Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge clarity on rural-lot treatment and GIS hillside mapping
Summary
Multiple speakers told the commission that large rural/residential lots and older, pre‑city developments may be unfairly affected by the proposed hillisde overlay, asking for explicit verification paths, clearer definitions of "developed/disturbed," and non‑rounding language for the 25% slope cutoff.
Several public commenters praised staff work on the hillside update but told commissioners the draft overlay and permit‑history test could create inequities for long‑standing property owners.
Cassin Klein urged codifying the slope threshold precisely and argued the overlay should be easy to cross‑reference in due diligence: "When I do due diligence for projects, the first thing I do is I go to the land use map and then I go to the code." Klein recommended setting the slope threshold explicitly (25.000) and specifying whether values such as 24.51% round up.
Alan Long and Dan Long described parcels with pre‑city homes, wells and agricultural roads that may not have historic permit records in county files and asked for a clear director determination and appeal pathway. Dan Long suggested staff include an administrative record or survey mechanism to let owners prove flat buildable areas within mapped parcels. Staff responded that the draft table in the ordinance lists grading/building permits and certificates of occupancy as evidence and that director determinations using historical aerials would be appealable to the Planning Commission.
Why it matters: property owners in mapped hillside areas could face different permit requirements for grading, retaining walls and development; commenters asked for transparent, verifiable rules to avoid unfair surprise.
