PC 062415 - Laserfiche WebLink

impact than the specific road that potentially would be built into Lund Ranch II. He indicated that therefore, for him, whether or not that road will need to be built, Lund Ranch II becomes then a question of all of the other factors that surround that decision if in fact the impact on Measure PP is rather minimal. Commissioner Nagler stated that all those other circumstances are exactly what people have said: They want to be a city of integrity, a community where the Council's word matters, that they want to be able to tell their children that when they say something and repeat it, they mean it. He indicated that he believes it matters that the neighbors in the Ventana Hills and other surrounding neighborhoods, like good citizens and good neighbors, have gone to meeting after meeting and lived through decision after decision and have had both formal and informal agreements, and while, in the eyes of the law, it may not be enforceable from a court's perspective, that does not change the fact that it is an agreement; and in the exact same way that the residents of the Sycamore neighborhood have an agreement when they purchased their home that they recognize that that traffic may come through their neighborhood. He added that it seems that all agreements talk about where this road is going to be built are similarly existent, important, and represent what people culturally want to be as a community. Commissioner Nagler stated that he fundamentally supports building the road out through the Sycamore neighborhood. He noted that it may not be the environmentally preferred thing to do, but he believes it is within the broad intent of Measure PP and pays obeisance to what the community wants to be. Commissioner Nagler stated that he could also support staff's Option 3 recommendation because it is reasonable. He indicated, however, that he believes 10 is probably not the right number mostly because as he looks at the layout of the neighborhood, it could probably be divided a little more rationally if it were not limited to 10 homes. He added that if it were possible to support additional home sites, if they could be engineered elsewhere to make up for the home sites that might be lost by creating a cul -de -sac, because he is also paying attention to the economics of the project from the developer's perspective and does not know if 50 is the right number or if it pencils out, he could support a plan that still has 50 home sites while also creating this cul -de -sac. He stated that he could certainly support Option 3 as well. Commissioner Balch stated that after reading inches of paper and sitting through hours of meetings, he actually is still right on the fence. He agreed that both Commissioner Piper and Commissioner Nagler make excellent arguments to both sides of this coin. He indicated that he is not certain he can interpret Commissioner Piper's current definition of if a road is a structure because if he were building anything and goes back to when applicants were coming and asking to build a balcony, and there are no CC &R restriction or PUD restriction whatsoever, and the Commission grapples with the question of whether the balcony should be allowed, that maybe it does not fit in the neighborhood, his general thought is that the rules should be known to everyone. He noted that this does not help him here much either because, as Commissioner Piper points out, the rules for the owners of the properties later on, basically Bridle Creek and Sycamore Heights, whether they were fully disclosed to the buyer's preferred level or not, may be a moot point. He indicated, however, that the fact is that they were PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 36 of 54