Open Space Advisory Board Minutes 2021 02 10 REVISED

Home Browse Search

In order to help facilitate capturing for the Minutes the essence of my rationale in supporting my motion regarding the Redtail Ridge GDP application at the February OSAB meeting, I am taking this opportunity to articulate in writing my comments made at the hearing. My rationale was as follows: A. OSAB Jurisdiction. OSAB's role in the Redtail Ridge General Development Plan Amended Application (GDP) was limited to consider: 1) public land dedication as to location, quality and quantity; 2) trails as to alignments and cross sections; and 3) open space and site restoration and grading. The jurisdiction for the remaining aspects of the proposal lies within the domain of the Planning Commission, other boards, and City Council. B. Quantity of Land Dedication. Staff calculated the minimum public land dedication required for the project pursuant to LMC Sec. 16.16.060 as approximately 40 acres. The application meets this minimum requirement. While OSAB is without authority to require more than that required by the municipal code, it encourages the developer to exceed the minimum required dedication. C. Quality of Land Dedication. A majority of the current OSAB participated in a site visit with the applicant, staff and other department advisory boards in 2019. As a result, OSAB supported a public land dedication different from what the applicant originally proposed. The applicant responded with a second option when OSAB first considered the GDP at its December 11, 2019 meeting. That "Option B" was supported by OSAB, and continues to be supported. It is the highest value open space property with the application lands. D. Prior Approval. On December 11, 2019, OSAB first considered the GDP with essentially the same proposal for public land dedication, trails alignment and restoration. OSAB previously approved the essence of the current proposal at that time. Nothing has intervened to cause OSAB to materially reconsider its prior approval. E. Use by Right. When asked why it had dropped its prior proposal for including residential development, the applicant stated it amended the GDP to conform with the City's current comprehensive plan. Under the municipal code and comprehensive plan, the applicant has a use by right to develop the property consistent with code and plan requirements. The city is without authority to prohibit redevelopment of the site. F. Response to Public Comments. a. Timing of Decision. OSAB received and reviewed many written public comments on this agenda item (public emails are included in this packet) and heard five public comments at the hearing. Many suggested that OSAB delay any decision for purposes of additional fact finding and studies. In view of the fact that a board majority has participated in reviewing the project since 2019, and has already approved essentially the same project aspects within its jurisdiction, there is no reason to delay action. b. Appropriate Level of Detail for Consideration of a GDP. A GDP is conceptual in nature. It is a preliminary step in the city's development approval process. Much of the detail for the final development is resolved later in the development review process. The legitimate concerns