PC 11/19/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

. . ) . . . Mr. Pavan stated that this application confonns to the plans that were intended for the area and that staff recommends approval of the PUD development plan, subject to the changes outlined in the November 19, 1997 memorandum, which was provided to the Commission this evening. In response to questions from Commissioner Wright and Chair Cooper, Mr. Pavan clarified staff's recommendation relating to the placement of underground utilities. Chair Cooper noted that the traffic problem to the school on Martin Avenue was the subject of recent hearings and asked why the road should be widened if the City was trying to discourage people from driving on it. Mr. Pavan responded that Martin Avenue is currently only 17 feet wide and staff feels that it should be widened for safety reasons. He also pointed out that 28 feet is the minimum City standard for a public street. Chair Cooper further questioned the need for a parking lane. Mr. Higdon stated that not only would it serve as a safety lane for disabled cars, but it would also provide additional parking for visitors to the residents' homes and could be using as a bike lane. A brief discussion took place regarding the safety of the proposed construction of Martin Avenue. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Shirley Lauer, 2221 Martin Avenue, Pleasanton, represented the application for the PUD development plan. She thanked staff for their help and professionalism and stated that they have all tried to help them a great deal. She stated that she agreed to the conditions stated in the original staff report. She further reported that the traffic along Martin A venue has increased due to the site of the school and the park. She, therefore, feels that the City should pay for one-half of the cost of the street. Mrs. Lauer requested that the PUD be approved as originally written, without any change to Exhibit C regarding the garage doors. She noted that the condition affects lots 2, 3, and 6 and believes that driveways and garage doors could be more attractively screened with plantings and landscaping. She circulated some photographs to the Commission showing the mature landscaping that already exists along Trenery Drive and pointed out that they could provide a very adequate screen. She explained in detail the numerous reasons why she opposes staff's changes to Exhibit C relating to the direction of garages and noted that many of the homes in the area have driveways and garages that face the street. Again, she circulated some photographs showing these homes. Other than the garage issue, Mrs. Lauer stated that she agrees with the conditions for approval and requested that the Commission approve the application using the original condition 2.5. In response to a question from Commissioner Wright, Mrs. Lauer clarified her disputes with the original and amended conditions 2.5. She stated that she specifically dislikes the suggestion of a cement wall for screening the garage. Commissioner Wright pointed out that the original Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 November 19, 1997