PC 102809 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Amos indicated that it leads to the bulb of the court. Kellen Aura stated his opposition to the project. He expressed concern regarding making special exceptions and amending the Happy Valley Specific Plan for one lot, which he believed would have long-term ramifications on development in the area. He indicated that traffic studies were done when the Specific Plan was put in place ten years ago. He noted that Happy Valley Road is a dangerous road as it is very narrow and winding with no shoulders or street lights. He added that there would be more traffic down Happy Valley Road once speed bumps are installed on Alisal Street. He indicated that the Specific Plan designation of one house per two acres is appropriate for Happy Valley Road, whether with or without the Bypass Road. He stated that safety is the main issue and that an increase in density is not appropriate as it would significantly increase the traffic in the area. He voiced concern that this will set a precedent and noted that it was not right to allow a property to go in disrepair and then allow special considerations to make it look better. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Blank inquired if staff had any perspective on a conservation easement versus dedication of the City, versus the pros and cons of mechanisms. Mr. Dolan replied that , typically, staff would not want a piece of property this small to be dedicated to the City as it becomes a management and maintenance issue, particularly when there are drainage ways involved. He noted that staff would be satisfied with a conservation easement. Referring to the photomontages with the tree in place, Commissioner O’Connor noted that on the six-lot visual, the homes appear to be closer to the fence line, and the house at the end of the bridge becomes very prominent. He added that in the five-lot plan, the house is moved but the asphalt becomes very prominent because the court has been moved to the middle of the property with a large turnaround. He stated that in the three-lot plan, the street is smaller and stays high against the back of the property and away from the golf course. He indicated that he prefers the three-lot visual, particularly if any of the added landscaping is removed. Commissioner O’Connor added that he agrees with the Mr. Aura and with those who wrote in opposition to the project. He noted that this is not just a change, but an amendment to the Specific Plan and the General Plan. He indicated that he was not in favor of changing those Plans without some overriding consideration. He added that he did not believe increased density for two or three extra homes was justifiable. He stated that he would support the three-lot plan. Commissioner Narum stated that she would support the five-lot visual plan. She indicated that she recognized there is a maximum density of houses allowed in the Happy Valley Specific Plan but that adding two more homes would still be under the overall number. She stated that there would be benefits here, such as the City getting PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 28, 2009 Page 5 of 13