09/24/69 - Laserfiche WebLink

. ~, Mr. Bob Schumann, 521 Hamilton - Requested clarification of the definition of P.U.D., which was explained to him by the Commission and staff. Commissioner Antonini was concerned about the type of development and design that should go in. Commissioner Pereira had no comments. Commissioner Gibbs favored the proposal as submitted. The homeowners in Rosepointe in addition to Mr. Schumann who opposed the idea were: Mr. Carl Haigmire, 6577 Stanton court - Wished to know if these patio houses would be for rent or for ownership. No answer could be obtained. Mr. Roy Edwards, 6592 Arlington - Stated that the homes in Rosepointe ale too _ expensive for a multiple development to go in right at the entrance to the area. Mr. Bob Schumann -then stood up again and stated that if the development goes in, his home will be for sale. He stated he did not like crowds which is the reason he bought in Rosepointe, which contains only 53 lots. Mr. Alan Allen, 6565 Lsnsing - Inquired why this has to be developed. He liked the idea of a park, and could see no virtue in the proposed development. Mrs. Pat McCullough, 6565 Lansing - Questioned the method of publishing for Public Hearings. She stated that the terminology is such that the average homeowner dust does not understand ib. Mr. Ted Fairfield, 6599 Stanton -Drew a conclusion that these units will be for rental, as under the P.U.D. application, a preliminary development plan must be submitted with the initial design plans, which was not done in this instance. Going on the theory that these will be rental units, he is opposed to the application. Mr. Dick Angel, 6537 Isnsing Court - Feels the development will hamper his view. Does not understand why the original plan must be changed. The construction of these units will cause a traffic problem, in his opinion. Upon motion of Commissioner Pereira, seconded by Commissioner Pons, and carried, the Public Hearing was closed. Considerable discussion ensued Commissioners Pereira and Antonini agreed that the investment the present homeowners have made in their homes is too high to be ignored. The 53 lots in Rosepointe cover a total of 17 acres, and under those circumstances, any multiple development that goes in must blend with the aesthetics of Rosepointe. Chairman Garrigsn disagreed with the density oY the proposal and is not sold on the design as proposed. Commissioner Pons suggested that perhaps the applicant could come in with a revised plan as stated in the Planning Department staff report. The architect disagreed. There being no further comments, upon motion of Commissioner Pereira, seconded by Commissioner Antonini, and carried, the following resolution was offered: RESOLUTION N0. 951 A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Pleasanton denying P.U.D. Zone Change N0. 69-6, filed by Phil Davidson. WHEREAS, the gl,anning Commission of the City of Pleasanton has considered P.U.D. Zone Amendment Petition No. 69-6 filed by Phil Davidson to amend Sec. 4.100 of Zoning Ordinance No. 520 to change the zone district designation from the R-1-6500 (Single Family) District to the P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) District on that property described as follows: Parcel 1, Assessor's Map Book 946, Block 3032, containing 2.67 acres, more or less. -6-