CCMIN101795 - Laserfiche WebLink

..... plans for three of the lots on the east side of the development. It became apparent to Mr. Jones that staff approved the 13-lot PUD and he submitted a list of guidelines that should be followed by the applicant. Mr. Jones then presented his own maps showing the proposed PUD. He objected to the placement of the roads and its impact on the easement to his father's house. He indicated he had approached the applicant with a proposal to exchange property to make the lot design better. Mr. Jones referred to the proposed lots surrounding the current PUD application and his proposal for circulation in the area and his preference that Rose Avenue go along the arroyo. He felt this would be cheaper to build. Ms. Michelotti asked for clarification that Mr. Jones would be open to changing the access in this development plan. Mr. Jones said he offered the developer of Lynden Homes the opportunity to have his easement moved. The developer refused because he wanted the thirteen lot subdivision. The only thing the developer asked was that he subordinate a loan on his property. Mr. Jones then asked why the EVA was not addressed with this PUD. Lots #5 and #6 are approximately 1500 feet from gate 9. Why allow density transfer from the arroyo? Why did the staff disregard the fact that raising the number of units on Rose Avenue could increase the contiguousness with the Alameda County Fairgrounds. Why increase FAR to 40% from 32% for past PUD's? Why accept a project that raises road costs and density on the Alteiri/Marshall property? Raising density is the only way to pay for the proposed roads. Why are there no mitigations for the lights at the driving range? They are detrimental to the quality of life for any future homeowner and could interfere with the sewer/water easement. Why isn't the San Francisco cooperative planning committing discussing Rose to Valley if it is needed to relieve traffic congestion caused by the development of the San Francisco property? What number of houses will be allowed on future developments considering the arroyo? How do you calculate density? He was not opposed to the development, but felt his design of the road was more practical and would cost less. He has always tried to do the best for his neighbors. He reiterated his opposition to having Rose Avenue extended to Valley Avenue and believed it limited development. He believed his road design was a better use of the arroyo and more efficient use of the land. Mr. Jan sen referred to the plan proposed by Mr. Jones and stated that it directs traffic through the subdivision. The land owners do not want the area to become a thoroughfare for the other neighbors. The Jones plan also limits the development of the Alteiri property. He felt that he had worked with staff and tried to be fair to all the surrounding owners. He could not get 10,00 square foot lots on this tract short of reverting to a cul-de-sac plan. He referred to Attachment 6 in the Staff Report and indicated it does not eliminate the flag lot and described the various house plans that would be required. He did not feel the three lot configuration solved any of the concerns, but only made matters worse on other lots. If 10,000 sq.ft. lots were the most important factor, he could revert to the cul-de-sac plan if Council preferred. He did not feel that is the best design for the area. He believed the amenities they were able to supply with the slightly smaller lots were worth it. Other properties on Rose Lane are selling 10/17/95 -25-