CCMIN042484 - Laserfiche WebLink

stated that occupancy of this project is expected to be elderly and first time u r) which would not significantly impact traffic on Vineyard Avenue. He added that traffic studies previously done on Vineyard Avenue also reveal that this project would not cause adverse impact to this street. He stated that it is a high quality development, would be a good in-fill for this unattractive area, would alleviate drainage problems in this area, would provide needed housing, and that he will continue to work with the neighbors on Mavis Drive with all landscaping plans. Mr. Baldacci requested that condition No. 12 be removed. Mr. Howard Garrlgan, 389 Mavis Drive, representing the homeowners on Mavis, stated they have been working with the developer on this proposed project. He stated their concerns relative to density, landscaping and plot plan have been satisfied and that they now support the development. He requested that the condition requiring the developer to wait until after the tie-in to the railroad access before commencing construction be deleted. He stated this is a good project and is a good transition from high density to residential surroundings. He thanked the Vintage Hills Homeowners Association for their assistance and support regarding this matter. He added that he did not feel the project would significantly affect traffic on Vineyard Avenue, but that there is definitely a traffic problem on this street which should be improved. The following persons spoke in opposition to this item: Mrs. Diane Mangum, 87-2 Sylvaner Drive, stated she feels this is a good project, but strongly opposes adding any more traffic on Vineyard Avenue. Mr. Lou Mangum, 872 Sylvaner Drive, stated he is concerned about traffic. He asked when improvements would be made to the intersection at Vineyard and Bernal. Mr. Warnick advised that plans are underway now for improvements to drainage, and also construction of a bike lane. Mr. Mangum stated he felt that no additional projects should be allowed until the traffic problems on Vineyard Avenue are resolved. Mr. James Griffin, 3036 Chardonnay Drive, stated that traffic on Vineyard Avenue will increase by 20-35% with construction of already-approved projects, and that any~ new construction will add to that increase. Mr. Baldacci rebutted by stating that traffic studies reveal that this project will not significantly impact traffic, that landscaping plans will be presented to the Mavis Drive homeowners for their approval, and that drainage improvements will be constructed to the satisfaction of City staff. There being no further testimony, Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing closed on the application and the negative declaration. It was moved by Councilmember Brandes, and seconded by Councilmember Mohr, that Resolution No. 84-203, determining on the basis of a review of initial environmental study done for this project, that no significant environmental impact would occur as outlined in the Cit T y s guidelines and that a negative declaration is appropriate in connection with the application of Amador Associates for PUD (Planned Unit Development)- zoning and development plan approval for a 40 unit residential development project on approximately 4.7 acres at 3780 Vineyard Avenue, be adopted. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Butler, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: None After discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Butler, and seconded by Council- member Brandes, that Ordinance No. 1138, to be read by title only and waiving further reading thereof, approving the application of Amador Associates for PUD (Planned Unit 6. 4/24/84