Laserfiche WebLink
The minutes were approved as corrected. <br />3. MEETING OPEN FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE TO <br />ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ANY ITEM WHICH IS <br />NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA. <br />There were none. <br />4. REVISIONS AND OMISSIONS TO THE AGENDA <br />There were none. <br />5. MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION <br />There were none. <br />6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS <br />a. PSP-6/PUD-96-04-O1M, Berni Hacker <br />Application for an amendment to the North Sycamore Specific Plan (NSSP) and <br />for a major modification to PUD-96-04 to allow the subdivision of an existing <br />1.29-acre property at 565 Sycamore Creek Way into athree-lot custom home <br />development. Zoning for the property is PUD-LDR (Planned Unit Development <br />-Low Density Residential) District. <br />Mr. Iserson summarized the staff report and described the proposed project. He noted <br />that the Hafkers' existing home would be retained on Lot 3, and two new homes would <br />be eventually constructed on Lots 1 and 2. The applicant submitted design guidelines to <br />govern the design of the houses, subject to design review approval. The Specific Plan's <br />land use criteria for the creation of lots are: (1) Lots in this area should be at least <br />15,000 square feet, which was met by the applicant; and (2) The overall density should be <br />between 0-2 units to the acre. Three lots would be 2.3 dwelling units to the acre, which <br />necessitated the Specific Plan amendment. <br />Staff believed that the Specific Plan amendment for the third lot would be justified <br />because the overall lot size minimum had been exceeded. Staff believed that the three-lot <br />plan would be compatible with the lot sizes and the development pattern in the North <br />Sycamore area, as well as the adjacent parcel and the Bridle Creek development. <br />Mr. Iserson noted that Lot 1 would be in character with the rest of the community and <br />that it would not present a burden to the area in terms of traffic or public facilities. He <br />noted that there would be very limited visibility of the house on Lot 2 and that access <br />may be taken off an existing private street that the neighbors had constructed to serve <br />their lots. He noted that additional infrastructure would not be necessary, and the Hafkers <br />had secured the necessary approval and easements from the neighbors to use that lot. <br />Therefore, staff supported this proposed Specific Plan amendment for the additional lot <br />... on the site. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 25, 2004 Page 2 of 9 <br />