Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />City Council Minutes <br />October 1, 1984 <br />Page Five <br /> <br />approximately 5 units per acre and further ~ndicated that if the hill was not <br />considered in the average, the density would be even higher per acre. <br /> <br />General discussion was carried on regarding the proposed density per acre for the <br />development. Mr. Vance Syring indicated that he was opposed to the proposed planned <br />unit development rezoning and requested that the City Council leave the zoning as <br />is. Ms. Julie Kastendick indicated that the residents are very sensitive to a <br />planned unit development zone as there is the possibility of constant change and <br />the people must be able to attend every meeting to be aware of what is happening <br />with those changes. Mr. Denny Carlson indicated that he felt the property should <br />remain as currently zoned and further indicated that he is not convinced that a <br />planned unit development zone would be better. <br /> <br />Mr. Norm Kastendick questioned the law requiring that the property must be sewered. <br />Councilmember Duitsman indicated that there was not a law requiring that the pro- <br />perty be sewered and further indicated that it was a Council decision that the <br />property be a part of the sewer district, and therefore, developed with sewer. <br />Ms. Barb Burandt indicated that the Elk Hills development has been assessed for <br />the sewer interceptor and yet is not sewered, therefore, indicated that the pro- <br />posed area could also be developed unsewered. <br /> <br />Discussion was carried on regarding the percent of the property that was considered <br />buildable and the requirements for park or park land. The City Administrator in- <br />dicated that the development would be required to either set aside park land or <br />deposit money into the park development fund of the City. <br /> <br />Mayor Hinkle indicated that it was economically not feasible to develop a develop- <br />ment in two and one-half acre lots and yet require the property to be sewered. <br /> <br />Mr. Vance Syring indicated that the Brentwood Addition is developed in two and <br />one~half acre parcels and appears to be economically feasible, therefore, he felt <br />the City Council should not require the area to be sewered and allow the develop- <br />ment to be developed in two and one-half acre parcels. <br /> <br />Mayor Hinkle indicated that he felt there was not enough land to go around for <br />everyone to have a two and one-half acre parcel of property. <br /> <br />Ms. Flo Bird expressed her opposition to the proposed planned unit development <br />zone and the higher density proposed for the development. <br /> <br />Mr. Bill Farnan, architect for the developer, indicated that the terrain of the <br />property allowed for a higher density to be planned for the northern part of the <br />property and a lower density planned for the southern portion nearest the Elk <br />Hills development. Mr. Farnan indicated that the planned unit development zone <br />would enable the developers to develop with that higher density to the north. <br /> <br />Mr. Arlon Fuchs expressed his concern of the density proposed closest to the Elk <br />Hills development. <br /> <br />Councilmember Gunkel questioned at what point would the City Council specify the <br />maximum density that they would accept. The City Administrator indicated that <br />the developers have not had an opportunity to design a concept taking into con- <br />sideration the Elk Hills residents' concerns. The City Administrator suggested <br />