10/08/69 - Laserfiche WebLink

., -~ Commissioner Pereira remarked that the talk was on intent, and there are two or three or four intents. He stated that he was not on the Commission at the time and frankly criticized the decision made by the Commission then. Obviously the Commission's intent - and here he had nothing more to go on but what was stated in the resolution passed - was somehow not conveyed to Council at the time they approved the original PUD. Commissioner Pereira then referred to the survey which was called for about two months ago and the statistical information derived Pram that survey and given to the Commission. Apparently the statistical analysis was suspect or incomplete, or subject to two different interpretations. Chairman Garrigan had doubts about retaining Unit ~1 "as is" and perhaps modifying the balance to add sidewalks. He questioned the kind of PUD which would result if the concept should be split. Commissioner Pereira stated that if the Commission could agree to the separation of the unite, then perhaps the split should be after Unit #1. A gentleman in the audience, Mr. Bich Ward, 3632 Olympic Court North, spoke regarding the 8 ft. easement in the frontyard and the condition of approval referring to it. He had never heard of it. The builder had never informed him of any of these conditions. In fact, he stated that the City had planted a tree in his frontyard 5 ft. from the edge of the property line, which, if the sidewalks are replaced, would give him veep little, if any, room between the sidewalk and his tree. Mr. Campbell, Director of Public Works, corrected this statement by saying that the City did not plant the tree in Mr. Ward's front yard. Commissioner Gibbs asked whether at the time of the original approval for the PUD before Council, if Council had requested that these specific conditions be stricken from the approval or modified in any way. There were no such requests. The Planning Director replied that the March 18, 1969 memo to City Council included both the conditions which was passed by Council. Mr. Castro recalled that some lengthy discussion ensued at that time regarding why the sidewalks were eliminated but the conditions of approval as approved by Commission were not deleted or modified in any way. Mrs: Robert Moore, 3548 Glacier Court South - then spoke as a property owner and stated that the reason why she chose to purchase a home without a sidewalk was because they favored the country atmosphere. She further stated that traffic did not appea} to be a problem since the streets are designed as cul-de-seta. She further stated that she was not aware that the concept as approved was experimental at this point in time. Mr. Dudley Frost, D. 6 V. Builders, Inc., made reference to the planning aspect of this development. This was an innovation and that -.his company is prepared to correct any errors they may have made. He noted a potential traffic hazard at the entrance of the development where school children picked up the bus. He was willing to put sidewalks along there. He requested that the Commission consider this concept now and not get "hung up on technicalities." Commissioner Pons inquired how far along Units ~1 and #2 are at this time, and received an answer that the first unit is completely sold and 30% of the second unit as well. Commissioner Pons then made his position. He stated that he had abstained from the first vote taken on September 24, 1969, because he did not know what the ground rules were. He felt the original approval was very illogical and wondered if the Commissioners realized at the time of approval what they were getting into. He does not feel the intent is there. His concern now is for the homeowners. Commissioner Pons did not feel it is realistic at this point in time to attempt to enforce the original arrangements as spelled out in the original approval of the tentative map. He had reviewed the statistics and has come to the conclusion that a decision can only be made for Units ~k3 and ~k4 now. -6-