19 Attachments - Laserfiche WebLink

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