PC 09/22/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

w i t h s t o f f who noted t hat this same condition w i l l b e e p l a c e d on the Day parcel when it is presented; he said they are willing to comply w i t h G on d i t i o n 9~ a s l o n g a s i t i s specified that t h e requirement i s f or this property and the Day parcel , and t h a t t h e c o s t w i l l b e p r o rated o n a l o t b a s i s. Condition 1 1 - 1~1r Cooper s concern was that the applicant raot be ragt_aired to a_and er gr ound the 1 i nes , so that when Vineyard i s real i gr. ed , he i s contribl_ati ng to the Vineyard realignmert when the a_anderc~r oondi ng is not na=c essar y-_ In discussing this with staff, they have said this condition c o l d b e taken care o f w i t h a D e f e r r e d I m provement Agreement C o nd i t i o n 1~ - M r_ C o o p ar f e l t i t n e e d s to be reworded some wt-aat because of the `E:6" storm drain that rune across the corner o f the parcel they i m end t o tie into that Condition Y S - M r_ Cooper- t h oa_ag h t this condition was u n n e c e s s a r y or unfair , as they do riot feel the condition of Vineyard Ay ena_ae would b e worsened b y the project . The oubl is hearino was closed. C o m m i s s i o n s G o m m e n t s c C o m m i s s i o n e r H o v i n g h stated that even though h e ]. i k e s t Ya e project h e f e l t the d e v e l o p m e n t standards are e r; c e e d i n g l y l o o s e a n d n e e d t o b e t i g h t e n e d d r a m a t i c a l l y. -r r a d i t i o n a l l y i of r-astr ucture i n F'1 ea sent on i ~. i n place bef ore deyel op ment taF~es place, and cited applicani ores for Joe Callahan and Hacienda F3 a_asi Hess ParFe. He thought that this should also apply t o t h i s p r o j e c t a n d i n f r a st r u c t ~ r e m u s t b e i n p l a c e b efore a n y d e v e l o p me n t begins . I f the app 1 i c a n t i s w i l l i n g t o pay f or t h e realignment of Vineyard Av ena_ae , than he i s wi 1 1 i ng to support the nine units _ I f the applicant i s only willing t o put u p about :~~1C>, C~UO per unit, into a fund which could take up to f-iye years t o c o m p l y w i t h , C o mm i s s i o n e r H o y i n g h s a i d h e w oa_al d w a n t the densi ty of the project reda_ac ed _ He coa_al d not support the project a s presented . G o mm i s s i o n e r M i c h e l o t t i commented that she has served o n t h e F e r t i l e C r e s c e n t S t u d y C:o m m i t t e e, a n d t h e a p p l i c a n t s p r o p e r t y borders the Fertile Gr escc=nt_ She felt 1"iis proposed project cool d be developed into something unique that would sat a a precedent for development along Vineyard Avenue wizi cYi would inc ludo vineyards along the roadways however, she felt the density on this project was too high to achieve this The appl i cant i nd i cat es he n~edz the nine un:i is as prawnt ed to be cost-effective. She felt that approval as presented co~ild set the stage for f urtl-ier si mi 1 ar deval op mants_ St-~e al so di d not feel. this project cold be compared to the Napa Valley V i n e y a r d a r e a a s t h e i r v i n e y a r d s a r e a t least a m i l e o f f t h e roadway and a parson goes throt_agh a mi 1 e of vi neyar-ds on each si de to qet tci the house_ She 1 i 4eed the vi neyar-d idea, but di d not thi nt=: it was appropriate a= prawntad. In addition, sne felt that a l i g n m e n t o f Vineyard should b e started prior t o approval o f the project _ She could not support the project a s p r e s e n t e d ( page amended 9/ 1 2/ 9 O) NtS NtJ T H S F'LANN I NCi COMM I SS I U1V AuG ust - 1°;'S'C~ F•age- ~ c: