PC 10/13/82 - Laserfiche WebLink

Vice Chairperson Jamieson stated he didn't feel strongly about the matter one way or the other. Commissioner Doherty reiterated that this is the third request for continuance and in view of the fact that the request was received by telephone at 2:00 p.m. or 3:00 p.m., he moved to hear the matter. It was then stated that the matter would be heard. MATTERS INITIATED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS Commissioner Getty indicated she was ill at the last meeting and expressed disappointment in the vote to not change the structure of the Design Review Board, especially since City Council has introduced an ordinance for an alternate member to the Planning Commission. OLD BUSINESS - Public Hearings PUD-82-17, Richard Hempy et al Application of Richard Hempy et al for Planned Unit Development (PUD) development plan approval for a four lot residential subdivision of approximately 4.35 acres of land located on the west side of Foothill Road at and adjacent to the south of 5050 Foothill Road. Zoning for the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development)-Low Density Residential District. A negative declaration of environ- mental impacts will also be considered. (Continued from 9/21/82) Mr. Harris presented the staff report and letter from Mr. Gil Barbee, Land Surveyor, concerning this case. He indicated the matter had been continued from the previous Planning Commission meeting because there was some concern that one of the key players wasn't aware of some of the con- ditions of approval and obligations he might be subject to if the matter would be approved. He indicated the Planning Division has not met with anyone concerning this matter since the last meeting but that the Engineering Department had. He indicated it would be appropriate to reopen the public hearing and listen to the statements made on this case. Mr. Warnick said he had read the letter of Mr. Barbee, has met with the principals and understands fully the problem the developer has, however, the City must require normal improvements for Foothill Road and that when properties are sloped, dedication is always required for improvements, or at the very least a requirement that the developer and/or property owner enter into a deferment agreement for these improvements should they be required at a later date. He stood firm by the conditions proposed for approval of this development. Commissioner Getty indicated there were no public improvements required of Foothill Knolls. Mr. Warnick responded that the staff recommended improvements for that development also, or that at the least, interim improvements; and because improvements would be done so far into the distant future, the City Council only required a certain amount of interim improvements. -2-