PC 04/29/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Barker asked whether there was any flexibility in defining the urban growth boundary line. Mr. Rasmussen responded that as it goes around the City, it is precisely defined in most areas. However, in the Happy Valley area it is not. He stated that as it goes through the Happy Valley area, it was intended to be located at the bottom of the hill. That brought up questions relating to where the bottom of the hill is. He stated that now that there is a specific plan, the boundary needs to be more precisely identified. Therefore, staff has suggested that it be located at the bottom of the hill just where it starts to go up at 15%. He reported that staff will work with the property owners to come up with a clear definition. Commissioner Barker also asked how the bypass road construction and timing would fit together. Mr. Rasmussen stated that it would be most desirable for the NSSP plan area to be developed first so the east/west collector road can be constructed Construction of the bypass road could follow as soon as possible through development of the Spotorno property and the golf course. If the Spotorno development follows the commencement of the golf course, then the City might have to consider constructing the bypass road from the end of the easUwest collector road up to the golf course and the Spotornos reimburse the City when their development begins. Commission Barker asked for the status of the Greenbriar development. Mr. Rasmussen stated that they already have PUD approval, but still have to resolve the street alignment and the cost-sharing for the off-site east/west collector road. Chair Cooper asked for clarification on the lot split in the Open Space area as proposed by Mr. Chapman. Mr. Rasmussen stated that the General Plan does not allow for existing open space lots to further subdivide. He further stated that if the open space was left in the County, they would not be able to get City water and sewer, and would not be allowed to build any more homes, except on the low density land. Commission Dove suggested that the motion be separated by each issue. With regard to the requests made by the ranchers of South Happy Valley Road, Commissioner Dove feels there is justification from an agricultural and farming standpoint that if they are permitted to split the lots and it does not complicate annexation, and if that is combined with a mutually agreed adjustment to the urban growth boundary, that their request should be granted. Commissioner Wright agreed that one-acre parcels portion should be allowed along the road and that the agricultural open space should definitely be maintained. He feels that if it's "locked in" that it is agricultural open space, then the zoning would be in perpetuity and would not be lost. With regard to the shift in the urban growth boundary line, he agrees that staff should work with the property owners in order to satisfy them as well. He further agrees to allow them some provision to give an additional five acre lot especially considering the amount of agricultural area they are preserving. He stated that it is reasonable to amend the specific plan to address issues in order to satisfy the Happy Valley Road property owners. He noted that if their concerns are not addressed, they will oppose annexation. Commissioner Barker agreed to allow the 5-acre split along the urban growth boundary line as long as it's allowable in the County. However, she expressed very strong concerns with a change in the density. Planning Commission Page 9 April 29, 1998