CCMIN121515 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry from Councilmember Narum, staff responded that the lower part of the proposed project, down by the creek, are the man made slopes. Specifically, lots 33, 34, 35, 36, open space, 37 and 38 have a portion with man made slopes. Lot 33 is the area where the dam was constructed for the pond and is clearly man made. In response to an inquiry from Councilmember Narum, staff affirmed that there will not be any building envelopes on any area outside of the twenty-five (25%) percent man made slopes and the only one would be lot thirty-seven (37). Staff further noted that they took a very conservative approach to determine the twenty-five (25%), which runs from lot thirty-three (33) to lot thirty-eight (38). Staff analysis shows that there is one other lot, in addition to those stated by Mr. Roberts in his letter, that has a slope which is a result of dirt that had been removed to install an earth dam (lot 33). Councilmember Brown stated that in regard to those lots, the amount available for building would be small. In response to Councilmember Brown, staff responded that from a policy perspective they would not build structures on areas with slopes of more than twenty-five (25%), presentations have already been made regarding whether certain slopes are man-made or natural and there is evidence for both arguments. If Council wanted to apply the twenty-five (25%) prohibition the last lot would be allowable, as the dirt there is a result of the construction of a dam. Staff confirmed that five (5) lots are in question. Staff stated that the issues raised regarding lot thirty-two (32) were that it was originally mapped to stop at elevation 718, the ridge should extend along a separate hill to an elevation of six hundred (600) feet. In order to be compliant with the vertical setback, the pad must be brought down to five hundred (500) feet, and as of now, the pad is proposed at five hundred thirty (530) feet. This would dramatically affect lot thirty-two (32). In response to Councilmember Brown who inquired how staff could approve a culvert or ten (10) foot retaining wall within one hundred (100) of the 515 point. Staff stated that the proposal could be approved with the original motion, when it was determined the ridge stopped at 580. Alternatively, Council could determine that the retaining walls in the creek bed were not subject to the restrictions of Measure PP or consider another interpretation of how to define the end of a ridgeline. Councilmember Brown stated the definition of a ridge is determined by the Municipal Code. Staff commented that the proposal was an attempt to interpret the vague definition of a ridgeline provided in the current Municipal Code and in various policies and regulations. There is nothing in Measure PP which directs a specific metholody for determining a ridgeline. Councilmember Brown commented there is no way not to define a ten (10) foot wall as a structure. In response to Councilmember Olson, staff stated that for lot thirty-two (32) much of the hill is at twenty- five (25%) or greater, and they can not grade off another thirty (30) feet. If the ridge is kept at 718, the pad can be built at five hundred thirty (530) feet. If you bring the ridge down to six hundred (600) you would have to build down below at five hundred (500) and it would be an end of court residential unit. Mayor Thorne affirmed that he did not want to put the community through another Measure PP debate and that referendums were a "series of soundbites" where non of the history or detail of the matter would be discussed. He is inclined to remove the proposed units beside the barn and directed staff to redesign lot thirty-two (32) to make it compliant with Measure PP. In addition, he would move the access to Ventana Hills to the last (12 unit) cul-de-sac. Councilmember Olson supported that motion. City Council Minutes Page 13 of 15 December 15,2015