PC 011316 - Laserfiche WebLink

O'Connor: I wouldn't be opposed to that, but are you now inviting the Army Corps to come in if we're going to be crossing the creek and have other governmental issues? Balch: Or you could access through the existing driveway though. Weinstein: Yeah, we hoped that the access would be from the existing driveway and not touch the riparian area at all. O'Connor: Okay Balch: If I may, I fear that that would do away with the clustering element that we were trying to achieve, or at least that I was initially trying to achieve. I didn't think of the permutation that you're suggesting but I wouldn't be opposed to it if that's what the applicant ultimately decided to do or would like to do. That's my position on it. Nagler: Of course I support having any conversations with the applicant that are interesting and potentially make for a good project, I personally would prefer the properties to be clustered and to be basically 1 point something acre sites and actually have the view of the hillside be an open hillside up to the church. I think that's as a view, preferred. So, sure, if you could agree on something that includes the parcel above the creek, of course, but I wouldn't prefer it. Beaudin: I'm just going to generalize the various points. So on the GP density increase, I heard a 3 -1 -1 straw poll with three folks in favor of not making that change, one person okay with amending the General Plan, and one person saying they would consider three or four which would still be a GP amendment. So the 3 -1 -1 which means we're going to go ahead and work with the applicant on a 3 -unit project based on the majority straw poll of three. I just want to make sure everyone's clear on that approach with the applicant. Balch: It's a significant change. Beaudin: Yeah, it's a 3 -unit project moving forward without a General Plan Amendment which is consistent with what staff is recommending. I just want to make sure that is clear to the Commission. The other items we talked about this evening, I heard consensus on all of those so it's 5 -0 across the board, so I want to state that for the record as well and make sure everyone is aware of that from staff's notes. Ritter: It's a workshop so typically, I guess ask staff your question. Allen: Before that, I just wanted to respond to the previous question quickly. I agree with Commissioner Nagler's comment about the house being on the north side of the creek. Generally, I'd like to see the clustering and not see the house; however, if there could be a house on the north side of the creek that was filtered and one wouldn't see it, then as far as I'm concerned, that's fine. So the issue is just if it is highly visible though that doesn't feel so good. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 13, 2016 Page 24 of 26