The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Russ Chapman at 1:35 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Alex Amarotico and Colin Swales. Staff present were Mark Knox, Brandon Goldman, and Sue Yates.

This action was approved.

This action was called up for a public hearing.

This action was approved.

This action was withdrawn.

This action was approved.

This action was approved.

Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts – Chapman and Swales had site visits.

Goldman reported the applicant is asking for a Land Partition and two boundary line adjustments to create a large enough parcel to partition. (See diagram on page 2 of Staff Report.) Grading has created a steep embankment on Lots 1 and 2. Any building will be subject to the Physical and Environmental Constraints permit process. The request for partition today is to create a new lot (Lot 4) with a slope of less than 20 percent.

All facilities are in place to service the new lot. Ashland Mine road is fully improved. There are no sidewalks but as part of the Land Partition, it requires a five foot wide sidewalk as stated in Condition 4. This will apply only to the lots being partitioned. Staff concurs with the applicant that the sidewalks will be at curbside in order to save the existing three trees (two oaks and cedar).

The neighbors called this action up for a public hearing because of increased density. The underlying zone is R-1-7.5. The minimum setbacks have been met. The applicant has proposed a maximum building envelope on Lot 4, however, the actual building will undoubtedly be smaller. There are fruit trees within the building envelope that may be removed. There are old trees that were part of an orchard 60 to 70 years ago. They are well past their expected life span. The trees have not been maintained and are in poor shape. The building for this property has not yet been designed.

The applicant is not able to attend today’s meeting but has included a letter in the packet responding to the concerns voiced by the property owner across the street who called the action up for a public hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING

DANA BUSSELL and PETER WU, 1269 Ashland Mine Road testified.

Bussell talked about the slope of the lots, especially Lots 1 and 2 that have a significant slope. She said, according to the ordinances, these lots are not allowed to be less than 10,000 square feet each in size.

Goldman read from the R-1 zoning. He explained the property has already been zoned R-1-7.5. The slope was taken into account when it was zoned.

Wu said the situation has changed since the original zoning designation was made. Is the existing condition correct to match the zoning? He believes it is a procedural problem.

Goldman said the application is held to the criteria as it exists. Knox said the new lots are less than 20 percent slope. Lots 1 and 2 are subject to the Physical and Environmental Constraints review at the time of building permit application.

Wu restated that Lots 1 and 2 have problems. If these lots are made smaller, then Lot 3 cannot give up room for a Lot 4. He thinks the developer is putting the problems of Lots 1 and 2 under the rug to get Lots 3 and 4.

Bussell said the fruit trees have been maintained, they have produced fruit and are doing fine. She sees no reason to eliminate the trees, as they are part of the character of the neighborhood.

Wu said the building envelopes for Lots 3 and 4 are only 12 feet apart. Bussell and Wu have invested their living and a way of life to this area for a reason and to see that change has a serious impact on what they consider important. The adjacent land is rural. To increase the density will increase fire danger. By continuing these partitions and building, more houses per lot will downgrade their standard of living. It is important to look at the character of the neighborhood.

Chapman said, with all due respect to the neighbors, the R-1-7.5 zoning density has already been established. The Planning Commission cannot change that today. If the neighbors want to see a lower density zoning in their neighborhood, they need to go to the City Council as a neighborhood and request a zone change.

Goldman noted that exclusive of the steep slope, there is room to locate a house on both Lots 1 and 2. Knox reiterated the slope would be dealt with under the Physical and Environmental Constraints review at the building permit level. He also added that the envelope is not the building footprint. The developer drew the maximum. It is unlikely he will build to the maximum.

Goldman said a piecemeal boundary line adjustment could have been done instead of a partition to achieve the same configuration.

Goldman stated that from Staff’s assessment, this application meets all the criteria for approval and Staff is recommending approval with the attached Conditions.

Chapman agreed the criteria have been met. Swales moved to approve PA2002-049. Amarotico seconded the motion and the action was unanimously approved.