SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

I believe roads should be considered structures and therefore subject to the limitations of PP. The former Council (which included Mayor Thorne and Councilmember Cook-Kallio) unanimously made this determination in November of 2012, and the current Planning Commission also supported this 5-0. 1 believe the intent of PP is to restrict construction of homes and roads on greater than 25% slopes or within 100' of a ridge, and the regulations adopted by the Council should be consistent with this intent. I am aware of an alternative proposal where a road could be determined as "infrastructure" and General Plan Policy 21 could be strengthened to limit roads on ridgetops, however after considerable contemplation of this option, my concern is that any City Council could change this policy with three votes and allow roads on ridges. I believe this would undermine Measure PP and the will of the people. Despite this, I believe that the city made a commitment to the Happy Valley Bypass Road and that it is a traffic mitigation for the golf course developed by the city. This mitigation was also the basis of a favorable lawsuit decision over construction of the golf course for the city. Since the construction of the golf course preceded Measure PP, this mitigation to the project should be allowed when developer funding is available. Since a portion of the Bypass Road route may lie outside both the City and County Urban Growth Boundaries, an evaluation should be performed and appropriate action taken consistent with our General Plan and County Measure D to resolve any conflicts (including potentially a vote of the people). Regarding the Lund Ranch II development, the strict interpretation of PP is such that a road could not be built into the development from Sunset Creek Lane due to slopes in excess of 25%. In addition, a previous City Council made an agreement with the Ventana Hills Steering Committee that the permanent access to Lund Ranch II would not be constructed through that neighborhood. This agreement was memorialized as Condition of Approval No. 30 for the Bonde Ranch subdivision (PUD-90-18). These negotiations were also the basis of planning for the North Sycamore Specific Plan, which stated that permanent access to Lund Ranch II would be via Sycamore Creek Lane. While this agreement may not be legally binding on Greenbrier, it is the foundation of over 20 years of planning in this area and a commitment that the city made to this neighborhood that should be kept. The result of this would be that Lund Ranch II could be developed as a ten unit project as an exemption to Measure PP. However, it is my understanding—although I have not visited the site to confirm this— is that the portion of the route from Sycamore Creek Lane to Lund Ranch II that exceeds 25% slope is very small and limited to a drainage ditch. If this is the case, the former Council provided flexibility in its direction to exempt "minor irregularities" from the 25% slope limitation. This may be an option if the finding can be made. Finally, I agree with the Planning Commission recommendation that the 100' limitation should be measured from the top of structures. Measure PP was all about protecting view shed and ridge lines, therefore the regulations should ensure that the entire structure of any development should be clear of the 100' limitation. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. Nlatt Sullivan Matt Sullivan 2