Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Nagler seconded the motion. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br />AYES: <br />Commissioners Allen, Balch, Nagler, and Chair Ritter <br />NOES: <br />None <br />ABSTAIN: <br />None <br />RECUSED: <br />None <br />ABSENT: <br />Commissioners Brown and O'Connor <br />Resolution No. PC- 2016 -19 approving Case P16 -0949 and Resolution No. PC- 2016 -20 <br />approving case P16 -0975 were entered and adopted as motioned. <br />6. PUBLIC HEARING AND OTHER MATTERS <br />a. PUD -114, Guy Houston <br />Application for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Development Plan to allow <br />for the construction of three new single - family residences and three second <br />units and rezoning from the A (Agriculture) District to the PUD- RDR /A -OS <br />(Planned Unit Development — Rural Density Residential /Agriculture and Open <br />Space) District for the property located at 11300 Dublin Canyon Road. <br />Jennifer Hagen presented the staff report and described the scope, layout, and key <br />elements of the proposal. <br />Commissioner Balch: Just a quick clarification if I may, the FAR on the bottom of page <br />9, its 7,000 feet of developable area. Can you elaborate on the process to come up with <br />that number? I typically see more of just an FAR percentage, right? 25% is what you <br />discussed here? <br />Hagen: Typically, in most areas of the City they are 25 %, 30 %, 40 %, but due to the <br />large size of the lots, all of these lots were minimum one acre. Even at 20% that would <br />be a 10,000- square -foot home which we thought for this area of the City and in the rural <br />character of the neighborhood still was probably a little bit overbuilt. Therefore, we <br />decided to go with a flat square footage instead of a percentage in this case. <br />Commissioner Balch: And do we have precedent for that in other PUD processes we've <br />gone through? <br />Hagen: Directly across the street, one of the parcels; Mrs. Young's property. They had <br />three parcels. Two of them they went with the square footage. There were two smaller <br />parcels but one of those was a larger parcel. In that case they did go with the flat square <br />footage because it was larger and they felt it would be consistent with the other square <br />footages to just have a flat square footage. So there is a precedent directly across the <br />street and elsewhere in the City. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2016 Page 4 of 38 <br />