PC 032719 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Brown said clearly the staging area is an amenity, but the purpose of it is the larger open space amenity. Commissioner Ritter voiced support for the intermediary area. Mr. Beaudin stated staff will explore alternate locations with EBRPD and see if they can find a solution. Question 3: Does the Commission support changing the General Plan Open Space land use designation to allow residential development on the Shriner property lots? Commissioner Brown said yes; this is subject to verification that the lots are buildable and reviewing the visuals as they relate to the road and properties. He wants to verify there are not shrubs, trash or other things that would verify it is not a slope. Commissioner Ritter echoed Commissioner Brown's comments. Commissioner O'Connor said if Lots 32 and 33 are existing, the developer can rebuild where they are located. Commissioner Balch said the challenge is grading in areas greater than 25 percent for the lots. The grading associated with the road he understood clearly. He would like to minimize grading for the lots any greater than 25 percent in area and while it looks good on the maps, he would like to state clearly that is a different departure from the Commission's consensus with the Lund Ranch project. His concept is that Lot 31 is not a problem and he was trying to apply the same to the lower four lots, which are anomalies. In looking at Lot 4 or 11, depending on the map, which is the most western lot near the open space and urban growth boundary, it has a lot of sloping questions. The Commission has resolved these are anomalies, but it would be important to know if they were grading for pads in an area greater than 25 percent; if they are, they should be consciously aware the Commission was giving approval to that. If not, it would be good to know, as well. Mr. Beaudin referred to Exhibit G which shows the grading boundary limit with the dotted line. The Commission can see the EVA is a narrow swath, but to blend it back without putting in retaining walls, the grading boundary is significant outside of those developed areas. Commissioner Balch said he understands when talking about the EVA they are talking about grading above and below and the concern is over 25 percent for grading of the road. What he is asking is whether the City is doing this in any other location to make a lot pad. He did not think so because the western lots on the upper portion of the Lester family's property are more anomalies. Mr. Beaudin provided an example and said the question is whether access could be achieved to Lots 15 and 16 if they did not do the grading through this area. The question is whether the Planning Commission thinks those are areas not consistent with Measure PP or the kinds of slopes that were intended to be protected. Also, the Commission should consider the fact that the majority of the area is in a relatively protected and screened portion of the hillside. To build back into the portion of the site they must manage through that 25 percent area, therefore, Planning Commission Minutes Page 19 of 22 March 27, 2019 22 March 27, 2019 d. Ms. Amos said those other proposals did not include the Shriner family's property and the access required constructing a bridge over the creek. Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 of 22 March 27, 2019