PC 12/14/83 - Laserfiche WebLink

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION 12/14/83 Page 5 PUD-80-13-1M, Ken Gooch Application of Ken Gooch and Associates for a modification to the conditions of approval of PUD -$0-13 (Tract 5004) and approximately 10 acre residential project consisting of 28 single-family lots and an approximately 2.47 acre area set aside for future townhouse development, located on the east side of Rowell Lane to eliminate a required access way from the project to an adjacent City park (Kottinger Park). Zoning for the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development)-Medium Density Residential District. Mr. Harris presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Paul Grant, 597 Rowell Lane, favored the access way. He has lived in other areas where there were similar access ways and he enjoyed it. He asked that the Commission consider the needs of the community and not just the few houses on the street. He addressed the future homes and families in the area and felt there was a need for such access. He said he has previously submitted a petition in support of the access. He read the petition presented. He indicated 44 people had signed the petition and if he had more time he could have had up to 56. He talked to the neighbors on Gerard and he did not find one person who was opposed to the access. He stated given more time he could even probably get 100 persons to sign the petition. He stated that there is a Pleasanton Police Officer and County Sheriff living on Mavis who have no problem with access. Commissioner Doherty asked about the change in access being put on the consent calendar. Mr. Grant said it was and the City Attorney suggested that it be pulled off and a hearing held. Commissionerpoherty asked if the police officer and sheriff had signed the petition. Mr. Grant stated they had. Mr. Grant didn't feel there was sufficient notification concerning consideration by City Council and the Planning Commisson. Commissioner Getty stated she had received her notice within the last two weeks. Mr. Harris stated that notice is sent 10 days prior to the hearing. Mr. Harris explained the request of Mr. Gooch to change this access at the final map stage which is a consent item before the City Council. He stated no one knew it would be a controversial issue until the receipt of the petition. Mr. Warnick stated that it was presented to him as anon-controversial item. When a controversy did arise, it was removed from the Council agenda and referred to the Planning Commission and next to the City Council for a modification to the PUD for the property. Mr. Grant stated that when it was considered at Council on the 22nd of November, he had just received notice on the 19th. Carl Walter, 627 Rowell Lane, stated this is not the first time this matter has been addressed. They do not want the access way on their street. They have met with the developer and City staff concerning this proposal. They have also been asked to participate on the design review committee for the project. They are very satisfied that the proposed housing will be a high quality project. He felt that the petition presented by Mr. Grant was signed by people who are really not concerned about access way and that 83% of the voting residents on Rowell Lane signed the petition to remove the access. He said in talking to people who signed Mr. Grant's petition they couldn't even say why they signed it. He stated that five out of the six people on Rowell Lane support the removal of the access way. -5- . .. .~ ~ ... _ ~. .. _.~ .. r....._. .... .. _..... _ ~ .. _ - it -