PC 01/12/77 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Chickerella was pre .zt and stated that as one the property owners, they had not had sufficient time to study all the ramifications of such a zoning change. He felt that, in light of unavailability of sewer permits, that action on this matter should be deferred. Secretary Harris explained that the property presently is out of conformance with the General Plan. Additionally, it is zoned single family, which means the owner can submit a subdivision map to develop the property as a resi- dential subdivision. Because of its topography, the staff would prefer to see R-1-6500 density, but with units set in clustered townhouse patterns, instead of the conventional subdivision. Jan Lindsay, 282 Mission Drive, indicated that she would rather see the property developed as a P.U.D., which would afford the City greater control on the design factors. She did not object to the development of the property, but merely wished to be assured that proper consideration to seismic hazards, drainage requirements, etc., would be made. There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed. Chairman Butler asked whether the property would qualify under the .HPD Ordinance, and Mr. Harris explained why it would be more appropriate to con- sider the property under the PUD Ordinance. Commissioner Wood stated that in past applications for this property, in addition to the type of development proposed for the R-1 portion, there were also problems with the back part of the hill, which is steep enough to qualify under the HPD Ordinance. Commissioner Wood asked if the HPD is required if the slope is greater than 10~. Deputy City Attorney Harvey Levine told the Commissioners that if the property qualified they could place the property in the HPD District. It would not, however, automatically be placed into the District, nor would the Commissioners be required to place it in that district. Commissioner Doherty attempted to ascertain from staff whether the multiple zoned property i$ RM-25 or RM-4. Commissioner Shepherd stated that he would favor the PUD District over the HPD zoning for the property. His concern is over the length of time this property has been sitting undeveloped and the taxes the property owner is paying. Commissioner Doherty reiterated this feeling. Commissioner Jamieson asked the Deputy City Attorney about the options open to the commission given the requirement for consistency with the General Plan. Mr. Levine stated that the Commission could recommend that the entire property be rezoned to PUD (Medium Density) or that the R-1 and RM portions be rezoned to PUD (Medium Density) but retain the Agricultural zoning in that district. Chairman Butler stated that the PUD process can be either extremely re- strictive or simple to work with depending on the proposal. He feels certain that this must be some of the concerns confronting the property owner and he can certainly understand his position. -2-