PC 04/29/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

She agrees with Roger Smith to keep one unit per two-acre density. She feels that if someone has a plan that provides some benefit to the City and would therefore like to request a density increase it could be reviewed by the Commission, but she does not want to allow a density change at this time. She believes the City should adopt the agricultural friendly language for the area as proposed by Mr. Chapman. She feels that some of the land owners along Happy Valley Road will benefit by the designation that they have proposed. In summary, she will agree to the rancher's proposals, except for the density increase. Commissioner Kumazan noted that he visited the area and met with Mr. Chapman and Mr. Schaffer. He feels the south Happy Valley Road area is a very scenic and beautiful area. He further stated that the current status of what is being recommended has come through a long process of negotiations resulting in compromise. He takes exception to the suggestion of dividing the land into three areas. He feels it's one area and the Happy Valley Specific Plan needs to be applied to everyone. He, therefore, will not be supportive of moving the urban growth boundary line or increasing the density. However, he feels that items 4 and 5 of their requests aze reasonable, and he will support those recommendations. Chair Cooper stated that he would like for the agriculture in the area to continue. He feels it a nice amenity to the City and it should be preserved. He noted that the only change that he cannot agree to is the change in density. He agrees to a minor change in the urban growth boundary line and agrees that it needs to be better defined. He also feels that the request for a lot split is equitable. In summary he supports all of the requests, except for #2. Commissioner Wright commented that he did not intend to suggest that the area be divided into three azeas under three sepazate specific plans. He felt that the areas should only be divided for discussion purposes. He stated that he was involved in all of the discussions leading up to the two-acre density compromise and he believes that is what was really planned For the area. He also stated that the one-acre portions, because of where the urban growth boundary line would be, would not cause any kind of mass proliferation of additional lots because not every lot would be doubled. Basically, he was hoping the Commission could agree to some provision where they would not be changing the density designation, but they would allow these particulaz property owners, at this point, to have a guideline saying that the opportunity was there, instead of having to come back with a vaziance. However, based on the same considerations that the other property owners were getting, in that if they came up with amenities, then they should also be allowed to get a special provision for giving something back. Commissioner Kumazan thanked him for the clarification. He stated that he understood if the urban growth boundary line was shifted a few hundred feet, the open space azea would still remain within the County, rather than the City, so designating it as open space is really nothing that the City has jurisdiction over unless the urban growth boundary is shifted all the way out into the 45 acres. Commissioner Wright stated that the urban growth boundary is the building line limit and not the limit of the sphere of influence. That is why he suggested there should be something in the specific plan that covers the ranchers requests so that it is a definite understanding and they will feel comfortable voting in favor of annexation. He further clazified that by pre-zoning the area as agricultural open space before the annexation takes place, it addresses their concerns. Planning Commission Page 10 April 29, 1998