PC 041316 - Laserfiche WebLink

beginning of the planning process. Just think of an extreme example of re- designing this project where the house is 1,000 square feet and this is a two -car garage, you could absolutely fit those project elements within the existing split pad and grading as originally contemplated. So that's sort of what could happen. Just to be really clear, yes, the project could be completely re- designed to fit within the grading envelope. I think our thought process in terms of accepting what was currently proposed was based on a couple of different issues, and they all sort of have been raised, but one is that when you look at it from a visual perspective, especially with the retaining walls and especially with the vegetation that is being proposed in front of the retaining walls, the visual impact is relatively minor. So, that's sort of one key issue. Yes, it can absolutely be seen from off -site from various viewpoints, but the adverse effects of the additional grading are relatively minimized. Number two, we actually think that our proposal which reduces the grading sort of increases the visual compatibility of the grading even further. So, we're taking what was originally proposed which was 100 cubic yards of grading and reducing that by .... we haven't actually done the calculations, but maybe 30 percent or 40 percent. So that 100 cubic yards of grading is not an absolutely huge amount to begin with but it is further reduced. The third point of course is that the original approval for this project didn't say that under any circumstances additional grading could not be permitted. It said additional grading can be permitted as long as the City determines it is consistent with the existing topography and does not have an adverse effect. And, we came to the conclusion, in our analysis, that with the measures that were talked about, especially vegetation, that there wouldn't be an adverse effect. Commissioner Allen: Thank you. Commissioner O'Connor: So a question for staff: where they are expanding this 36 feet for the roundabout driveway, if the home had been designed differently, this is within the building area so they could have actually built a stepdown and a two -story element in that whole area, correct? Which would have been much more visually undesirable I would assume, to the other neighbors. I'm not sure I quite understand why staff would suggest this compromise of pulling it back so much. The way I was looking at this is more from a parking view because of the street that goes up to this home and the driveway itself; that unless we expand the driveway a lot more, I'm wondering where the parking is going to be for guests. This is a fairly large home. I guess there could be fairly large parties if you will, and I'm just wondering what else is available for parking in this area. It looks to me like the streets are too narrow to have parking in front of the fire turnaround area. Is it wider than I'm thinking? Soo: You cannot park along the private driveway. That is a fire access road, no parking. Commissioner O'Connor: On the access road up to the driveway? Soo: Yes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 13, 2016 Page 18 of 33