The meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by Chairman Daybell
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Daybell, Committee Members, Duncan, Johnson, Silber, Coffman
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice-Chair Silber, Committee Member Coffman
PUBLIC PRESENT: John & Ying Shipman, Tom King, Rick Crane
STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Mullis, Associate Planner Eastman, Assistant Planner Kusch, and Clerical Support Dew
The minutes of the September 23, 2004 meeting were approved as written by a vote of 4-0.
Assistant Planner Kusch presented the project as outlined in the staff report. This item had been previously reviewed by the RDRC. The project is in the Pico Carhart Rural Street Overlay, which requires review by the RDRC when an application does not comply with guidelines. The applicant had requested a flag lot exemption, which triggers RDRC review. The RDRC was concerned in the previous meeting with the overall grading scheme and drainage of the property. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the request subject to the grading scheme coming back to the RDRC for review. The grading plan was revised from the previous concept. The new grading plan shows that the drip line is not being impeded where as before retaining walls were going out toward the street along the driveway. The retaining walls have now been set back away from the drip line and begin on the south property line adjacent to parcel number 2. The applicant had also hired an arborist to determine the mitigation measures necessary to ensure the tree is not irreversibly harmed during construction and grading activities.
Another condition to be reviewed by the RDRC was that the actual architecture of the home be in context with the grading scheme. At this time, the applicant is seeking direction or approval of the grading scheme so they can record the parcel map and commence with the design of the homes, which will be brought before the RDRC at a later date.
Committee Member Coffman questioned the need for having a grading plan as part of the application in obtaining a parcel map recorded. Assistant Planner Kusch explained that given the sensitivity of the area, the grading scheme is part of the review. Associate Planner Eastman pointed out the need for knowing the grading scheme to ensure drainage and the ability to identify sewer capacity. Without this knowledge, it may be difficult to approve a parcel map.
Assistant Planner Kusch informed the Committee that the pad elevation on parcel number two has been lowered. The pad elevation was previously at an elevation of 180 feet and is now at 165 feet. The pad elevation for parcel number three has been lowered by one foot. At a previous meeting, the committee expressed the need to ensure that the height of the pad not be higher that what is necessary to get a sewer flow connection to Arroyo Place. The plan also shows riprap along the southwest property line where the natural drainage course goes.
Committee Member Duncan questioned if the structure at 809 Arroyo Place would be replaced with a new building. John Shipman, owner, replied affirmatively.
There being no further questions for staff, Chairman Daybell opened the discussion for public comments.
Committee Member Coffman asked for clarification regarding the driveway on Parcel Number 3. He questioned Mr. Shipman on how he will transition into the lot due to the fact that there is a retaining wall that extends 1/3 of the way down the south property line and there is a 2 to 1 slope at the easterly corner. Mr. Shipman informed the Committee that at this point he has not done the architectural work on the parcel 3 home. Tom King from King Civil Engineering stated that he drew up the plan. He assured the Committee that the retaining wall could be shortened when the house is designed and he knows the exact location of the garage.
Chairman Daybell questioned whether the house on parcel 3 would be left intact. Mr. Shipman explained that the existing house is unsalvageable. He reported that the house is riddled with dry rot on the floor and has mildewed ceilings that hang down.
There being no further public comments, Chairman Daybell turned the meeting over to the Committee for discussion.
Committee Member Duncan stated that at this point he is in support of the grading plan.
Member Silber shared that he thought that this was a big improvement over the previous plan. He believed it to be more natural to have the garage in the rear of the lot on Parcel 3. Member Silber continued by saying he prefers more lot coverage as a one story than compact lot coverage with a two story.
Committee Member Coffman expressed concern with the six-foot retaining wall that comes out toward the front property line. He was curious as to how much that wall would be seen. He hoped that the structures themselves and some landscaping would obstruct the retaining walls. Member Coffman concurred with Member Silber that this plan is an improvement from what was submitted before.
Chairman Daybell expressed that his feelings about the project are the same now as they were nine months ago. He sees no reason to change now.
A motion was made by Committee Member Duncan, seconded by Committee Member Silber, and carried by all present to approve the grading project as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
Associate Planner Eastman discussed projects and items that been approved or reviewed by the City Council and Planning Commission which have relevance to the RDRC.
There being no further business, Chairman Daybell adjourned the meeting at 4:35 p.m.