PC 04/01/96 - Laserfiche WebLink

. . . . . Ms. Lemoine noted that during the last Steering Committee meeting (March 11, 1996), some members felt there was justification for leaving the Lemoine property zoning as it was designated in the 1986 General Plan and at the time of its annexation. She clarified that her property has Low and Medium density surrounding it, her property would not cause leap-frog development, there are no views to their property, there are no agricultural uses, and it has City services. In conclusion, Ms. Lemoine stressed she does not want her Low Density Residential zoning rezoned to Rural Density Residential. Lorelei Tolvtvar, 1993 Greenwood Road, a member of the Ridgeland Committee and the Open Space Sub-committee, would like to see a different idea proposed for the San Francisco property, with no housing development, but a nature museum and a community center park. Dennis Marguet, 2547 Larrikeet Court, is opposed to the 4/5 majority vote for a General Plan amendment, feeling it is a power play to impose an 80% vote to make a change. He had no comments with respect to the rest of the Plan. Jeff Renholts, 7489 Aster Court, served on the Land Use Sub-committee. He is opposed to the Steering Committee's recommendations to reduce the Foothill Road densities. He feels all these properties should be kept at their cUrrent zonings. The speaker believes the intent of the Land Use Sub-committee was to have some amount of development in the Vineyard area and that the new development had to pay for the costs of the infrastructure. Four hundred eighty units would have been reasonable development. The Steering Committee also tried to cut the number of units in the Rheem Tract, the Busch property, etc. With respect to the cutback of approximately 500 units from the San Francisco property, he feels these units could be added elsewhere within the City for a zero net impact. Mr. Renholts is also opposed to the proposed changes in density definitions and the housing cap. John Spotorno provided written comments to staff. He is concerned about the proposed municipal golf course and the planning concept options, access points, annexation, etc., and they have not had the opportunity to study all aspects of the project. In regard to the General Plan, they have concern with the two-acre minimum lot size, the Urban Growth Boundary and its location, the housing cap, the density definition changes, and the reduction in growth management. These are all elements that can either add to or reduce the flexibility of development and combining them all will make any development infeasible. Al Spotorno, Minnie Road property owner, distributed written comments to the Commission. Mr. Spotorno stated that because of the restrictions and limitations placed on their property, the cost of the infrastructure is too high for the density allotted. They have had consultants do a feasibility study which substantiates the high cost of the infrastructure required. Mr. Spotomo commented that he does not know of the status of the feasibility study he requested staff to do. Because of the location of their property, they are in the position to facilitate the golf course process. However, they will need flexibility and understanding in determining the future of their property, Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 April I, 1996