Laserfiche WebLink
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O'Connor regarding State codes and local codes, <br />Chief Cody replied that was a complex issue because local amendments could be added to State <br />codes to make them more applicable to the local area. The wildland requirements must apply to <br />that area in order to build within that envelope. He noted that when that was applied to the road <br />grades, certain sections of the road could exceed the grade because the Code was not intended to <br />state that was the maximum grade allowable. The Code states an "average grade," but when the <br />Fire Department looks at the access into the development, it must evaluate whether the intent of <br />the Code would work for the area, as opposed to following the exact letter of the law. He echoed <br />Ms. Decker's comments that that had been done in a number of developments around the <br />community based on the specific needs of the property. He noted that the City had some latitude <br />in this regard. <br />Commissioner O'Connor wished to ensure that actions not specifically delineated in the Code <br />did not take place simply because it had been done in the past. <br />Ms. Decker noted that when staff met with the Grey Eagle Estates representatives, staff was <br />presented with the same question posed by Commissioner O'Connor. They examined what <br />would possibly be feasible, but did not request that people give up lands to provide an easement. <br />She displayed the existing easement and the current connection. In staff s conversations with the <br />fire officials, the goal was to have the primary entrance at the Hearst Drive location and a <br />secondary exit more distant from that location, rather than have atwo-pronged exit. Response <br />times from Fire Stations 1 and 4 were also noted. <br />Ms. Decker noted that the question of why the existing Grey Eagle Estates EVA could not be <br />abandoned for the benefit of using Benedict Court. The original plan in the DEIR had lots that <br />curved around the spine, resulting in more development in that area. As that was pulled back <br />and removed, people would leave using the route they used to enter. Staff had confidence that <br />the EVA would be viable and could be constructed; other opportunities may exist, although they <br />may not be preferred because of their closer location to the main entry. She noted that the <br />purpose in all development projects was to separate the ingress and egress points for emergency <br />services as far away as possible from each other. She noted there was further discussion <br />regarding the possible use of the Berlogar access road, which had been newly improved and <br />placed. It was not anticipated at the time of development that it become an EVA, and there were <br />insufficient waterline sizes at that road. <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Olson regarding why Red Feather Court was <br />dismissed as an access road, Ms. Decker replied that there was an exiting EVA at Grey Eagle <br />Court. In addition, staff did not go door-to-door to ask neighbors how they felt about a 20-foot <br />easement across their private drive. Staff spoke with the applicant, who provided some plans, <br />and felt that this particular alignment was not direct because of topography, grading, and slope <br />cuts into the site. She noted that was not an optimum locational alignment because cutbacks <br />down the slopes were necessary, but staff tried to create the optimum situation based on creating <br />the greatest distance between an EVA point and an access point into a development. In addition, <br />the environmental impacts of the amount of cutting the site were considered, especially with <br />respect to vegetation and streams. <br />EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 27, 2007 Page 7 of 17 <br />