03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Hagen: Right here is the creek setback line. On this diagram the red line is the top of the bank. So the creek would run just north of the red line that goes through here. O'Connor: Sol guess 1 m more concerned with where from ess e e it goes o here. Does it come 9 9 down Dublin Canyon Road? Hagen: It goes across the adjacent properties and then crosses underneath Dublin Canyon Road. O'Connor: So it goes across their property.... Hagen: Yes, it's right there. So it comes over here and runs along the frontage there 9 9 9 9 and there's actually a little bridge right here where it crosses underneath Dublin Canyon and then it goes this way. So it crosses on their other part of Pleasant View Church. Ritter: Okay, questions for staff and then maybe we'll just go down the list and give us a bullet so we can get something concise for staff and the applicant to get some feedback. They're going to come back with something. The first question is: Does the Commission support a General Plan Land Use Amendment to increase the density of the subject parcel? Allen: I don't think there should be more than 2-3 homes on the parcel and I spent quite a while biking over there today and as I think about the country setting and what we want to preserve, I just think that's the maximum. Secondly, to do it, what I would like is to do it with the General Plan. I'd like to have the homes done in a way towards the General Plan that we have and what's been in place and has been validated over the years. To me what that means is that the subdividing would be different. So the church might have 1 '/2 or 2 acres, let's call it 1 1/2 acres that they would keep and then the rest of the property would be subdivided in some way that it would go with the homes. And my reason for wanting to do it that way is I think about Centerpoint Church and the Ponderosa project that we all encountered a few months ago, and we all know that churches over time, financially there are challenges. I mean, who knows what will happen over time with this property and it could be that in 5-10 years the church is looking to sell the property and when they sell it, they're going to find the highest land use and to the degree we allow the subdivision as it exists today, which means there would be, what, 11 acres associated with the church. That makes it, potentially a much larger residential development if you had 11 acres. I realize that some of it is not usable, but I'm just saying it's there as a much larger project in the future for that area that we may or may not want. In contrast, if we subdivide it properly and it fits within the General Plan categories and the church only has one or two acres left, then it is what it is. That's what it is and that fits the General Plan and that would be the property they would be thinking of. So that's my reason for wanting to try to work this within the General Plan and I think if it could work in the General Plan zoning and we could still end up with two and maybe fudge and go to three homes on that site, I think that could be done in a way that preserves the country character, as well. Balch: Could I just ask a staff clarification to that? So Commissioner Allen points out that there would be a subdivision map that would grant more land, let's just say. As EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 13, 2016 Page 11 of 22