CCMIN022106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Vice Mayor Sullivan declared the public hearing open. John McMorrow, applicant, presented the project landscape plan and conceptual Birch Creek Streetscene drawings. The applicant spent a significant amount of time working with the staff, the neighbors and outside agencies on this project. The applicant conducted a series of meetings with the neighbors to make sure it had identified all of the issues, and worked with the neighborhood to come up with a project that fits within the fabric of a neighborhood. He noted that the applicant conducted an evaluation, which analyzed every tree and then determined the health of the trees. He noted that no healthy Heritage Trees would be removed. The major issue expressed by the neighbors was related to parking. The applicant reviewed the availability of parking in the immediate area to identify where the problems occurred and concluded the following: (1) a parking problem exists at the top of the cul -de -sac that is unrelated to this project, and (2) a parking problem exists as a result of a nearby apartment complex which resulted in an overflow of parking in the neighborhood. Since that time, the management of the neighboring apartment complex has changed and there is no longer an overflow of parking in the neighborhood. The applicant believed the proposed 12 guest parking spaces was sufficient and there is plenty of off-site parking to accommodate any overflow. He pointed out that windows would be installed on all of the garages so that it will be apparent if someone is not using it for parking. The CC &Rs will stipulate that the City has the ability to enforce parking if the HOA does not. He mentioned that there was no opposition to this project at any of the public meetings conducted by the applicant. He believed the only issue was directly related to the location for the proposed small tot lot. He expressed the applicant's desire to incorporate the tot lot, which is not an integral part of the community but will assist in attracting young families. The only place the tot lot would fit is where it is currently located. The applicant believed the tot lot was small in size, which would not impact the neighborhood. If it was Council's desire, the applicant was willing to eliminate the tot lot and replace it with one additional parking space. Mr. Brozosky asked the applicant to clarify whether it was the applicant/developer's preference to retain the tot lot, and if the applicant/developer was willing to eliminate it if that was Council's direction. Mr. McMorrow said yes. He noted that the applicant is trying to attract young families and does not believe the tot lot will be heavily used but it will provide a nice amenity for the residents. The proposed small tot lot is 16 by 20 feet, which would accommodate children under the age of six. Mr. Sullivan asked how the applicant would feel about funding the proposed flashing yellow pedestrian beacon. Mr. McMorrow said he was agreeable as long as the requirement for funding was $5,000 or less. He believed it was important for the children who reside at this complex to be able to travel safely to and from school. Mr. Brozosky inquired about the Traffic Impact fees for this development. Mr. Iserson said the Traffic Impact fees for this development were approximately $115,000. Pleasanton City Council 20 02/21/06 Minutes