Laserfiche WebLink
The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Butler, Mohr, Tarver and Mayor <br /> Mercer <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes stated that the project should be considered <br />individually and that he would support the General Plan amendment <br />and the PUD prezoning with some conditions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated that two actions would be required here. <br />The Council's first action would be to amend the General Plan. If <br />that is approved, Council's next action would be to prezone the <br />property to PUD-Low Density Residential District with whatever <br />conditions Council wants to put in, which would involve an <br />ordinance and would come back for a second reading. The <br />annexation matter could also be considered at the time the second <br />reading of the ordinance is brought to Council. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler mentioned that a major issue here is to determine <br />if this site belongs in the study of the east Vineyard Avenue <br />properties. He expressed concern as to whether or not the street <br />alignment should proceed at the same time as the project, but this <br />could be considered at the development plan stage. He stated that <br />the project has a potential of being very attractive for an <br />isolated piece of land and that he would support the General Plan <br />amendment and the prezoning. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr commented that this is a very creative concept and <br />that she would support the project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver expressed concern about the density of the project <br />as well as the issues raised by staff regarding extending <br />services. He stated that he agreed with.the General Plan <br />amendment and that Low Density Residential would be appropriate. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer stated that he agreed with the Councilmembers. He <br />mentioned that he had no problem with the General Plan amendment <br />and the prezoning, but would like to include three conditions to <br />the PUD: (1) The completion of the Vineyard Avenue alignment <br />prior to the start of the project; (2) A FAR of 20%-25%; and <br />(3) The participation of the applicant in the capital improvement <br />costs. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Brandes, and seconded by Mr. Butler, that <br />Resolution No. 89-523 be adopted, granting AP-89-21, the appeal of <br />a decision of the Planning Commission and therefore approving Case <br />GP-89-6, the application of James and Susan McDowell to amend the <br />land use element designation of the General Plan for an <br />approximately 4.37 acre site located at 2503 Vineyard Avenue from <br />"Agricultural and Grazing" to the "Low Density Residential" <br />designation. <br /> <br /> -14- <br /> 12-12-89 <br /> <br /> <br />