CCMIN082482 - Laserfiche WebLink

117 The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Mercer, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Butler NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor Butler recessed the meeting at 9:40 P.M. Mayor Butler reconvened the meeting at 9:50 P.M. Application of Castlewood Properties~ Inc.~ for Planned Unit Development zonin~ and development p~ approya~ of an approximately 48 acre site for the development of 24 parcels for single-family residential use, located northwest of the intersection of Foothill Road and Bernal Avenue. Tbe~p_.roperty is currently zoned HPD (Hillside Planned Development) District Consider Certification of EIR Mr. Harris presented his report (SR 82:315) dated August 13, 1982, regarding this matter. Mayor Butler declared the public hearing open on the application and the EIR. Mr. Art Dunkley, representing Castlewood Properties, Inc., 205 Main Streets pre- sented a brief descripeion of the project stating that only 16% of the bottom of the ridge will be developed and that there will be little environmental impact. He stated that extensive studies had been done relative to soils, seismic, and other related items. Mr. Dunkley stated he had sent a letter to the Council recently outlining the advantages of Planned Unit Development for this property versus Hillside Planned Development. He stated he concurred with the staff report and conditions with the exception of Condition 1; stating he felt that 24 lots are appropriate for develop- ment rather than 23 lots. He requested Council to approve the development with 24 lots. Dr. Ralph Juhl, 2680 Foothill Road, stated the subject property surrounds his lots, and he would like to see it developed by Mr. Dunkley. Dr. Juhl stated he had concerns regarding fire, and for the use of firearms in the open space, and asked how this would be controlled. The following persons spoke in opposition to this item: Mr. Maurice Engel, Attorney representing Lee Henderson, 2870 Foothill Road, voiced Mr. Henderson's opposition to this item. He stated that Mr. Henderson had opposed the Hillside Planned Development application, and he also opposes the Planned Unit Develop- ment application; being motivated by his belief that in the area of planning and zoning there should be predictability to the letter of the law. Mr. Engel compared this pro- posed development with the Longview development and Mr. Boatright's development as to lots allowed and required open space. He stated that under this comparison Mr. Dunkley should only be allowed to develop 17 units. Mr. Engel stated that if the City is ser- ious about having a Hillside Planned Development ordinance then it should continue this item until the HPD ordinance is enacted and to make a decision on Mr. Dunkley's application under the new standards when they are completed. If the City does not want a HPD ordinance then it should repeal the ordinance and set a new policy with the degree of hillside protection, and consider Mr. Dunkley's project under whatever Council policy is established. Mr. Engel stated that if the City chooses to proceed under the Planned Unit Development, the ordinance requires the reason for proceeding. He stated the application states the reason appears to be "because of the time taken to put to- gether a new HPD ordinance the applicant prefers to proceed under the PUD". Mr. Engel asked if this is valid. He stated the PUD ordinance is muddled as to density. He 7. 8/24/82