CCMIN091592 - Laserfiche WebLink

45 Mr. Fairfield indicated the applicant's have done their best to work with the surrounding homeowners and to work with the Planning staff. He indicated he agreed with the majority of the recommendations, but there were some issues of disagreement. Mr. Fairfield objected to the requirement of a secondary street. He indicated this ~Quld only increase traffic on Hearst Drive. The Planning Commission agreed, but indicated an easement should be preserved in the event the street is needed in the future. He further stressed that the golf course traffic is not as bad as perceived. The traffic would be spread over an entire day and would not contribute to peak hour traffic. The next issue was the golf course plan. Mr. Fairfield strongly recommended Concept E. He indicated Concept E would mitigate the neighbors' concerns about the nearness of the golf course to their residences and would make the course more desirable by changing it to a par 71. Mr. Fairfield further stated that Concept E provides 179 acres of open space/trail area, plus a 46 acre open space area and trails throughout the neighboring area. Mr. Fairfield reiterated that this has been a fun project in spite of the controversy that had developed. He believed that the Planning Commission made the correct recommendation not to place a through street in the plans. However, should Council choose a more proactive decision, he would agree with either the 98 lot project with partial construction of the street and payment of $200,000 in fees (resulting in more than a million dollar addition to project cost), or a reduction of the housing units to a total of 86 with zero involvement in the dedication, funding or construction of a secondary street. The latter alternative would mitigate all traffic concerns. He indicated that he preferred the Planning Commission recommendation, which is for 98 lots plus one or two easement reservations, with no contribution or financial involvement in a secondary or through road. If that concept was not satisfactory to Council then he would prefer the staff recommendation of 86 lots, with zero involvement in, or provisions for, a through street or a separate access road for the golf course rather than the primary staff recommendation of 98 lots, with provisions for the on-site portion of a through street, plus payment of $2,000 per lot fee. Mr. Fairfield indicated that any conditions of approval which would cause Kottinger Hills to become involved with actual construction of off-site portions of a secondary street, such as a connection of the project to Vineyard Avenue would have to be viewed by him as tantamount to denial of the project. 9/15/92