Laserfiche WebLink
ATTACHMENT 4 <br />PUD-77, Dutra Trust <br />Application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) development plan approval to <br />subdivide aten-acre site located at 1053 Happy Valley Road into five single-family <br />residential lots and one open space parcel. Zoning for the property is PUD- <br />SRDR/OS (Planned Unit Development -Semi- Rural Density Residential/Open <br />Space) District. <br />Also consider the Negative Declaration prepared for the project. <br />Ms. Soo presented the staff report and described the scope, layout, and key elements <br />of the project. She noted a typographical error in the Design Guidelines that the <br />development is for 5 homes rather than 12 homes. She added that Condition No. 40 <br />was changed after the December 10`h meeting to address specific language regarding <br />sprinklers. <br />Commissioner Olson inquired what "first-come, first-served" meant, whether the lots <br />were part of an allocation already made under the housing cap, and if those two <br />concepts were related. Ms. Soo replied that the houses are within the City's housing <br />cap and the Happy Valley Specific Plan. She explained that the City has a Growth <br />Management Program, and if all the allocations have been used, an applicant may need <br />to wait for the following year. She noted, however, that staff does not anticipate this to <br />occur as there are only five custom home sites. <br />Commissioner Olson inquired if "first-come, first-served" means that if the housing <br />allocation cap is reached, the applicant would not be allowed to pull permits. Ms. Seto <br />confirmed that is the case. With respect to "first-come, first-served," she explained that <br />this relates to the City's Growth Management ordinance where there is a set number of <br />building permits which can be issued each year for residential uses. <br />Commissioner Blank stated that he believed the lots were already accounted for in the <br />housing allocation and that the number has been reserved even if the City were to hit <br />the housing cap. Ms. Seto confirmed that this number of units was allocated to Happy <br />Valley; however, the timing of their construction would be affected by other parts of the <br />City and whether there are other sites that are rezoned to allow more density. <br />Commissioner Fox referred to the maximum density of two acres per lot and the <br />minimum lot size of one acre on page 5 of the staff report. She inquired why Lots 2 <br />and 3 are .81 acre and .83 acre when the minimum lot size is one acre. Ms. Soo replied <br />that while the while the Happy Valley Specific Plan requires that the density in the <br />project's zoning district is one lot per two acres and each lot size is to be a minimum of <br />one acre, the Plan also includes flexibility to allow the lot size, configuration, or lot <br />dimensions to be smaller or less than what is specified in the Plan, provided that the <br />project conforms to the intent of the Plan. She added that in this particular project, the <br />one-lot minimum requirement could be accomplished by going through the creek across <br />the lots; however, she indicated that staff believes that from a planning standpoint, this <br />is not the preferred alternative and that staff would like to reserve the open space area <br />to include the entire creek for creek preservation as well as maintenance purposes. <br />EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 14, 2009 Page 1 of 10 <br />