PC 032719 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Allen, Commissioner O'Connor and Commissioner Brown said if the lots do exceed 25 percent beyond the realm of the anomalies discussed earlier, they were not in favor of building as it relates to those lots. Commissioner Ritter agreed and added that he would still like to see a visual if it was over 25 percent, in a valley, and if it was close to 26 percent, if there was a way to reposition the house or something on the lot. Commissioner Balch said Lot 23 is the only lot he was concerned about. He emphasized that there was a lot of debris but if it was over 25 percent, he did not think this was the intent. He thinks this is a buildable lot and did not think it was the ridgeline or where they were supposed to apply it. Chair Allen summarized that three of the Commissioners were in favor of 'no build,' one was in favor of `build,' and one wants to see the visuals before giving a decision. Commissioner O'Connor said for Lots 24 and 26 there are no issues but with the updated map there are issues, and he questioned staff as to which map was the more accurate. Ms. Amos said she received the updated map late in the day and did not have an opportunity to fully vet it out. The intent was to provide a visual simulation to the Commission of what was seen in the field, knowing what the varying percentages were, and whether anything was 25 percent and above. This was the applicant's effort in doing so, but given this map was received late in the day, just before the meeting, she could not vet it with the City's GIS Department to confirm the differences in the two maps, but this is something that can be verified. The lot layout looks similar to the map in the PowerPoint and in the agenda report, which did not show a conflict with 25 percent. Mr. Beaudin said the lower lot question had been answered and the other question pertained to the road; staff will provide that information. If the Commission does have an issue with the slope of the road and they consider the road to be a disqualifier, the developer will not be able to get access to the parcel in any other reasonable way. The EVA has similar slope issues and, in coming from the EBRPD access road portion of the proposal, they end up crossing a creek which will have all kinds of environmental, as well as, slope issues with the EVA location. This is the path of least impact with the winding entrance to offset those potential visual impacts. He continued to say there were neighbors discussing Dublin Canyon Road, but those who were talking about views were from The Preserve, looking back at the development. He said it would be interesting to envision what the road would look like coming from the backside, and staff can perform the analysis with the applicant to ensure all angles are considered. If there is some portion of road on slopes greater than 25 percent, which would be a "no go," staff would like to be informed of that during this meeting. Otherwise, staff will bring the information back at a later date, to re-evaluate this particular aspect. Commissioner O'Connor said the agenda report mentioned in a prior proposal there was a different access proposed off of Dublin Canyon Road. Ms. Amos said those other proposals did not include the Shriner family's property and the access required constructing a bridge over the creek. Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 of 22 March 27, 2019