PC 011409 - Laserfiche WebLink

the property was a bit of any eyesore and that the project should be more consistent with the rest of the lots surrounding the golf course. She added that there are several examples of developments that have already deviated from the Specific Plan. Commissioner Olson stated that he was initially uncomfortable with seven lots and indicated that he had pointed that out at the last workshop. He stated that he thinks the Commission should look at the General Plan and the Specific Plan on an extremely localized basis. He added that Mr. Schlies' argument with respect to the golf course is a convincing one and that the golf course attracts many people from out of town and makes a statement about this community. He agreed with Commissioner Narum that the property is now a bit of an eyesore and that he would support General Plan and Specific Plan amendments to allow six one-acre lots. Commissioner Fox noted that her position is the same as the one she had at the last workshop and that she would not support a General Plan amendment or an amendment to the Specific Plan. Commissioner Blank apologized that he was not at the previous workshop and that he has not had a chance to talk to the applicant. He stated that he was generally not in favor of amending specific plans. He indicated that he has been part of discussions on specific plan amendments, especially out in the Ruby Hill area where the Commission talked about modifications to the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. He noted; however, that in terms of figuring out how this could work and in looking at the delta, there is a big difference between the Specific Plan and where this project is at. He further noted that the previous property had ten acres, and it was easy to figure out how to get two acres per lot. With respect to this property, he stated that the total acreage to be developed appears to be 5.68 acres, subtracting out 1.25 acres and 1.24 acres, leaving 3 acres to be split up between four lots, or basically 3/ of an acre per lot. He indicated that he had no doubts that these lots would be well developed and would meet the criteria. He added that the fact that the applicant is willing to go with 200 LEED points on the home is significant. He noted, however, that Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 are less than an acre each and that if this were a five-lot development rather than asix-lot development, each lot would be at least one acre. Commissioner Blank noted that this is just a private developmentwith no public dedication other than the street. He stated that he did not want to say he was absolutely against ever amending a specific plan but that some additional work ought to be done about the math of the lots, and he did not know whether this is something that the applicant has looked at or could be done. Commissioner Olson asked Commissioner Blank to explain his computation of the acreage, and Commissioner Blank replied that he took out Lots 1 and 6, which are 1.25 and 124 acres, assuming that the developerwould want to keep these two big lots. He noted that he was not thinking in terms of designing the rest of the lots, but PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 14, 2009 Page 23 of 35