Laserfiche WebLink
September Meetings <br />At the September 14`x' meeting, the Conunittcc reviewed the spreadsheet and provided input (see <br />Options A, B, and C shown on Attachment 9). After further discussion, Committee members were <br />asked to vote on which of the three options most closely represented an alignment that they could <br />support. "l~he majority (8 of the 1 1 members) narrowed the number of options down to one-they <br />focused on the alignment that is associated with Grecnbriar I [omes' current development proposal <br />for Lot 98 (shown as Option C on Attachment 9). However, throughout their discussions over the <br />summer, several Committee members voiced opposition to the number of homes proposed in <br />Greenbriar Homes' development tied to the road alignment. The initial proposal included 79 <br />housing units on the 33 acres which many Committee members (and members of the conulnu~ity) <br />said repeatedly were too many. As a result, the Committee modified several elements of the <br />development proposal and created Option D which, most significantly, reduced the number of homes <br />to 63, configured with three on one-acre lots along Alisal and the remaining 60 on half-acre lots. Six <br />of the ten Committee members present voted to support the bypass road and this moditled proposal, <br />and asked Pat Costanzo if he could consider such a revised plan. Pat Costanzo agreed to refine his <br />development proposal based on the Committees vote and return on September 28 wide a new <br />presentation. The eutirc Happy Valley area was notified of the meeting scheduled for Sept. ?K and <br />that the roadway with associated housing density would be discussed. <br />On September ?K, Pat Costanzo presented two alternative development plans Cor Lot 98 one <br />included the 63 homes as requested by the Conu~iittee and the other included 70 homes. "Che <br />proposal included consideration of the Committee's interests for some of the design features, i.e., <br />limiting heights to ,0 feet, etc. The Committee members voiced appreciation lbr Pat's <br />responsiveness. <br />In addition, many residents from the area north of Sycamore Creek Way attended this meeting. <br />Many said they did not know that Sycamore Creek Way was planned for extension in the future and <br />voiced concerns about traffic impacts. Some spoke strongly against constructing the bypass road <br />and/or permitting any additional development. 'I~he Committee listened to their concerns but made <br />no decisions related to a recommendation. In addition, several Committee members suggested that <br />further discussion of the project's density be discontinued and instead that they focus only on the <br />bypass road. <br />At the end of the meeting, the Committee was not ready to make a recommendation. Another <br />meeting was scheduled for November 9 to continue working toward this goal. <br />November Meeting <br />At the November 9 meeting, staff presented four recommendation options for Committee <br />consideration. For comparison purposes, each option included an estimate of trips per day likely to <br />be generated based on the standard 10 trips per day per home typically used to calculate traffic <br />impact plus the previously used 35.74 trips per hole at the golf course. "These estimates generated <br />the following totals: <br />^ For the golf course, total trips equal 643 per day <br />~ One member Icft the meetin~~ before the vote was taken. <br />Happy Valley Blue Ribbon Committee Page 4 <br />February 6, 2007 <br />