PC 022515 - Laserfiche WebLink

Measuring slope. This was primarily a question of whether one maps the slope and then mathematically figure out on a relatively fine area what the angle between the contour lines on a map are, how steep it is based on a certain measuring criteria. That was then compared to something that was a little more like using slope- averaging where one gets a little cruder in the measurement and some of the little bumps and holes that might crop up are eliminated because measuring those at a certain level of detail becomes kind of silly. Staff considered those and ultimately decided to map slope using two -foot contours. This is very conservative, and some of the little blips along the way do show up, but there seemed to be more support for being conservative in that regard. The Lund Ranch II project started with an open -ended interpretation of Measure PP. When the applicants started the development process for the project, they asked how slope was going to be measured and where the ridge setback line was. Because they had to start with something, staff made certain assumptions, but the City Council made it clear that those assumptions are also subject to interpretation as the project proceeds, and so it is possible that some of the interpretations staff had made and related to the applicant will not turn out to be the same at the end. 2. Identifying ridges and their end - points. Measure PP makes reference to protecting the City's ridges, and the General Plan has a pretty broad definition of what a ridge is; but a hundred people could take a topography map and come up with different interpretations of what a ridge is. When staff tried to apply the definition to the real world, staff found out that that it also needed to define where the ridge ended because if a ridge just goes on forever until it goes down to level ground, and there is a 100 -foot vertical setback, nothing can ever be developed anywhere based on Measure PP. This is not really a reasonable way to interpret Measure PP and probably not the way the voters thought it would work, so staff made their best estimates on where the ridges are, starting with a definition considered by the City Council in the first reading. Staff has done this for this project 3. Measuring ridgeline setback to building pad vs. top of structure. There has been a lot of dialogue at the Planning Commission and City Council levels regarding whether the 100 -foot setback from the ridgeline down to development extends to the building pad or to the top of the structure. When this was last considered by the Planning Commission years back before any of the current Commissioners were on board, the majority of the Commissioners thought that it should go to the top of the building. That conversation moved on to the City Council, and the majority of the Councilmembers at that time picked the opposite and decided it really should be ridgeline to building pad. Ultimately, this is a choice. 4. Is a road a structure? This has been an on -going dialogue, and there has not been an agreement. When the then Planning Commission was forced to make a recommendation on this, there were definitely some Commissioners who felt a road was a structure. And the last time the Council took a vote on this, even though it was not followed through on the second reading, it determined that a road was not a structure. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2015 Page 15 of 46