PC 03/14/84 - Laserfiche WebLink

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10 PUD-83-16, Val West, Inc. Application of Val West, Inc. for PUD (Planned Unit Development)-development plan approval of a 231 unit residential development project on approximately 35 acres located on the north side of Vineyard Avenue opposite Sauterne Way. Zoning for the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development)-Medium Density Residential District. A mitigated negative declaration of environmental impacts will also be considered. Mr. Harris presented the staff report. Staff is requesting that it not be approved with a public park. It is believed that it will be a nice greenbelt and asset to the development, but staff does not feel it can be considered a public park. The property for this purpose is long and narrow and has a limited use and would be restricted to passive activity. He indicated it is the applicant's contention that it is a park and park dedication fees should be waived. The Park and Recreation Commission felt it should not be a public park but felt some portion of the park dedication fees should be waived. Staff feels fees are needed for the park being considered at the intersection of Tawny, Bernal/Vineyard Avenue which was approved as part of a general plan amendment several months ago. Commissioner Getty reiterated Mr. Harris' statements that the Park and Recreation Commission feels a park should be provided and recommended a portion of the park dedication fees should be waived and staff feels that this is not a public park and no fees should be waived. Mr. Harris confirmed that this is the case. The public hearing was opened. Mike Valley, Val West, stated he will be able to demonstrate that there is no traffic problem on Vineyard Avenue. He stated they have hard evidence to support this. He indicated his architect and three traffic consultants are available to present their case. Mr. Valley indicated that that their marketing shows that there is a large need for retirement homes and such units do not generate a great deal of traffic. Larger units would appeal to families. Statistics show that ownership of autos in such units would be less than average for single-family homes. People living in this type of unit do not need active parks. This 4 acre park is fine for them. Commissioner Lindsey asked Mr. Valley what would prevent young people from buying the unit, having them both working with two automobiles. Mr. Martin the architect responded that nothing would prevent this but the size would dictate the use. Mr. Valley stated he felt that they should receive a park dedication fee waiver, at least in part for offering this four acre park. He felt that one-third of the total would be fair. Regarding the traffic report prepared for the area, there is nothing in the Vineyard Avenue count which was LOS E. He asked why three engineers came to different conclusions with the same data. He stated that good quantifiable information takes precedent over highly subjective information. He felt there was a terminology problem - "near future and far future" development which was taken into consideration in the Pang report. ,..__ __