PC 011316 - Laserfiche WebLink

developments which do have large setbacks, are largely rural residential areas. The Preserve does have a low density residential area but that was basically to get the lot sizes. The Preserve did incorporate a vast amount of open space that is required to be open space as part of that project. In this particular area, just because of the rural density and the minimum lot sizes, staff at this time is not inclined to recommend approval for a General Plan zone change amendment when the actual current designations do allow for residential development with the current designations. We feel that a better project could be designed at the current designation and it is basically just not needed at this time. Three units we think is very appropriate for that size area of approximately four acres and we would like to keep it that way and just go with a straight development plan PUD and set a development standard for keeping it rural residential, maintaining only three lots. Nagler: And your response presumably has to do with the project having to downsize several times, right? Houston: Well, originally yes, we had visions and then it quickly became apparent that it wouldn't be appropriate. You know, having a lot more lots backing up to Dublin Canyon Road, in working with my partner, that wasn't going to work. Staff was not supportive of that and that was the first thing they said was, we don't want anything backing up on Dublin Canyon Road. We think that there's some infrastructure cost of putting that road in and undergrounding the power lines and it necessitates having this change from three to five units. If you were to go with three units, then there would be no other choice than to just have three driveways off of Dublin Canyon Road. And when we talked with our civil engineering team the way that the road is constructed, we don't think that would be the safest thing. So I think it's much safer for all of the homeowners, whether there are three, four or five to have this one entrance, and the spot that was chosen was chosen very carefully to get the largest distance of driving for safety on both directions so that was done on purpose, and having three different driveways on there wouldn't serve the area very well. So that's the major reason for the difference between I guess the three and the five. Are the overall site plan, lot locations and street design layout acceptable? Nagler: All right, the next question has to do with the visibility from the street and the fact that on the one hand, a sidewalk is being required of you to install which you explained necessitates removing trees which would block the visibility, and the neighbors who testified this evening and otherwise communicated with the Planning Commission have talked about how the general area would be improved by having the visibility or the presence of these residences at nighttime. My question is, it's a little bit of a catch -22 isn't it? If those trees aren't removed and therefore the homes aren't visible from the street, that benefit that's been discussed would be absent, wouldn't it? Houston: Well, Lot 1 which is where all of the trees would be removed, and that was very on purpose —we wanted that barrier and that shape because we all know that getting rid of oak trees is something that nobody typically wants and in fact, only two have to be taken out because of the actual construction. So that would be for Lot 1 and that is really for the visibility of the garage and it is the closest one. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 13, 2016 Page 11 of 26