PC 032719 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Allen asked if there was any opportunity to use the church's driveway as the easement into some kind of road. Ms. Amos said this would be a conversation the church would have to be part of to state their position in the matter. Mr. Beaudin commented the church was located close to where the EVA is proposed. Commissioner Brown asked if most of the grading has already been done to construct the EVA. Mr. Beaudin said no; there really isn't a way to avoid slope or visual impacts. The EVA is closer to The Preserve and the other proposed access point has a greater impact on Dublin Canyon Road, with other reciprocation, however, both involve 25 percent slope and grading and consideration of whether a road is a structure. The EVA has much more than 25 percent slope with a smaller footprint. He referred to the slope map of Hidden Valley Canyon distributed to Commissioners and, in looking at the darkness of the pink, it is related to the steepness of the slope. When seeing "Street A EVA" connecting to the church access point on Dublin Canyon Road and connecting it with Lot 31, the whole area is longer and steeper than the sloped area shown when coming off of Dublin Canyon Road proposed for the primary entrance. Therefore, grading would be significant. Chair Allen asked and confirmed this would not be seen off of Dublin Canyon Road, but it would be seen from The Preserve, which has a different visibility impact. She asked what might be the highest retaining wall that could be expected. Ms. Amos said it would be tiered for the most part, with four-foot retaining walls, where something would be behind it and then there would be another one. Mr. Beaudin stated the amount of grading needed for EVA still needs to be researched. He would expect there to be either a significant amount of grading to blend back to slope or create retaining walls. Grading is minimized when using retaining walls and this is where the scope of grading is shown in the plan set. It gets extensive when cutting into steeper areas because the idea is to blend slopes back and not create those walls. With reference to the Lund Ranch project, the access road at the top incurred a lot of discussion regarding retaining walls, amount of grading and trying to find the right compromise; a similar conversation might be prudent for this development, where they may not want to grade the whole hillside to blend it into an appropriate slope so it is stable. He emphasized the City Council made it very clear this was their determination for the example they were working on at the time and it could be interpreted differently on future projects; however, is not necessarily what is being suggested for this project. Chair Allen summarized that staff will scope out the length of the road and will get good visuals from different vantage points. Question 2: Does the Planning Commission support the applicant's proposed location of the staging area? Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 of 22 March 27, 2019 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