CCMIN031081 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Tom Pl,,mmer, 1225 David Street, Concord, project planner for the development, elaborated on design planning addressing topography, boundary of project, existing easements, vegetation, physical constraints, fill and grading, seismic faults, existing utilities, size of lots, and improvements. He presented maps with overlays to illustrate the proposal. He added that the project remains 66% open space and the actual buildable area is 17 acres. Mr. DUnkley elaborated on the geotechnical information stating that County and State data has been provided to the City revealing that there was not any undue danger from the fault in the ridge area. He stated that extensive trenching had been done throughout the property by Judd Hull, Geotechnical Consultant, addressing the problems associated with the hillside development, and that these studies are available for review. Mr. Dunkley reviewed the technical operation of the Hillside Planned Development Ordinance stating he supports the intent of the ordinance. He stated he felt the W.I.S. factor is counter-productive to the ordinance which results in less flexi- bility on open space, and resulted in the request for a variance. Mr. Dunkley stated his development would enhance and benefit the surrounding area by various improvements. He advised he would comply to all conditions estab- lished by the Planning Commission and changes recommended by staff. Mr. Jeff Early, 6551 Arlington Drive, and owner of property near the development, stated that in his opinion this is a well thought-out project and is appropriate for the area. The following persons spoke in opposition to the application: Mr. Maurice Engel, Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Lee Henderson, owners of the property adjacent to the proposed development, stated they were not opposed to "Deer Oak" but felt the application was not in compliance with the HPD Ordinance. He stated that when the Planning Commission considered this application it was based on 54 acres, and now 48 acres is the total acreage being considered by the City Council. He stated the applicant is seeking development of 24 lots; 22 lots are recommended by the Planning Commission, and 20 lots are recommended by staff, which he felt was also significant. He stated the maximum number of lots allowed based on the W.I.C. factor is 9. Mr. Engel stated the required open space under the ordinance is approximately 38 acres, determined by a formula, and the applicant is asking that this be reduced to 29 acres. He stated he disagreed with this, add- ing the hills are an asset and should be developed in a manner in balance with the City. Mr. Engel stated that in order to make a density change you must make certain findings. He pointed out that when staff was considering this particular project they found that the only finding that could be made for requesting higher density was "the provision of the tennis court". Mr. Engel stated that to increase density from 9 to 22/24 based on the provision of a tennis court would be arbitrary and capricious. He stated that Planning Commission had this same trouble and added an additional find- ing related to existence of topographical feature. He stated that staff made the. finding that there is no unusual topographical features on the land, and that the applicant must assess these topographical features from an objective standpoint and W.I.S. factor. Mr. Engel stated the HPD Ordinance requires that certain data be presented and that various information had not been presented to the Planning Com- mission, i.e., grading plan, profiles, tree removal, and typical elevation plan; and he felt that the Planning Commission could not make an intelligent decision without this information and evidence. He stated the HPD Ordinance is an environmental pro-. tection ordinance and that if you allow 24 units without the required open space then most of the lots will be average in size and normal for any subdivision. He stated 7. 3/lo/81