PC 011409 - Laserfiche WebLink

b. PUD-751PSPA-3, Robert Wentworth Work Session to consider an amendment to the HappyValley Specific Plan to rezone an approximately 6.13-acre parcel from the PUD-SRDR (Planned Unit Development-Semi-Rural Density Residential) District to the PUD-LDR (Planned Unit Development- Low Density Residential) District and fora development plan for sixsingle-family residential parcels at 1157 Happy Valley Road. Ms. Amos presented the staff report and described the scope, layout, and key elements of the project. Commissioner Olson inquired whether the project had six lots. Ms. Amos said yes and added that the Specific Plan only allows three. Commissioner Olson referred to the map and inquired why the project does not meet the Specific Plan. Ms. Amos replied that as proposed, the six lots would not meet the one-acre minimum lot size required, and with the additional three lots, the allocation for the density would be higher than that currently outlined in the Specific Plan. Commissioner Olson noted that Lots 2 through 5 are less than one acre. He recalled that the Commission had previously looked at the entire project parcel and had two acres per lot, thereby meeting the Specific Plan and including an excess property. He inquired if something similar was being done in this case. Ms. Decker replied that the difference between the two projects essentially is that the last project already had the Happy Valley Specific Plan allocation of five dwelling units or five lots and met the density through the General Plan and the overlaying documents. She noted that in this case, General Plan and Happy Valley Specific Plan amendments would be required to change the density. Ms. Decker stated that when this project was before the Commission earlier, the Commission asked why the Commission would support this project and what would be beneficial to the project. She continued that the discussion led to how many units there were within the Specific Plan and if there were adequate allocations to increase this project by three to four lots. She noted that during that discussion, the Commission felt that there was some concern in modifying the Specific Plan, but recognizes that the Specific Plan area to date has not been built out by other projects that have come forward earlier. She added that staff had discussed with the Commission the opportunity that existed to increase the density on this site. Ms. Decker noted that staff is returning the item back to the Commission because it had three Commissioners present in the previous discussion and the applicants modified their plans according to the comments received then. She stated that staff is bringing back the project for consideration by a full Commission and is requesting direction, as outlined in the seven questions on pages 9-10 of the staff report, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 14, 2009 Page 16 of 35