Laserfiche WebLink
had mentioned previously, this area was there before the golf course and that it was <br />designed to be a rural area. <br />Commissioner Blank moved to find that the proposed PUD Development Plan <br />outlined in Exhibit B is not consistent with the General Plan, the Happy Valley <br />Specific Plan and the purposes of the PUD Ordinance and is incompatible with <br />the previously developed property in the vicinity and the natural, topographic <br />features of the site; and to deny PUD-75/PGPA-14/PSPA-3. <br />Commissioner Olson seconded the motion. <br />Commissioner Blank inquired what would occur if the applicant returned with a four-lot <br />subdivision plan. <br />Commissioner Pearce indicated that she could not support a four-lot subdivision unless <br />there are extenuating circumstances and does not alter the rural nature, which she feels <br />cannot be done. <br />Chair Blank stated that it might be enough if, in the future, the applicant were to do a <br />huge conservation easement and other things. <br />Chair Pearce stated that in any case, she believes the subdivision will go to the City <br />Council. <br />Commissioner O’Connor stated that he felt this is just one small parcel out in Happy <br />Valley and that adding one to three lots does not sound like a lot. He added that, <br />however, even if the Commission looks at every one of these projects as one lot off, it <br />always comes back to the Commission as precedent-setting. He noted that if every one <br />of the two- and five-acre lot owners came back and wanted their piece, the density of <br />Happy Valley could be doubled, with a dramatic change in what it would look like. He <br />recalled that this issue came up in workshops, including those on the Bypass Road <br />realignment, when Greenbriar Homes wanted to put 68 or 69 homes on a parcel that <br />was zoned for 16. <br />Commissioner Blank stated for the record that staff has indicated numerous times in the <br />past that each application is unique and is considered on a case-by case basis. He <br />added that someone’s statement that the Commission is setting a precedent does not, <br />in reality, impact what the Commission decides to do. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br />AYES: Commissioners Blank, Olson, Pearce, and Pentin. <br />NOES: Commissioner Narum. <br />ABSTAIN: None. <br />RECUSED: None. <br />ABSENT: None. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 28, 2009 Page 7 of 13 <br /> <br />