PC 051403 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Roberts would like to protect the urban growth boundary all over the City, and believed the density feathering idea is excellent_ She noted that she might not have approved Canyon Creek Circle because of the density near the UGB. Because the area is woodsy, she believed that the houses could be put on larger lots_ She was concerned about the second unit, because in July, anyone would be able to build a second unit anywhere without a conditional use perinit_ She noted that the units must still be no higher than 1 5 feet. She noted that she liked detached garages, and believed that putting the second units on top of the garage brought up privacy, noise, and density issues_ She noted that all the second stories would make it look more dense, and she believed that those units backing up to the neighbors' lots was unacceptable_ Commissioner Maas agreed with the density feathering_ She favored Concept B, and did not want to see acookie-cutter plan of granny units behind each hooese_ She believed this was a good opport„nity for affordable housing or market-rate homes. She would like to see less density in the plan, as well as the addition of more duets. She stressed that importa izce of meeting with the neighbors to address the park and creek issues and that there are a lot of hurdles with this project Commissioner Sullivan agreed with Chairperson Arkin's and Commissioner Roberts' corm~nents_ He believed that perhaps the site should be rezoned and redesignated, but not before the General Plan Update and the new Housing Element are implemented. He could not support this proposal at this point. He complimented staff on an excellent job of identifying the issues with a critical eye. Commissioner Kameny noted that he could not support either concept, because of the numerous neighborhood issues. He agreed with Commissioner Sullivan's con~~izients regarding the General Plan update and rezoning issues. He believed the project was premature at this point and that it is not the correct area for low-income housing. Commissioner Sedlak noted that he would hold his comments until Questions 9, 1 O, 12, and 13 were addressed. Regarding Question 3, Commissioner Maas did not know if Dublin Creek should be considered an amenity, but correcting problems downstream may be considered an amenity. Commissioner Sullivan noted that there were on-site mitigations as far as not increasing the runoff of streets and lots. Mr_ Pavan noted that part of the dif£culty in Dublin Creek is being created by the runoff occurring upstream in the City of Dublin. PLANNING COMMISSION M1NLITES May 14, 2003 Page 12