PC 12/08/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

In conclusion, Mr. Plucker noted that staffs recommendation is that the Commission forward Case PUD-99-03 to the City Council by making the finding that the proposed PUD prezoning and PUD development plan will not have a significant environmental impact and adopt a resolution recommending approval of Exhibit "C," the Negative Declaration for PUD-99~03; make the finding that the proposed PUD prezoning to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) - LDR, C, and PHS/WO (Low Density Residential, Commercial, and Public Health and Safety/Wildlands Overlay district and the PUD development plan are consistent with the Pleasanton General Plan; make the PUD development plan findings stated in the staff report; and, adopt a resolution recommending approval of the PUD prezoning to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) - LDR, C, and PHS/WO (Low Density Residential, Commercial, and Public Health and Safety/Wildlands Overlay) district and recommend approval of the PUD Development Plan (Case PUD-99-03) subject to the draft conditions of approval stated in Exhibit Discussion ensued relating to Parcel A and its inclusion in the General Plan, background information relating to the property, grade of property, approval of park by the Parks and Recreation Commission, size of the preserve park, clarification of the calculations used for increasing number of units to 16, clarification of school issues, issues relating to growth management, fencing guidelines, potential or possible use for parks, open space not being buildable, Parcel E preserve park issues relating to the conservation easement, issues relating to the Parcel A and senior care facility, roadway on top of ridge, and amenity provided by the developers. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, Suite 210, Attorney, provided a history of the Kolb family and noted that the applicants are siblings. He provided an overview of the location of the homes and stated that the Kolbs are not developers and have received guidance from staff. He commented on the specifics of the General Plan and the way in which the property should be zoned. He commented on the design of the lots, the grading, and the senior facility. He noted that the project was designed with three points of road access. He stated that the applicants have worked extensively with the neighbors to resolve issues. Mr. McDonald noted that the amenity was suggested by staff. He stated that the applicant would be comfortable with a three-year development plan, versus two years, as contained in Condition 9. Further, he requested that Condition 12, be amended to include "combining parcel E with Lot 12." He commented on Condition No. 23 and requested that the first sentence be deleted in the condition. Mr. McDonald expressed concern with Condition No. 51 and requested that the homeowners have the option to choose whether to hook up to sewer lines. He noted he would be in favor of further analyzing the design guidelines. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Mr. McDonald noted that the product type homes are being developed versus custom homes to fit in with The Preserve and at staff's recommendation. Further, he noted that the applicants are agreeable with staff's recommendation for homes to be limited to 4500 square feet. In response to Commissioner Arkin, he noted that secondary units would be included in the condition of approval as part of the 4500-square-foot maximum. William Kolb, applicant, provided a history of the property and the condition of the existing home on property. He noted he would like to retain the existing home as part of the project and noted his desire for retaining some of the old structures combined with the new senior facility. He noted his desire to build a new home on Lot 12. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1999 Page 4