Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Allen: That's great. The reason I ask is that in a previous meeting we <br />actually had a discussion about the growth rate of trees because we wanted them to be <br />a certain height and we ended up increasing the gallon size of the trees so they would <br />provide screening sooner. We don't need to do it now, but that was just an area of <br />interest as we get later in the meeting, we'd just be understanding that so that in case it <br />makes sense to make the decision to go with the larger sized tree to create screening <br />sooner. But it may not be needed either. <br />Hardy: We can continue to refine that and work with staff as well as with our own <br />arborist. But again, some species actually don't benefit by going in at a bigger size. <br />Commissioner Allen: Exactly, so that's why we don't know. We'll leave it to the experts <br />to help with. Thank you. <br />Chair Ritter: Okay, questions? <br />Commissioner Nagler: I just have a question. We'll get into this I know a little bit later in <br />the discussion but let me just say to put my question in context, I know that you all have <br />done over a long period of time a lot of work with the neighbors abutting this project and <br />you've been quite responsive to the neighbors which has required a lot of time and <br />commitment on Ponderosa's part to come up with a good project and that's good. My <br />question though is in the recent past, Ponderosa has come to this Commission and City <br />with two substantial projects relative to what we typically get, and I know that Ponderosa <br />will have a couple more projects coming to us. This one is relatively straight forward <br />because it's a PUD development plan. As I understand it, other projects that are in the <br />pipeline for Ponderosa require either zoning changes and /or General Plan <br />Amendments. <br />My question really is this. Is it your intention as you bring forward projects so that your <br />interaction with the Planning Commission will be complete with workshops and more <br />dialogue? As much work as you've been doing in the neighborhood, my experience so <br />far has been that you had the near opposite of those interactions with the Planning <br />Commission with your projects. So I'm just wondering, as your projects go forward, is <br />your intention to participate in the workshops that I know staff will be asking of you? <br />Hardy: Well, yes. You know, having been here for gosh, 25 years and coming before <br />this Commission and many other Councils, we like the workshop session. The process <br />has really been, up until very recently, to work directly with the residents and to hold our <br />informational outreach and neighborhood meetings. It has always been celebrated. It's <br />not meant to bypass the Planning Commission. We value your input and support. We <br />know you have technical expertise in many areas so I think what we need to do is rely <br />also on our discussions with staff early on. When we have a site we think is unusual or <br />large enough where it could be kind of like a blank piece of paper if you will, yes, that to <br />me is a good candidate to come to the Planning Commission in a workshop format. It <br />saves us the cost of putting together a lot of detailed plans. We have no interest in <br />spending a lot of money or time in developing a plan that's not going to be acceptable to <br />the Commission. But again, working with staff, we kind of have to gauge that on a case - <br />by -case basis. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 23, 2016 Page 9 of 46 <br />