PC 083116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Balch: Okay, thank you. And then because it's under site plan. I'll just say that I want to re- emphasize in my opinion and also as you've stated in the staff report-1 think I've read it incorrectly but I'm pretty tired, but I want to mention that the 11 off -site trees they are not touching, they are to stay given they are not on their property so I wouldn't expect them to chop down their neighbor's tree or the tree in the park because it's not theirs. So I just want to emphasize that. And in terms of my other question, Lots 29 through 37 are the lots along Valley Trails Drive and I'll just mention this because I know Valley Trails Drive and all I'll say given it's a workshop is that this is not a meandering street. This is a fairly well traveled road. So all I will say is the setbacks for these lots in my opinion need to make sure, and it might be properly designed now and I'm not saying it's not, but they need to be a little bit more or adequate in light of if it was on a court where you're not having higher speed limits. I'll just say it like that because if I had my weathers I wouldn't put in any more houses with a driveway onto that road in my general opinion. I think this plan though works well so I'm not suggesting that that change out. With that being said, the setbacks or maybe we could just confirm we're okay. You know the person on Lot 32, he's going to be able to see both directions pretty easily, but the person on Lot 31 and 33, they're going to have a slight blind element backing out of their driveway. So I don't know if setbacks help at all, but they might be perfectly adequate. And lastly is the traffic calming mitigation. I know people brought it up about Valley Trails Drive. At this point for me, I know that's outside the scope of it and my opinion on that is that they need to talk to the City more generally as community if they need traffic mitigation. We've heard a lot of neighborhoods come forward with traffic mitigation concerns or desires and I think, and just a bad generalization is that most people when they say it, they want it, but when they realize something in front of their house will be a blinking light they don't want it in front of their house. Put it on the neighbor's house, and then it just gets moving down the street and it's never in the neighborhood. So, we'll say we will evaluate it or say we could, I'm not going to put it on the bend for the overall bigger community in my opinion. That's it. Commissioner Nagler: I think that the overall site plan is fine and I just have these very specific questions or comments. One, I just want to make sure —it was raised -1 just want to make sure that the tot lot is still part of the plan which I'm sure it is, but I just want to make sure. The second is again, just to echo Commissioner Balch, I appreciate your comments about the post stop lights at the intersection. I think that's unnecessary and in fact in the end if it's an uncontrolled intersection I think that's preferable just because the amount of daily trips that are going to be added to the street are not that significant at the intersection. The traffic calming measures that were generally discussed I would encourage staff to continue to focus on because even though I say what I say about the intersection I think overall, the way cars come around that horseshoe needs to be looked at so I think that's significant. Chair Ritter: I would like us to make sure we're looking at the traffic issue on Hopyard because there is 37 more homes coming out there. And if we did have to do traffic calming on the curve here, I think right off the corner on Lassen would be the main spot to slow people down coming around the curve, but I would defer to Tassano's report on traffic quantities. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 31, 2016 Page 27 of 58