Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />April 11, 1984 <br />Page 7 <br />RZ-84-6, City of Pleasanton <br />Application of the City of Pleasanton to amend the provisions of the Ordinance <br />No. 885, rezoning approximately 61 acres immediately north of the Pleasanton <br />Sports and Recreation Park, to delete Section 4(1)(d) guaranteeing "no <br />street access from the development to Sutter Gate (Drive)." The Planning <br />Commission may recommend any ac on on this matter consistent with the <br />General Plan. <br />Mr. Harris presented the staff report and presented a history on the property. <br />Commissioner Lindsey asked if staff has looked at the possibility of <br />cul-de-sacing Suttergate and Parkside so that it would make it impossible <br />for through traffic to use. Mr. Harris indicated that this was looked <br />into. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />Larry Bartelson, MacKay and Somps, represented Crocker Homes. He stated <br />that Crocker doesn't care where the access is but wants to get on with <br />business and construct their homes. They feel that both the homeowners <br />and the City have taken liberty with their property. They still prefer <br />plan "A" as presented. Crocker is concerned with emergency access to <br />their lots and their homes also. Alternate Plan D which is supported <br />by the homeowners from an engineering standpoint is not a good plan in <br />his opinion. This would create nine double frontage lots. Crocker has <br />paid their fees for their project and do not feel they should be liable <br />for any more off-site expenditures. Plan "C" is not acceptable to them <br />either. Mr. Bartelson then presented a plan which incorporates some of <br />the ideas of plan "C" with changes. He explained their proposal and the <br />locked gate situation. He indicated that the road could be opened on <br />the weekend and closed during the week. While undesirable, the Crocker <br />people are willing to cul-de-sac a portion of their development <br />on the east from the balance on the west to get this matter taken care <br />of. <br />Commissioner Doherty suggested that Mr. Bartelson's plan be labelled "F" <br />for identification purposes. <br />Doug Stuhr, 4849 Mohr Avenue, stated that when the property was rezoned, <br />Crocker had nothing to do with it. It was known as the McManus' property. <br />When the property was purchased by Crocker they should have been aware <br />of the condition imposed on ordinance No. 885 restricting access to Sutter <br />Gate. Using the overhead projector, he showed the ordinance to the Commission <br />and audience. He then presented Webster's definition of guarantee for <br />everyone to see. One of the definitionsof guarantee is permanence. Permanence <br />does not mean five years. He calculated a loss of market value to be <br />$1,000 per home per year if Sutter Gate is put through. Chairman Jamieson asked <br />the source of Mr. Stuhr's figures. Mr. Stuhr stated they are from various <br />real estate people in town and this figure is on the conservative side. <br />-7- <br />__.__T <br />