PC 011409 - Laserfiche WebLink

agencies per their standards. With respect to water, Ms. Soo stated that water is present during the rainy season but that the property is very dry during the summer months. Commissioner Fox inquired if the open space would remain private or eventually be public, and if there would be a conservation easement over it. Ms. Soo replied that it would be a parcel owned by a Homeowners Association and that it will not be open to the public. Commissioner Blank thanked stafffor reworking Condition No. 40 but that the language is exactly the same in both staff reports. Commissioner Narum noted there was a memorandum dated December 10, 2008 which Commissioner Blank said he did not have. He confirmed the item was satisfactory. Commissioner Blank stated that he did not find the standard condition typically included regarding preparing the house for solar panels. Ms. Soo replied that it was in the Design Guidelines, to which the houses are required to conform. Ms. Decker added that this could also be included as a standard condition, and Commissioner Blank requested that be done. Commissioner Blank inquired if the current staff report included any changes from the staff report from the December 10t" meeting. Ms. Soo replied that there were no changes. Commissioner Narum referred to the density issue and inquired if it were feasible to remove a lot and redistribute the other lots to achieve the one-acre minimum. She added that she was not sure having the open space remain private met the Specific Plan goals. Ms. Soo stated that she believes it still met the intent of the Specific Plan because of the location of the building pads on each lot. She noted that while Lot 4 seems to be larger, moving land from this lot into Lot 3 and so forth would limit the building area may and make the home sites awkward. She added that this would also affect the grading of the lots, especially for Lots 2 and 3. Commissioner Narum stated that if Lot 2 were eliminated and the other lots redistributed, Lots 2, 3, and 4 would end up being an acre. Ms. Decker noted that while the minimum parcel size in the Happy Valley Specific Plan is one acre, the calculation for density is one site per two gross acreage. She continued that the property has 10.19 acres and the allocation meeting density is 5. She stated that in this case, the PUD allows for some flexibility as the site is constrained by its geotechnical issues in the open space area. She noted that although a lot could be removed, staff felt that the lots are was so close to the actual one-acre requirement that because of the constraint, it was reasonable to allow the lots to be slightly below the one-acre minimum, as seen in other projects within the area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 14, 2009 Page 7 of 35