PC 02/08/84 - Laserfiche WebLink

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 1984 Page 7 Mr. Gonsalves said they want all of the houses to face Martin Avenue. They do not want fences, sidewalks and widening of streets in the area. There is no reason to take Martin Avenue to West Las Positas. He wants this street closed and cul-de-saced. Bob Cooper, 3711 Trenery Drive, stated that last night was the first time they held a meeting on this matter. He said the goals and desires have simply not been reached. He stated the Commission has asked that the seven property owners get together on this and that this has not yet been done. He asked why there is such a hurry to have this development approved. He urged that the plan be taken back to the drawing board. Commissioner Getty was in favor of delaying this project for a plan which would be more aesthetically pleasing and in keeping with the neighborhood. Cathy Selway, 2313 Martin Avenue, stated she did not want any sidewalks, curbs, gutters and fencing. She said one property would have sidewalks which would end abruptly at another's property. She did not like the plan submitted and urged denial. She also urged review of the Mohr/Martin Study prepared for the area. She sympathized with the frustrations of the Planning Commission concerning this property but has on an occasion interrupted a vacation to return to a meeting that was postponed. Herb Singleton, 2207 Martin Avenue, said he was basically in agreement with the plan presented as much as anyone could be when they finally realized the area was going to develop. He felt that the widening of Martin Avenue was not necessary to handle the additional traffic generated by this project. He said the residents of the area want the simpler life. He was opposed to the widening of Martin Avenue and the connection of this street. He stated he is horrified to learn that the property owners would be required to pay for signal lights at Trenery Drive and Santa Rita Road. He supported the comments of Mr. Gonsalves. Bill Selway, 2313 Martin Avenue, was opposed to the project for the same reasons stated by his neighbors. He was of the understanding that a PUD would be a controlled development with guidelines. He stated this does not appear to be the case. He said Commissioner Doherty was successful in getting everyone together but the results were to no avail. He said the plan presented in July was workable with changes but is very much against the plan presented currently. He did not want Martin Avenue widened. Jim Fazzari, 3710 Trenery Drive, was opposed to the project. He felt the 30,000 sq. ft. lots were history as 20,000 sq. ft. ones were approved, but now the PUD proposal has lots smaller than this and he does object. He indicated that at a public hearing Commissioner Doherty asked Mr. Wagerman if he represented the seven homeowners and he stated he did and at that time 30,000 sq. ft. lots were discussed, subsequently to be 20,000 sq. ft. He felt the plan shold go back to the drawing board and if approved should consist of all seven properties. He was opposed to the widening of Martin Avenue and did not want the 35 acres to be developed on a piecemeal basis. He wants ruralness of the area maintained. He said the lot size is really not material but that a good plan is. Al Wiemken, Trenery Drive, asked the Commissioners if they had received the letter which he hand-delivered on Friday. The Commission acknowled ged receipt of it. He said he is totally frustrated with the chain of events. He said he has a attended two meetings; one was last night which was not fruitful and one in which Commissioner Doherty had invited him to attend at City Hall sometime ago. He said the plan presented in July looked pretty good. -_ __._.._ _ .. _. T _.