PC 02/20/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ Mr. Dommer reiterated that he felt staffs Plan A and B were not fI 'ble; he felt that they could get 135 setbacks on many of the lots, which is what staff is vacating, but not all. He further noted that one of the goals of the Foothill Road Overlay istrict guidelines is to preserve the view; however, it does approve two-story homes. The are proposing one-story homes along Foothill Road and feel that accomplishes the goal of WFRCOD guidelines. He further pointed out that the lots are all over 37,000 sq. ft.; they have incorporated some clustering as desired. He noted they are also considering 63 lots as an appropriate figure. Commissioner McGuirk questioned Mr. Dommer as to whether the were aware of the WFRCOD guidelines when they started the project, or if they had en tried to conform to these guidelines. Mr. Dommer indicated the guidelines were not in place when they first started the project which actually began in 1986 through the Coun of Alameda. However, when the property was annexed into the City, Council had objected to the package sewage treatment plant that was in the initial plan and after some discussio , the applicant agreed to eliminate the sewage package plant. At the time they agreed to thi , they did not know there was going to be an Overlay District. Council had told the applican there would be flexibility in the Overlay District. Mr. Dommer felt that not enoug flexibility is allowed in the guidelines. ~ Commissioner Horan reiterated he is not that concerned with the n mber of the lots pro- posed, but that the project did not lend itself to the rural character f Foothill Road, nor did it adequately meet the WFRCOD guidelines. He felt the lots were 'ust too visible for being on Foothill Road, and also that the homes are not clustered as he ould envision clustering to be. At this point he also would favor at least 130 ft. setbacks oughout the project. Mr. Smith noted that the situation is a little more difficult as the pr ~ect was previously designed and approved for Alameda County. He further commen that when the plan was annexed into the City, the City suggested they use City sewer fac' 'ties, which seemed to please everyone. He also reiterated that at that time the WFRCOD guidelines were not in place, but that when their project came before the Council, they w re assured there would be flexibility in the WFRCOD guidelines. He noted that staff is adv ting 51 to 54 lots with at least 120 ft. setbacks. Mr. Smith felt that all these issues would ju t have to be worked out at Council level. In response to Commissioner Michelotti's question, Ms. Watt repli that the CEQA findings basically reflect the conditions of approval of 51 to 54 lots. They 0 need to address some provision of open space amenity, as the General Plan indicates abo e average densities require some sort of on-site public amenity. In this particular case the Commission could find that proximity to EBRPD would provide enough trails for hiki g, etc. so that an on-site amenity is not necessary. Commissioner Michelotti reminded the Commission that they need to address how much flexibility in the WFRCOD guidelines they are prepared to live wi THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Minutes Planning Commiaaion Special Meeting of February 20, 1992 Pase 3