PC 01/10/68 - Laserfiche WebLink

finding that the densities for the areas proposed for rezoning seemed high, referred the matter back Co the Planning Commission for review. Mr. Castro further explained that the total number of dwelling units had been increased in the staff proposal; Land use and densities had been re-distributed. Coa¢aentc from the audience were as follows: Jack Oterman, 5369 Ridgevale Road - representing a group of people from Pleasanton Valley: High density on Black :Avenue was their main concern. There were over 485 signatures on their protest against apartment buildings in the suggested area. Felt the proposed apartments were not in keeping with the original General Plan as proposed by the City Council and the Planning Commission. Felt that Black Avenue would not be adequate for the increased traffic, and that driving hazards would increase. Mr. Oterman stated concern for increased number of children in schools caused by apartments. Recommended that the Planning Commis- sion change the RG-15 and RG-25 areas on Blaclc to R-2 zoning, according to the City Council's proposal. There wan considerable discussion, after the suggestion by Chairman Antonini that R-2 zoning could cause more children in the schools than RG-15 and RG-25 zones. The Commaission informed the audience that they had control on the number of driveways, and the architecture of apartments in RG-15 and RG-25 Districts, but had nc such contrbl in R-2 areas. Tonv Todaro, 1760 Beachwood - The RG-15 and RG-25 areas were zoned such when a shopping center was proposed south of Blaelc Avenue; a condition which was no longer true. Mrs. Klein, 1752 Tanglewood - Stated that when they bought the lot, they weren't aware of the large number of proposed apartments. Ted Landon, 5372 Ridgevale - Stated that RG-15 and liG-25 would generate more traffic than R-2 zoning. Asked that the General Ylan be more closely adhered to. Victor Bailey, 4565 Black - Stated he was not adequately informed of the proposed apartment buildings. Richard Waldron, 1519 Loganberry - No objection to the proposed apartments; stated there is a need for lower-cost housing. Dick Pearson, 1656 Orchard - Felt the "salt and pepper" concept of homes had not been met; had no objection to the proposed apartments. Mark Gerton, 1651 Ramblewood Way - no objection to proposed apartments. Gerry Marlow, 5287 Crestline - Stated his objection to high density in the suggested area - not apartments. Dudiev Frost: Spoke in reference to planning of the City and the purpose of the General Plan. Stated there would be less density, but controlled archi- tecture and number of driveways if RG-15 and 12G-25 zoning was approved. Ted Landon - Didn't feel proposed area. was graded properly for apartments. Upon motion of Commissioner Garrigan, seconded by Commissioner Plato, the public hearing was closed. The following were reasons on which the Commission based their decision: Chairman Antonini - 1. The General Plan 2. Present school facilities 3. Present street traffic capacities 4. Effects apartments will have on single family homes 5. Density control (zoning permit) Canmissioner Plato - 1. Reaffirmed his previous position 2. The proposed plan meets requirements of the General Plan. Commissioner Garrigan - 1. Concurred with the positions taken above. 2. Felt that a balanced community is desirable planning. _2_ 1-10-68