PC 011404 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Iserson presented the staff report and detailed the history of the application. IIe described the proposed three-lot plan and noted that staff made a determination that the three-lot plan would not be in conformance with the North Sycamore Specific Plan (NSSP) and that a modification to the Specific Plan would be required. The applicants filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination, asking the Planning Commission to determine if the NSSP would allow the proposed three-lot plan. The applicants would prefer not to modify the NSSP. They also noted in their attorney Peter MacDonald's letter that there had been some changes in circumstances and that there was some leftover Sycamore Creek right-of--way which would count towards additional acreage of the site. Staff noted that that piece of land had already been added to the property and counted as lot area. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Kameny, staffls opinion was that the Specific Plan took precedence. The NSSP contained two features with respect to land use and development of property: 1. 15,000-square-foot minimum lot area, which the applicants had; and 2. Aland use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR) and density of 0-2 units per acre, which would be exceeded with the applicant s proposal. Based on these criteria, staff had found that the applicant's three-lot plan was inconsistent with the NSSP. Mr. Iserson noted that the PUD zoning was consistence with the Specific Plan. _ Ms. Nerland advised that the language of the PUD adopted in 1996 reiterated the Specific Plan's requirement for atwo-lot maximum. Mr. Iserson advised that the applicants recently submitted a letter to the Commission, and it has been staffls opinion that the Specific Plan and the General Plan are consistent with respect to the zoning. The NSSP states that sites need to be rezoned as PUD-LDR, which had been done; the PUD is consistent with the NSSP, which is also LDR. Mr. Iserson advised that comments had been received from some of the neighbors. Keesok Kang, 5763 Shadow Ridge Court, felt that three lots would be too crowded and preferred two lots. Beth Morado, Shadow Ridge Court, also preferred two lots. Matt and Summer Duffy, 530 Sycamore Road, had expressed concern about possible encroachment on their agricultural use by the three lots; although they were not necessarily opposed to the proposal, they were concerned with three lots at the present time. Staff believed that while there may be good reasons for approving athree-lot plan, it should be done through a Specific Plan Modification and a PUD. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal, which would affirm that two lots on the Hatker property is consistent with the NSSP, and that a Specific Plan modification would be necessary to approve a three-lot plan. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2004 Page 9 of 22