PC 030916 - Laserfiche WebLink

well designed and I think the Craftsman style fits in nicely with it. I did ask staff earlier in the day about variances and differences between this lot and the one directly across the street. Primarily my initial heartburn with it is that apparently on some map somewhere, General Plan map of course, the zoning stops at the centerline and this is now low density residential and the other side is agricultural. And so it's interesting to me, and I'll just save it for that conversation, is that we're boxing in the agricultural with the uses around here and what I mean by that is obviously further west we have the higher density stuff that's been in there for a long time and to that note, I appreciate staff's comparison. I thought it was really nice and put together so thank you Jenny. That was very helpful to get my head around this. So I support this and as Commissioner Nagler pointed out and the Chair, that a meandering DG type of path or sidewalk —I would support that. I think staff's comment that this is a street standard, I think that's important and they've defended it well. While I pushed back initially, I appreciate that because there's things that staff points out that really do benefit our City long -term and that's really commendable and I appreciate it. With that, I support the project. In terms of the trees upsizing, I'm probably not as supportive of all seven going to a 24- inch box. I probably would support the four in the front and would allow the other three to come in naturally to give them a better chance. I've planted both sizes and as staff has said, you do lose larger trees just because you can't get the root structure established to keep them going and in light of drought conditions, I could support trying to give them a better chance. So I'm probably actually supportive of staying as proposed but would be able to move to the four upsized. O'Connor: I think Commissioner Nagler stole my notes. So I think I've heard at least from three of you so far and maybe a fourth that we should modify Condition No. 38 so that we meander the DG path as best we can away from the road. As far as the trees go, I actually think we should upsize the five that are down in front by the roadway, especially with the not -so -great oak that's coming out. I would support having those five trees upsized to a 24 -inch box. I think it will acclimate well. We've done a lot of 24 -inch box here in town. Larger than that I don't think we should risk the downside to the acclimation of a smaller box, so I would go to a 24 -inch box on those five trees, and that's it because everything else has been said. Allen: Okay, so I agree with all comments regarding the DG meandering sidewalk, and ideally off the street and also upsizing the trees at least to 24 -inch box for at least five of the trees; the ones near Dublin Canyon Road you mentioned. I struggled with the mass of Lot 3 coming from the west, driving toward the west, and I appreciate the viewscapes helps me to understand this. I was coming into the meeting thinking we need to downscale that a little bit especially thinking what Commissioner Balch brought up, thinking back to our workshop that we had about the church property and how those will be smaller homes, and thinking about the compatibility. This is compatible with the Preserve but you can't see the Preserve from Dublin Canyon Road, or the Laurel Drive homes. You can't see them from Dublin Canyon Road. When you drive Dublin Canyon Road you're looking at small ranch houses. So I think it's important as we think about compatibility and not just think about the Preserve that you can't see but the small ranch houses that exist and what's going to be across the street. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 9, 2016 Page 15 of 25