PC 08/11/82 - Laserfiche WebLink

Page 8 some thoughts on the matter. Mr. Harris further stated he is comfortable with the proposed HPD ordinance. He said he would prefer the HPD not be eliminated and not control development through PUD. He said the PUD isn't a good vehicle for controlling hillside development. He said he would recommend that the proposed ordinance not be denied but that an alternative be looked at using the same concept of control through a General Plan amendment. Commissioner Wilson asked Mr. Harris about the existing HPD. Mr. Harris said the existing ordinance should be revised because it allows any density if special topographical features or other types of special features are in the plans. Commissioner Getty asked the purpose of the HPD. Mr. Harris said it is to preserve the aesthetics and other aspects of the hillsides. Mr. Harris spoke to problems with uniformity of development of parcels if the HPD is not adopted. He further said it is the intent of this ordinance to apply only to the west side of Foothill while it doesn't specifically say this. Commissioner Doherty said he would prefer the ordinance not be silent in this regard. Commissioner Jamieson said he would support Commissioner Doherty's statements and HPD ordinance in order to set some standards. He said he agrees the current ordinance must be changed. The public hearing was opened. Art Dunkley, Castlewood Properties, Inc. spoke regarding the draft. His concerns were that it be clear and understandable to all concerned; the application achieve its purposes; and that it be equitable to all and be sensitive to development criteria. He addressed Page 3(a) and stated it does not have any grading control - completely silent with this regard and subject to interpretation. He spoke to page 5(4) and whether this section speaks to accumulated or discrete areas regarding maximum allowable density containing a minimum area of 20,000 sq. ft.; page 5(5) he stated this paragraph has a loop hole in it. He said it doesn't clearly speak to density shifting and what constitutes a shift. He then addressed the top of page 6 and asked what a 'proper showing' is. He gave examples of what would happen with the proposed ordinance on a 2.9 acre parcel with three slopes, 19,500 sq. ft. flat 2~ with a balance of 17~. He said it would have an average of 14.4 slope allowing one unit. He went through other examples. He said the ordinance is poor and urged an ordinance that would be sensitive to development criteria; vegetation, clustering of units, and other things. He further said he believes it can be legally challenged in court because it is subject to too much interpretation. He said the PUD ordinance does have development controls in it. He read from the ordinance. Commissioner Jamieson asked if Mr. Dunkley was afforded the opportunity to attend the study sessions and discuss with staff. Mr. Dunkley said he has discussed his opinions with staff. Commissioner Doherty asked if in the committee meetings Mr. Dunkley heard the responses to his concerns. Mr. Dunkley said he has a problem with the wording in the ordinance and they didn't have the final draft in these meetings. Commissioner Doherty asked that when the committee people received their copy of the draft were they asked to comment to the staff on it. Mr. Dunkley said he had discussed the ordinance with staff.