PC 111605 - Laserfiche WebLink

Alexandra Zarubin, 5007 Muirwood Drivoy spoke in support of this application. She noted that she had raised chickens for four years and detailed their educational bene£its_ She has participated in 4-H and in the County Fair. This itetrt was continued to December 14, 2006_ a_ PUD-38, Lvnn Jansen Application for ~7.~ rezoning of two existing parcels totaling approxiar~ately 4.79 acres front Planned Unit Dcvclopnient (YU D) and Agriculture ~A~ District to Ylanned Unit Developaracnt Medium Density Residential (PUD-MDR District; <2~ PUD development plan approval for 1 1 buildable parcels and two remainder parcels ranging from 10,000 square feet to 1 3,000 square feet; and ~3~ Development Design Guidelines for asingle-family detached residential development- The project site is located on a 4.3-acre parcel at 1635 and ] 777 Rose Avenuc_ Also consider a Negative Declaration prepared for the project Ms. Decker sutrimarized the staff report and described the scope and background of this application. She noted that this project had gone before the Commission previously with approximately 13 units; in 1995, staff supported the reduction of parcels to approximately 9,500 square feet, which was not supported by Council at that time. The subject site was originally designed in 1995 with a cul-dc-sac and no pedestrian trail -along the Arroyo- The proposed site design includes a pcdcstriaa~ trail next to the arroyo to the north- She noted that the question of maintenance responsibility of the arroyo was an issue; mat ntenance of the arroyo is difficult when there are various ownerships, which is typical throughout Pleasanton. It was the City's goal to help the applicant dedicate a portion of the creekside area to Zone 7 in order to help facilitate Zone Ts mission. The details of this process are a part of the tentative map stage of this prof ect_ Ms. Decker noted that there were several criteria in determining the embankment stability listed in the staff report- She displayed the site plan and noted that Lot 9 was a custom lot. The applicant had requested that it not be limited at this time to a single story, which was discussed in the staff report- Staff believed it was a reasonable request and added that this particular lot would return to the Planning Cotrimission for design review and -approval "f here were guidelines proposed as being adopted by the Commission and Council that this particular lot would need to be reviewed for constraints on the site, and any impacts to the Nolan Farm properties or the property along the Rose estates- These issues could likely he mitigated by design, rather than shutting the door to any other original opportunities- She noted that the remaining ten lots were defined by Ylans B and C, which were two-story horrte designs. Shc displayed the various plans on the overhead screens, describing the main architectural and design details. Commissioner Arkin noted that Condition 56 on page 9 contained a typo [eight-hundred megahertz (m c;h)~, which should he corrected to read. MH for accuracy. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 16, 2005 Page 3 of 23