CCMIN121289 - Laserfiche WebLink

Item 6d AP-89-21, Appeal of a Decision of the Planninq Commission which Denied Approval of Cases GP-89-6 and RZ-89-16, the Application of James and Susan McDowell to Amend the Land Use Element Desiqnation of the General Plan for an Approximately 4.37 Acre Site Located at 2503 Vineyard Avenue from "Aqricultural and Grazinq" to the "Low or Medium Density Residential" Desiqnation and to Prezone the same property to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) - Low Density Residential District or to Any Other Designations Deemed in the Public Interest Mr Swift presented his report (SR 89:497) regarding the matter. Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing open on the appeal. Mr. Jim McDowell, 409 Neal Street, described the design of the project and explained that he would like to build nine two- story Victorian houses within an 1865 setting and landscaping, with a conservation easement to be maintained by the homeowners' association. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would not exceed 20% coverage of both the house and the garage. The FAR of the house would not exceed 25% of the total lot. Mr. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, representing Mr. McDowell, clarified that the applicant is requesting three things: the amendment of the land use element designation, the prezoning, and annexation. The first two items are on the Agenda, and the applicant would like the Council to consider annexation at a later meeting. He then explained the project's feasibility and stated that he would answer any questions regarding the project. Mr. Brandes stated that in considering the three requests made, Council would need to add some conditions concerning the FAR. He also inquired what options would be available and what involvement the project would have regarding access to Shadow Cliffs Regional Park. Mr. MacDonald replied that the conditions could be added to the PUD-Low Density Residential zoning designation. He stated that it was his understanding from the staff that access to Shadow Cliffs is intended to come along the proposed Vineyard Avenue alignment and come back by this project. Mr. Mercer stated that he understood the applicant wanted the annexation to take place simultaneously with the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) annexation. He inquired if the applicant has discussed this with EBRPD representatives. Mr. MacDonald answered that he would like the annexation to stay close contemporaneously with the EBRPD annexation. He explained that he did not want this project's annexation to be lost in the study of the 200 acres further east. -12- 12-12-89