3, and 4 is 25 feet and the line Councilmember Brown was <br /> referring to was the grading break line. <br /> In response to Councilmember Narum's inquiry. Project Planner Jenny Soo reported Design Review <br /> was taking place at the administrative level and not at the Planning Commission because design <br /> criteria are incorporated into the design guideline. She also reported staff did not feel the need to go <br /> through the Planning Commission because there is a set of design guidelines and existing homes in the <br /> neighborhood. Community Development Director Clark explained the Planning Commission felt there <br /> were enough guidelines to be comfortable with the staff-level approval of the home design. She noted <br /> the applicant could appeal at a public hearing if they had a concern. <br /> In response to Councilmember Narum's inquiries, Community Development Director Clark explained <br /> one of the clear expectations set by the Planning Commission was the three homes would look and feel <br /> like they are part of the adjacent subdivision. She clarified the Dale Way easement was provided by the <br /> prior owner in 1997 and is described as a transmission pipeline and access road easement. She also <br /> noted public access is permitted on Dale Way at present and access would be dedicated as part of the <br /> subdivision which the owner could not dispute. Project Planner Soo interjected and advised if the City <br /> City Council Minutes Page 5 of 14 August 18. 2020 <br />