Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes <br />Planning Commission <br />June 24, 1987 <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Mahern, Michelotti, Tarver and <br />Chairman Lindsey <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: Commissioners Berger and Hoyt <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />Resolution No. PC-87-71 was entered and adopted recommending <br />approval of Case PUD-87-12 and PUD-87-13 as motioned. <br />PUD-82-16-3M, H8C Development/Romero <br />Application of HBC Development and Ralph Romero for a major <br />modification to an approved development plan for a 39-unit <br />residential project to permit the further subdivision of a single <br />parcel into two lots to be located on an approximately 2.4 acre <br />site located at the terminus of Grey Fox Court. Zoning for the <br />property is PUD (Planned Unit Development) - Low Density <br />Residential District. <br />Mr. Lee presented the staff report recommending denial of this <br />project. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />Richard Glenn, Alexander and Associates, represented Mr. Romero. <br />Mr. Glenn reviewed the proposal for Lot 20. Mr. Glenn maintained <br />that the request is both logical and reasonable. Mr. Glenn <br />reviewed the schematic layout over the entire tract. There would <br />be minimal grading and maximum effort put forth to save the <br />trees. Their request has no adverse effects on the adjoining <br />areas of development or the surrounding lots. He did not feel <br />staff's concern that approval would be precedent setting was <br />valid. Under the General Plan they are allowed 75 lots on 42 <br />acres. In fact, the PUD Ordinance allows 25% density bonus. <br />Mr. Glenn argued that a basic precedent was established with the <br />recent reconfiguration of the entire project. Mr. Romero was <br />purchasing the property at the time of reconfiguration and is now <br />asking the Planning Commission to consider his request out of <br />fairness. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Commissioner Tarver asked staff to site specific reasons why they <br />do not want this PUD modification. Mr. Lee said that had this <br />proposal been made during the recent modification, it would have <br />been recommended for denial at that time. A subsequent split <br />would require additional grading, create a flag driveway which is <br />a major change, creates concern with regard to the two oak trees. <br />Mostly, however, staff is concerned with the precedent-setting <br />nature of this piecemeal proposal in this and other PUD's <br />throughout the City. <br />Commissioner Tarver felt the comments regarding the precedent <br />setting nature of the modifications should be applied to Hacienda <br />Business Park and other PUD's as well. <br />- 14 - <br />.. 7 <br />