PC 032812 - Laserfiche WebLink

is being proposed now are massive structures that would look taller than 50 feet, even if they are cut through and located 30 feet off -site. He stated that it appears the process being followed is to approve the project and these building envelopes; people are then going to buy them and try to build a house on them, only to find out that they are unacceptable to the neighborhood and that there is nothing anybody can do about it at that point. He added that he thinks what should be done is determine the visual impact before this project gets approved so that future homeowners do not have one big fight in front of them. He requested staff and the Commission to give guidance to the applicant to provide a visual analysis on the proposed lots prior to project approval. (2) Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA). He stated that the last time this project came to the Planning Commission, one of the reasons the Commission decided to turn this project down was because of the EVA issue; now this project has come forward with 10 lots but no EVA. He noted that Fire Department officials did a site tour and indicated that there has to be an egress out of this site; the Wildland Fire Report recommended that the access be through Grey Eagle Court, referencing it as being an all- weather surface, maximum grade of 15 percent, and 20 feet wide. He stated that this goes across his property, and there is no basis for such a thing being built. He noted that he has an agreement with the City that gives the width of that road to be a maximum of 12 feet wide and to be passable only by the City's 4 -x -4 fire trucks. He added that there is no capability of having an EVA as described in the Wildland Fire Report. He stated that this is the exact same mistake as the last proposal where this project has to have an EVA but does not have one. He indicated that what should be done is figure out a project that does not require an EVA through Grey Eagle Court because there cannot be one there, figure out what the lot configurations should be, and then use that, rather than go all the way down the process with the expectation that there will be an EVA that cannot legally be put in place. Russell Schmidt stated that he and his wife have lived in the neighborhood since July of 1998 and are well acquainted with the history of this proposal. He indicated that he has a few things he wanted to flag in a pre- summary fashion, starting with the EVA, which was a real sticking point in the last proposal. He noted that when the EVA was mentioned earlier tonight, it was discussed as if it were part of the previous proposal, something that was okay, and that it was a done deal. He indicated that it was never a done deal, that during the process for the previous proposal, they were never approached and asked if this would be okay. Mr. Schmidt stated that their house is on a private street and that their lot goes out to the middle of the street. He noted that allowing an EVA with public egress on that street will subject them to unlimited liability in the event that in an emergency case, the road is blocked by a water truck delivering water softener. He indicated that this kind of thing has happened in the past in other neighborhoods with this kind of street, and he finds it very offensive that the planning process and the applicants assume they can just attach to this private street in order to meet the requirements of the Fire Department. Mr. Schmidt stated that the second thing he wanted to address was the siting of the building pads on lots visible from Grey Eagle Court. He indicated that they have a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 28, 2012 Page 10 of 33