CCMIN030106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Stern said staff was looking at it for the Foothill district and there had been some discussion regarding the southwest hills. She did not think the rule would be applied just to the Foothill district. This is being used as an illustrative area. In terms of the southwest hills, she was unaware of where the discussions were, but she knew they were continuing. Mr. Brozosky said there was discussion at a previous workshop between Council and the Planning Commission regarding the east hills. He believed there was a vote taken at a special council meeting of the Council to not exclude the 25%. Even though he was not in favor of it at that point, he was surprised to see it back on the agenda for this area. Mr. Iserson replied that another reason it was brought back was because in the Planning Commission review of the Safety Element, that issue came up as part of that discussion. Since it was recommended for change by the Commission, staff felt this was an appropriate time to bring it back in conjunction with the Foothill road discussion. It could apply to any hillside location in the city. Mr. Brozosky clarified that comments about the whole city could be made on this issue. He then referred to the term "potential development yield" and asked if that was implied to mean midpoint? Ms. Stern said yes, except with regard to rural density residential, since that does not have a midpoint. It is only one unit per five acres. Mr. Brozosky clarified that to go above one unit per five acres on rural density residential would require a general plan amendment as opposed to any place else in the city, where there is a range. As long as the units are below the maximum allowed, then a general plan amendment is not required. He referred to the Knuppe property and indicated several Council members had met with the developer of the assisted living project in this previously approved PUD. He asked if those plans had changed or if there was a reason to rezone this property? Mr. Iserson indicated it is his understanding the developer is moving ahead with the proposal. There has been discussion in terms of modifying that PUD. In order for the developer to build what is approved, it has to be in substantial conformance according to the conditions of approval. If there were a PUD modification, there would be a full public hearing before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Brozosky did not think that required a general plan amendment and asked if there was someone from that property who is asking for a general plan amendment while this process is going on for a fall back position? He believed if a general plan amendment were approved for something that has already been approved for a non-lapsing PUD, there would be a non- conforming use if they continued with the PUD. Council cannot revoke the approval for the PUD. Mr. Iserson said there is ways to revoke the PUD development plan if there is an interest in changing the project or the land use. A couple of years ago, there was a proposal brought by the property owner to consider medium density residential on that site. That did not go anywhere at that time. Over the years there has been considerable interest on the part of neighboring residents and property owners in terms of what gets developed there. It is an issue Joint Workshop City Council/Planning Commission 3 03/01/06