CCMIN040792 - Laserfiche WebLink

175 Mr. Hirst indicated that the cost of the lots would be set by dividing the infrastructure cost, which is approximately four million dollars. He has been working with staff in trying to reduce the infrastructure cost by reducing some of the off-site -requirements. Mr. Hirst urged Council to approve Option 3 of the staff report and approve the General Plan Amendment and introduce the ordinance approving the PUD rezoning and Development Plan. The development plan then would be sent to the planning staff and neighbors for further review. He explained that the primary difference between the 37 and 52 lot project is the width of the lots and the opening of the project. He also requested the following PUD conditions be modified: 1) Improve Happy Valley to 36 feet wide and drainage to west side of 1-680 only; 2) No removal or replacement of trestle buttress; 3) Be reimbursed 50% of the cost of signalizing the intersection of Sunol and Arlington and constructing a center median. (He referred to his letter to the Council of April 6, 1992). Melanie Macgregor, 6546 Arlington Drive, Steering Committee, spoke in opposition to the proposal. She presented a petition to the Council. She explained the history of the meetings between the applicant and the. neighbors. She felt that because this new proposed plan was presented on April 1 to staff and to the neighbors, there had not been enough time for review. It was the Committee's intent to support the 1992 Growth Management approval of a low density plan, as per the City's General Plan, with a maximum of 37-units. She asked that the City Council and developer incorporate the items in the petition as signed by the neighbors, when proposing the new low density plan. Richard Perejo, 609 Blossom Court, supported a low density development in this area. He referred to a colored map which designated unincorporated areas and explained the history of the land. Mr. Perejo reiterated Ms. Macgregor's comments. He stated that the Committee was concerned with keeping this area as natural as possible, staying within the EIR standards, that one and two story homes do not infringe on the existing homes, and that lots that abut Happy Valley Road were at one acre minimums. Ed Dantzig, 678 Romeo Court, explained the participation from the neighbors in the planning of this project. He felt that the 37-unit proposed development was not adequate but he was willing to work on it. The holding capacity for this property is less than 37 units. Mr. Dantzig stated that the Committee supported the approval of the growth management for this project, subject to PUD rezoning as low density housing. They recommend the adoption of Option 3 of the staff report including the conditions listed in their petition. 4/7/92 7