My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 02/12/97
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
PC 02/12/97
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 3:56:26 PM
Creation date
1/26/2005 3:56:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/12/1997
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 2/12/97
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Staff feels the PUD-LDR prezoning is consistent with the General Plan, it would facilitate the <br />annexation to the City, the necessary infrastructure is available for development, and recommends <br />the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the prezoning request to LDR <br />and also that the density be up to two units per acre. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright inquired about the Lehman property, since they were not in favor of <br />annexation. Staff advised that he could be included in the prezoning, whether or not he is ultimately <br />included in the annexation. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cooper commented that the PUD is to contain sufficient public amenities to justify <br />the higher density. What amenities is this PUD bringing to the table to justify the higher density? <br />Staff does not see any real amenities that would benefit that area that would justify going to the <br />higher density, these are basically going to be individual development plans requesting two to four <br />units. It would be very difficult to coordinate an amenity for the neighborhood that is not already <br />available to it. Since the General Plan does not insist an amenity be provided (the language says <br />"should'), staff feels no actually amenities be provided in this case. Further, staff noted there are <br />other developments within the City having less than one unit per acre, which would balance out the <br />higher density here, as allowed by the General Plan. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED <br /> <br />George McMillion, 3785 Trenery Drive, stated he is in favor of the prezoning and annexation. He, <br />himself, lives on a one-half acre lot that was subdivided from his parents' larger parcel. He is <br />seeking to keep the parking and traffic minimized on Trenery Drive. The street is fairly narrow and <br />the City has advised that they cannot put up No Parking signs. Two cars cannot pass on Trenery <br />if there is a parked car. The petition is asking for a minimum one acre parcel size, however, it is <br />not their intention to disallow families to subdivide their land for their children's use. They are <br />opposed to less than one-acre parcels for large developments. He also stated the buffer zone is <br />owned by Kaiser Sand and Gravel. <br /> <br />Shirley Lauer, 2221 Martin Avenue, plans to split their property off into three-quarter acre lots for <br />their children. Spoke to the fact that they have worked very hard over the last 36 years to ensure <br />this a low density residential area. In 1965, the City Council zoned it MDR in spite of their request <br />to keep it LDR. She stated they have read and agree with the staff report and are satisfied with the <br />prezoning of LDR with up to two units per acre. She feels the request for the one-acre parcels on <br />Trenery is inconsistent in view of the fact that there are several existing houses one-half and three- <br />quarter acre lots. She does not think developing their property will affect the residents on the <br />opposite end of Trenery. Ms. Lauer urged the <br />Commission to approve the prezoning as stated in the staff report, agrees with the condition that <br />there be no additional streets, and believes this action would negate the need for hearings for <br />additional variances. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 11 <br /> <br />February 12, 1997 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.