PC 011316 - Laserfiche WebLink

read the staff report, it sounded like that might not even be necessary. They could do the three homes without any further changes, is that...? Hagen: They would still be required to do a subdivision. Balch: But they could just carve off the three similar to what they've done here. If they developed it just into three lots similar to what was presented, in theory that would work because each lot would be greater than an acre is what I thought I heard. Hagen: Correct. Nagler: And it wouldn't require a change in zoning. Hagen: What we would typically require is we would still request a zone change where each of the lots would be over an acre, but that we would have some stipulation that on the church parcel that maybe 2 acres of that would remain at the current designation and then the other designation still on the church parcel would have an open space designation. A single parcel can have more than one designation. So by doing that, if you had the church parcel still at the 12 acres, you could have two that were available to add that the church could expand on and the other 10 would be open space. So if they did sell in the future, somebody couldn't come in and try to .... well, I guess potentially they could come for another zone change, but with stipulations and conditions of approval, have designations within that open space that it couldn't be future residential. Balch: So following up on that element, given the slope of this and our extensive knowledge of the slope, given Lund Ranch, are we really concerned that they might develop on that slope? Because I will tell you I think they are at the top of the ridgeline already, right? I mean, that being 1 -580. Weinstein: So if it's less than 10 units, its exempt from PP and so it's hard to imagine that greater than 10 units could be developed on the site. Again, just to restate what Jennifer conveyed in her presentation, we feel like this is a really constrained site. From an environmental standpoint in particular, there's not only steep slopes but a creek running right in the middle of the site and that's why I think on the staff level that the existing General Plan designation for this site is intentional. One of the great things about our City is that there are sort of strips of or interjections of open space on the edges of the City and you see that in Happy Valley, you see that along Sycamore, you see that on Foothill and you see it up here as well. So, we do think that this isn't necessarily an infill site that needs to be filled with development but that this General Plan designation of Rural Residential might be intentional and we think that's the case because the General Plan designation for this site among lots of other sites in this City has been reviewed a couple of times by the City to determine whether it should be changed and during each of those reviews, the designation has been static. So the number of units currently allowed under the existing General Plan designation is three. If you look at the entire project site, what you need is 15 acres for three units. So if you can give the church an acre and a half or so for itself and you can get 15 acres for other development you could get three units according to the existing General Plan designation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 13, 2016 Page 16 of 26