PC 101007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Narum disclosed that she toured the site with Commissioner Pearce and the applicants. She did not support the grape planting and noted that she lived on the northwest side of this development on the other side of the high school. She noted that Foothill Road was at the western edge of the City and that it was natural and rural. She would like the open space or areas that are not developed to be left the way it is. 4. Should the lots be reduced in size, thereby creating a larger open space? Commissioner Narum noted that she had difficulty locating the open space on the map. Ms. Decker noted that there was open space in terms of not being developed with the homes. As mentioned by the applicant, the current proposal was to have all of the land owned privately and that there would be no common open space. Commissioner Narum noted that she was comfortable with not having open space and added that the current layout allowed for the homes to be reasonably well hidden. She did not want to have clustering of the homes and would like the rural characteristics to be retained. Commissioner Olson agreed with Commissioner Narum’s assessment and believed the lots should be privately owned. Acting Chairperson Blank did not want to see the lots reduced in size but believed there should be a formally designated open space. Commissioner Pearce liked the idea of the continuity of open space but was struggling with the idea of reducing the lot size. She supported having either a larger open space area or very strict landscaping guidelines that would make the transitions between the properties appear to be seamless. She was in favor of designated open space. Commissioner O’Connor did not believe the lots need to be reduced. 5. Should the open space be designated open space in perpetuity? Commissioner O’Connor believed the PUD should spell out instances where an individual can construct, how much they can construct, and how much landscaping may be done. He believed that outside of that, the rest of it cannot be changed; his answer to the question was yes. He did not want to see further lot-splitting. He added that he would not support a conservation easement but would support a no-build easement and designating a certain part of the lot as being nondevelopable in perpetuity. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED. Mr. Hirst noted that with respect to designating open space and what can and cannot be landscaped, he suggested that the Commission make that consistent with a fuel management plan, which has already been submitted. He was concerned about not being allowed to remove underbrush to discourage wildfires. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 10, 2007 Page 13 of 21