CCMIN071382 - Laserfiche WebLink

209 Application of the City of Pleasanton to rezone (Annexation No. 91) an approxi- mately 35 acre site located immediately northwest of the intersection of Martin and Mohr Avenues to the PUD (Planned Unit Development)-Low Density Residential District or any other zonin~ district consistent with the General Plan On the basis of an Initial Study of the potential environmental impacts of the pro~ect~ the Director of Plannin~ and Community Development has determined that the proposed chan~e would have an insignificant adverse effect on the environ- ment; and~ therefore~ has directed that a Negative Declaration be prepared. Copies of this document are available for review at the Planning Division~ 200 Bernal AvenUe~ Pleasanton. Comments on this decision may be directed either to the plannin~ staff prior to the above meetin~ or directly to the City Council at the above noticed meetin~ Mr. Harris presented his report (SR 82:248) dated July 1, 1982, regarding this mat t er. Mayor Butler declared the public hearing open. Mr. Dean Wagerman requested that this item be continued to the meeting of August 10, 1982. Mr. Bob Cooper, 3711 Trenery Drive, spoke in opposition to this rezoning be- cause of the size of the parcels. He indicated that because of the existing homes on large lots that it would be inappropriate to allow higher density development. He also objected to the traffic circulation proposal of routing traffic onto Trenery Drive and off Cameron. He cited the large number of 100 year old trees on Trenery and felt the street should not be enlarged at the cost of destroying these trees. Mr. Cooper presented several pictures to the Council of the hourses and streets in the area. Mr. Cooper then read a letter from James V. Fazzari, who was also in opposition to the development and wanted the area to remain rural with 40,000 sq. ft. lots. Council then discussed the differences in PUD and other residential zoning indicating that the city has more control over the development if it is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development). Mrs. Cathy Selway, 2313 Martin Avenue, spoke in opposition to the smaller lots, indicating they bought in the area because of the rural atmosphere and did not want sidewalks or other advantages of annexation to the city. She indicated Council should not vote on this matter at the August 10, 1982, meeting as the citizens would not have a chance to rebut Mr. Wagerman's remarks. Council asked if the citizens could be available at the August 24, 1982, meeting and everyone indicated they could. Mr. A1 Wiemkin, Trenery Drive, cited Ordinance No. 799 and questioned whether a parcel separated by a paved street could be included in the planned unit development. Mr. Harris responded and indicated that in this instance there were six contiguous parcels and one across a street, however, in creating planned unit developments the streets would be included in any event. Mr. Wiemkin was also concerned about the size of the lots. Councilmember Brandes indicated that the complaints raised were relevant, how- ever in the planning process the PUD stage is not the time where lot size or roads are developed. Only later do the developers come up with the details; what is important is to protect the area and lot size, and what size the lots will be is what Council should decide. 5. 7/13/82