PC 02/10/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

In conclusion, Mr. Iserson stated that staffs recommendation is that the Commission take the following actions: 1) Vote whether to reconsider the Commission's previous action, and, if so, (2) determine that a specific plan for the Rose Avenue area is not warranted; (3) adopt a resolution approving the attached draft Negative Declaration; 4) adopt the PUD findings for the proposed development plan as listed in this staff report; and, recommend approval of the PUD rezoning and the previously proposed 3 l-lot development plan (with a condition to delete one lot) to the City Council subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit "B". PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Fred Musser, Braddock & Logan, highlighted changes that have been made to the application since coming before the Planning Commission in September 1998 including elimination of one lot, all lots being in excess of 10,000 square feet; additional open space for the project due to elimination ora lot; and, not beginning construction of lots until March 2000. He provided an aerial photograph of the Rose Avenue property and provided options for realignment. He noted that the applicant is in agreement with staffs findings and that the applicant is not in agreement with a specific plan being prepared. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Roberts noted her desire to reconsider the original motion due to her preference that the motion for a specific plan should not have been included with the motion to deny. Commissioner Sullivan stated that his original motion to deny was based on four circumstances: 1) The extension of Rose Avenue and impacts on surrounding neighborhoods and downtown, and the inaccuracy of the 1998 traffic study performed for the PUD; 2) environmental impacts on the Arroyo and undeveloped Rose Avenue properties; 3) issues relating to overcrowding of schools and growth management and, the PUD not addressing the entire Rose Avenue area; 4) and, land utilization. He stated he would be in favor of examining other options for study, other than a specific plan, as long as an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is performed. He noted he still was not in support of approving the PUD and desired another option to address issues. Commissioner Maas expressed support with staffs recommendations relating to traffic issues and noted that staff has noted a small impact on traffic issues. Further, she expressed support with the developer postponing construction of homes until March 2000. She stated she would consider approving a study being conducted on certain issues; however, she would not be in support ora specific plan for this area. Commissioner Cooper stated he would be open to reconsideration of the project. Commissioner Roberts spoke in favor of reconsidering the project. Commissioner Kameny noted he was in support of approving the project at the previous hearing. He stated he did not feel the Rose Avenue traffic was a major concern and expressed support with staffs information relating to traffic and would vote for reconsideration. PLANNING COMMISSION M1NUTES Page 3 February 10, 1999