08 ATTACHMENTS 4-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Pentin stated that this is his first opportunity to comment on the project. He noted that the three -lot plan is attractive because this is what was planned for in the Specific Plan. He indicated that he does not have a problem with the five lots, but does have a problem with the six lots. He added that the visuals do not bother him as much because he believes that there would be more landscaping between the houses as the owners will also want some coverage from this particular golf hole. Chair Pearce stated that she appreciates the visuals and thinks they are helpful. She added that the visuals reinforce her support for the three -lot plan which continues to emphasize the rural nature of the area as delineated in the Specific Plan. She indicated that she tends to treat requests to amend Specific and General Plans in the same manner as requests for variances, voting for them if there are extenuating circumstances, hardships, or things of that nature. She noted that she does not see any unusual formation on this property or any extenuating circumstances that would compel her to support an amendment of the Specific Plan. She indicated that she truly thinks the three -lot solution is in keeping with the area. She noted that she was aware there was concern about what this property would look like from the golf course, but as she had mentioned previously, this area was there before the golf course and that it was designed to be a rural area. Commissioner Blank moved to find that the proposed PUD Development Plan outlined in Exhibit B is not consistent with the General Plan, the Happy Valley Specific Plan and the purposes of the PUD Ordinance and is incompatible with the previously developed property in the vicinity and the natural, topographic features of the site; and to deny PUD -75 /PGPA -14 /PSPA -3. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion. Commissioner Blank inquired what would occur if the applicant returned with a four -lot subdivision plan. Commissioner Pearce indicated that she could not support a four -lot subdivision unless there are extenuating circumstances and does not alter the rural nature, which she feels cannot be done. Chair Blank stated that it might be enough if, in the future, the applicant were to do a huge conservation easement and other things. Chair Pearce stated that in any case, she believes the subdivision will go to the City Council. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he felt this is just one small parcel out in Happy Valley and that adding one to three lots does not sound like a lot. He added that, however, even if the Commission looks at every one of these projects as one lot off, it always comes back to the Commission as precedent- setting. He noted that if every one of the two- and five -acre lot owners came back and wanted their piece, the density of Happy Valley could be doubled, with a dramatic change in what it would look like. He EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 28, 2009 Page 4 of 5