PC 011106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Gazy Twisselmann, 825 Montevino Drive, spoke in support of this application. He !^' believed that the neighborhood meetings held at the Hatsushis' home showed that this development would be an asset to the community as well as to the City of Pleasanton. He believed the new homes would blend well with the existing homes and would like to see use of the open space for animals such as cattle and fowl to be grandfathered in to the plan. Darryl Alexander, 849 Montevino Drive, noted that he lived directly across the street from the proposed EVA and that he was concerned about the traffic on Montevino Drive. He believed this project would adversely impact the neighborhood and added that it has been working through the Traffic Committee and the City Traffic Department for years on this issue. He noted that traffic signals had been installed and that the traffic islands installed for traffic calming had not helped very much. He expressed concern that the construction traffic would overwhelm Montevino Drive. He liked the project but did not agree with the proposed access plans. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas regazding whether the keeping of animals on the open space would require an Agriculture zoning, Ms. Decker replied that because of the PUD there was considerable latitude in terms of the establishment of certain uses. There would be similar flexibility within the open space. Ron Lloyd, 854 Montevino Drive, noted that he had great respect for the Hatsushi family and generally did not oppose the overall development plan; he did, however, have very ~ strong concerns about some specific aspects that affect his home and family. He displayed the view from their back door and noted that their house was 21 feet from the property line neazest the Hatsushi property. He added that the proposed construction would create a significant view obstruction at a peak height of 24 feet. He was concerned that their property value could be affected by $50,000-100,000, depending upon the placement of the homes behind it. He could not support the plan because he could not see how a house could be placed on Lot 13 without having a negative impact on their quality of life. He suggested that a different configuration be considered. He had wanted to acquire the property to the south of the EVA so he could expand his own property. Frank Doljack, 715 Montevino Drive, noted that the Hatsushis had been very considerate and that they had made significant effort to work with the neighbors. He believed that the development would certainly impact the views of the neighbors. He did not believe the traffic impacts would be permanent. Mr. Hughes addressed Mr. Alexander's comments and noted that Phase I only contained four homes and that it would not be a public road leading into a major development. He added that the Beratlis development contained 15 homes and that these four homes would have a minimal traffic impact, including during construction. He recognized that Mr. Lloyd's view would be impacted and added that he did not have a view easement. He noted that when the City Council drew in the preliminazy lot lines for this development, they required lots at least 20,000 squaze feet in size. He noted that as a former Planning Commissioner, he respected the ridgeline and understood its value. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 11, 2006 Page 6 of 19