CCMIN112982 - Laserfiche WebLink

337 Mr. A1 Wiemken, Trenery Drive, stated that the staff report addresses many of the problems he has been concerned about. He presented his letter dated November 17, 1982, making the following recommendations: "Due to the complexity of having several fragmented individually owned parcels with existing large rural homes on a variety of lot sizes and shapes it appears reasonable and highly desirable to prepare a Mohr-Martin Development Plan using the Report on Development Potential and Constraints in the Mohr-Martin Area as the basic document. This document could be updated with the latest annexations, zoning, traffic patterns, PUD development plans, etc., and would allow the Planning Commission and City Council to have all the relevant information in one condensed docu- ment to insure that any one individual owner would not be allowed to sub- divide a parcel without considering the overall affect on the numerous other individually owned parcels in the area. This is especially important in the low density areas if private road easements are allowed as proposed in the Study Report. PUD appears to be a reasonable method of controlling the future developments, especially in the low density areas, provided proper conditions are placed on the PUD. Planning Commissioner Doherty's recommendation that the low density area have a one-acre minimum lot size has merit in that it would not only prevent the 25% higher density basically allowed by PUD but also would prevent parcels from being bunched up in one area with the balance having a lower den- sity, potentially resulting in a fragmented, chopped-up effect, while meeting the PUD zoning level. In ensuing years if Council Members, Planning Commissioners, planning staff, and property owners change, this document will serve as a means of maintaining good planning and continuity in the various future developments of the Mohr- Martin Area." Mr. Wiemken stated he did not feel there should be a gate at the Trenery Drive cul- de-sac. Mr. Warnick advised it is staff's position that there should be emergency access on Trenery Drive. Mr. Wiemken stated he did not want lots divided into 1/2 acre parcels, and requested Council and staff to try to maintain the rural atmos- phere. Mr. David Gonsalves again addressed Council asking why so much concern is being given to 4 or 5 property owners. He stated that not all property owners want to annex and are concerned with the impacts of development in the area. Mr. John Corley, Trenery Drive, stated he concurred with the staff report and would like to annex to the City. He stated he would like any future street crossing the Molinaro property and extending easterly to be near the rear of his property. He stated that zoning should be considered with planning that area, and added that he has not development plans at this time. He stated the PUD concept allows for con- sideration of preservations of trees and total development of the area, and that good development will be beneficial to the property owners as well as the City. Mr. Corley stated that making Trenery Drive a cul-de-sac street did not concern him; but would like easy access from his property into town. He reiterated he would like to annex to the City of Pleasanton. There being no further public testimony, Mayor Butler asked Planning Commis- sioners for their comments regarding this matter. 3. 11/29/82