PC 12/08/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Sullivan noted that there has been an attempt to change the Foothill Overlay District guidelines for two years and he expressed concern with the length of time taken to effect any change and that Foothill Road projects keep being pushed through in the mean time. He further stated that he does not agree that the park is an amenity when it is tmbuildable land; however, if the open space has access it might be a benefit. He commented on the existing heavy traffic on Dublin Canyon and Foothill Roads. He noted he would not object to the Laurel Creek Drive not being a through street due to there being two other accesses to the development. Commissioner Arkin spoke in favor of the traffic being equally distributed among the access roads. In response to inquiries from his fellow commissioners, Commissioner Sullivan stated this project is too visible from Interstate 580 and that he would be in favor of there being discussion relating to the Foothill Overlay Guidelines. Further, he stated that there is too much development on the west side of Foothill Road and south side of Dublin Canyon Road and he noted his desire for a General Plan Amendment to state that there would be no houses built on the west side of Foothill Road. Commissioner Maas commented on the natural landscaping of this area versus having manicured lawns and suggested that the Commission consider this issue at a future meeting. She commended the applicants for cooperating with the existing residents and commended their efforts to award compensation to the residents for landscaping. She expressed concern with an existing house on the ridge and viewing that home on a daily basis. She expressed concern with the visibility of this project and requested that a visual analysis be provided which would demonstrate how the landscaping would look at one- and three-year intervals. She noted that there has been allowance made for the local traffic impacts and that closing Laurel Creek Drive will reduce impacts. She expressed concern with the aesthetics of the project and the 25 percent slope for some of the homes. She stated that she would not be in favor of approving the project due to the visibility of the houses on the ridge. She agreed that the City is in dire need of a senior care facility; however, that should be a separate issue from this. She requested that the design review process be brought back to the Commission. Further, that the project utilize open fencing to coincide with the Foothill Overlay District. In conclusion, Commissioner Maas noted that the applicant has a right to develop property but that she has a responsibility to the City and the residences to have a project that everyone can be proud of. She noted she would not be in favor of denying the project but sending it back to the applicant for revision. Commissioner Arkin commended the applicant for resolving issues with the neighbors. He noted he would be interested in examining issues relating to the Foothill Overlay District and how it applies to this property. He expressed concern with the viewing this development from Stoneridge and noted he would be in favor of approving the project if there was a condition that if homes are visible from this point, the homeowner is required to provide additional landscaping to block visibility of the project. Further, that the trees be planted for the project immediately. He expressed support with the development being one-story homes. He noted his desire for the applicant to succeed with the project and yet do what is in the best interest of the community. He noted he would be in support of approving the application if steps are taken to block the visualness of the project. He stated he had no concerns with impacts on traffic due to there being only twelve homes and he noted that the developers should participate in regional traffic fees and air quality mitigation. Chairperson Roberts stated that the applicant should return with more visual analyses of the property including a one- and three-year analysis of landscaping. She noted that she liked what the applicant is doing with tree preservation and the contribution to the urban forestry fund. She spoke in favor of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 6