Laserfiche WebLink
Chairperson Roberts advised that she feels that the grading is the primary problem. She questioned <br />whether staff is aware of any other alternative for placing the dirt. Mr. Plucker advised that staff has <br />explored the possibility of other sites, and while they are still exploring the issue, no other areas have <br />been located at this point. Commissioner Maas concurred that the grading is the primary issue. <br /> <br />Chairperson Roberts stated that she would like to see the houses that are on fill that face north (lots 6- <br />15) moved because they are visible from the valley floor. Commissioner Maas stated that she would <br />like to see visuals from the Alisal area so that they could see the neighbors' concerns. Commissioner <br />Kameny would like to see a visual from a different location that is more prominent from other areas of <br />the City, perhaps Foothill Road. <br /> <br />Chairperson Roberts stated that she recalls many discussions and the insistence on two-acre parcels in <br />the Happy Valley area. Mr. Plucker advised that the Specific Plan that was ultimately approved by the <br />City Council provided for an average of one and one-half acre density for this particular property; there <br />are some other areas that are two. <br /> <br />In reviewing staff's identified issues regarding the project, the Commission offered the following <br />comments: <br /> <br />1. Low-Density Residential Upper Spotorno Valley Area <br /> <br />Commissioner Maas stated that she agrees with staff's concerns related to the 65-foot width proposed <br />for Lot 1, as well as the width of Lot 2. Chairperson Roberts stated that she feels the narrowness of the <br />three lots is inappropriate, and possibly one of the lots needs to be removed from the plan. <br /> <br />Are the number of lots appropriate given the site constraints? <br />Response: No. <br /> <br />Should the development standards be increased given the rural character of the area. <br />Response: Yes. <br /> <br />Is Lot #1 feasible given the location of the future home in proximity to the by-pass road? <br />Response: No, too narrow; setback issues. <br /> <br />Should the unusable slope areas be removed from the lots? <br />Response: No. <br /> <br />2. Medium-Density Residential Upper Spotomo Valley Area <br /> <br />It was suggested that a visual showing Lots 6 through 15, a little more jagged, and a visual without those <br />lots would be helpful. Commissioner Maas stated that she feels the setbacks and FAR's need to be <br />looked at, but she is not comfortable with giving staffthe numbers. <br /> <br />Are the lot sizes appropriate? <br />Response: Yes, with the exception of those hanging out over the fill. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 15 September 22, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />