09 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Gated Development The applicant is proposing a gated entrance to the development. The General Plan Circulation Element indicates: "Discourage the development of further gated communities which inhibit the sense of greater community and make City utility and emergency services more difficult to provide." Similar language has been included in the Draft Circulation Element as part of the General Plan Update: "Discourage new gated communities." The applicant has stated that the needs for residents of a senior community are different than other residential neighborhoods. Residents in senior communities frequently prefer the limited access and additional security that a gated community provides. The applicant also notes that many residents are retired or semi-retired and travel frequently for extended periods of time. In addition, many residents would be senior-aged women who prefer the additional home and personal security provided by a gated community. The development would have substantial common use amenities, such as a large community clubhouse, pooUspa and a bocce courtyard, and the applicant feels the gate would serve to control access by non-residents. The applicant also noted that many similar senior retirement communities have similar gated access control. The applicant submitted an article on the Rossmoor Development in Walnut Creek (see Attachment #4), which is a gated development. The article indicates that the single women in the development like the sense of security provided by the gates. Although staff normally does not support gated developments, staff is not opposing a gated development in this case because it would be located in a senior community. Furthermore, the gate would be equipped with an override system so that emergency vehicles/response would not be impeded. Trails The City's Community Trails Master Plan shows a future trail adjacent to the northern boundary of the subject site. This future trail would start near the Mohr Avenue/Martin Avenue intersection and head east to provide access to the future recreation uses that will be established around the old quarry pits. Staff has had discussions with the applicant about providing a trail connection from this development to the future trail (e.g., create a narrow homeowner's association-owned parcel with trail between Lots 36 and 37). The applicant does not wish to provide a trail connection due to security concerns. Although staff believes it would be beneficial for the residents to have this trail connection, staff understands the applicant's security concerns and finds it acceptable not to provide the trail connection. At the workshop, a resident on Sagewood Court had requested public trail access through the proposed EVA connecting to Sandstone Court. An EVA easement was created on the two lots at the end of Sandstone Court, but a public access easement was not provided. Therefore, public access is not provided along the Sandstone Court EVA and the EVA would include aseven-foot tall solid gate that would prohibit public access. PUD-74 Page -10 - June 25, 2008