PC 031208 - Laserfiche WebLink

the Summerhill offhaul and place it at the upper site. She noted that the North Sycamore Specific Plan showed road alignments that were slightly different from the alignment of the roads at the present time. Staff used the documents to determine the concept and the intent for the development of the area. However, this project would require a Specific Plan Amendment for both density and zoning. As to the question of density, she noted that the Summerhill development had not completely built out all of the units. Some lots had been combined for a larger pad. Therefore, overall density in the North Sycamore Specific Plan area would not be increased because the lands were zoned PUD-A. She noted that the applicants were in a difficult position because the City had allowed to place offhaul, to compact, to build benches, to construct, and to provide utilities to three lots; there was no single package with building plans for the development of those sites. Commissioner Fox noted that she had not seen a situation with a Specific Plan, featuring grading that presumed that a Specific Plan Amendment would be approved, as well as home sites that were not originally in the plan. Commissioner Olson noted that this was a good example of something that had been done incorrectly in the past and was not as concerned about the past occurrences as long as it could be made right in the present. Commissioner Narum noted that the discussion points were all related. Discussion Point 1-Should the proposed Specific Plan Amendment be approved to allow for a density increase? Discussion Point 2 - Assuming it is supportable to have this portion of the lot be changed from PUD-A district to PUD-LDR district, would the proposed lot size be suitable? Discussion Point 3 -Would the layout for the proposed PUD-A lots be acceptable? Commissioner Narum noted that she would like to address all three discussion points at once. She would be willing to support the density increase provided that those lots along Sycamore Creek were done in a manner consistent with the setbacks. She would like to see a transition from the lot on the left to the lot on the right in terms of the front setbacks. She noted that the side setbacks were consistent with the Specific Plan and was more interested that it presented a visually consistent setback. She noted that most of the houses in Sycamore Creek had side driveways, with the exception of the lot to the left. She had some concerns about the lot to the left being 12,000 square feet or smaller, and because of the grading, the adj acent lot was the largest at 16,000 square feet. She would be more supportive of the project if the lot sizes could be closer. With respect to Discussion Point 1, Commissioner Olson believed the Planning Commission should approve the Specific Plan Amendment. He did not view it as a density increase because the number of total homes originally approved was not increased. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 12, 2008 Page 19 of 22