AgdaPkt 2009-11-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

reduced street width are benefits to the developer. He also covered what has been improved with the revised plans. One Council Member inquired about private vs. planned streets and Mr. Vorametsanti explained the issue of a private street. The conditions of approval were discussed and Mr. Chang answered particular questions regarding restrictions on the creek and the land facing the creek. Assistant City Attorney Aranda said there was a minor correction on page 8 of the staff report, section C 1, and he added that there was a minor edit to the proposed set of findings as well. MIS Pierce/Sain to deny the Planned Development Permit. Council Member Pierce does not believe the developer heard the Council's concerns. She has an issue with private road versus public road and is uncomfortable with this approach. Council Member Pierce does not find it wise to build so close to the creek and she is underwhelmed with what was presented tonight as well as the revisions. Another Council Member explained that the requirements for the Planned Development Permit have been met and this is a change for the property but there were other changes that could have been materially adverse. He likes the one way street and that the owners are going to maintain it. He opined that the lot sizes are consistent with the zoning and that the public comment had been tremendous. One Council Member believes that the developer brought to light the issue of the creek and so she believes this project will add to the neighborhood and it will add market rate housing. Another Council Member will not vote for the motion instead he will approve the project with some reluctance mainly because of two concerns: 1) with respect to creek he believes the developer is conforming to the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law, and 2) in regards to the outreach he is not sure if the developer worked as closely with the community as they could have. Vice Mayor Howard referred to creating a pedestrian friendly environment and she feels that many of her concerns have been answered. She believes that Mr. McGowan has made a good faith effort. She likes the architectural design and knows that the ARC will be seeing this and so she is comfortable with the current revisions and the next steps. She would like a public easement created as a condition for approval. She conceded that she would have liked one less house but overall she is pleased. Mayor Foust said that she agreed with approving the project and while it is not perfect this took 4 % years and that is a long time. She thanked all those involved but she was not pleased that a project takes so long to go through the process and she acknowledged that there were issues at all levels: staff, the developer and the community. Motion failed 1-6 with Council Member Pierce voting in favor and all others opposing. MIS Hartnett/Howard to uphold the applicants' appeal, grant approval of the Planned Development Permit, including conditions and changes to the project as specified in the staff report on pages 5 through 8, adding two conditions which are 1) a public access easement for the entire street and the CC&R's include stewardship of the creek by the property owners whose properties rear yards touch the creek bank. Council clarified that the stewardship of the creek is to rest with the property owners whose rear yards touch the creek bank and this is to be included in the CC&R's. Motion carried 6-1 with Council Member Pierce opposing. Minute-Order 09-232 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 2009hPAGE 9