CCMIN081181 - Laserfiche WebLink

443 PUBLIC HEARINGS Appeal of Robert S. Lawrence for Foothill Knolls of a decision of the Planning_COm~ . mission denyin~~~ development plan for an 81-lot single-family residential planned unit development proposed for the 43 acre site located on the east side of Foothill Road appr.0~i~ately 800 feet south of the City. limit line Mr. Harris presented his report (SR 81:274) dated August 4, 1981, regarding this matter. Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing open on the appeal and the negative declaration. Mr. Robert S. Lawrence, representing Foothill Knolls, stated there were three areas of concern that caused the Planning Commission to deny this application; namely density, distribution of the area adjacent to the freeway as a park, and City policy. with respect to how Foothill Road should be developed. Mr. Lawrence presented a Pleasanton General Plan map and stated the proposed 81~ lots are well within the General Plan density standards. He stated the design of the subdivision is such that there will be a number of very large lots at the top of the development with smaller lots in the lower section. He added it would not be financially feasible to have the very large lots throughout this project. Mr. Lawrence stated that at the Planning Commission meeting he offered to the City the dedication of land adja- cent to the freeway because it would provide a good buffer between the homes and thefreeway and it would make an excellent location for a bike trail. Mr, Lawrence stated his firm would improve this area, and he asked the City to accept this parcel as a gift. Mr. Lynn Bowers, Project Engineer and Foothill Road resident, addressed the concerns related to Foothill Road. He stated this is a scenic and characteristic route and he would like to maintain this same atmosphere in the subdivision. He stated he had a problem with the staff recommendation that Foothill Road is proposed for a six lane arterial without parking. He stated he has proposed widening the pavement araa within the existing road to provide for safety, with sculptures at the entry of the subdivision. Mr. Bowers presented drawings showing the proposed widen- ing, stating that traffic figures reveal that two lanes are adequate now and that sometime in the future four lanes might be needed. He stated that six lanes without parking seems excessive and that asking him to bond for this is a hardship. He stated he did not feel this is consistent with the general plan and he requested Council to consider an alternative. He stated the land could be irrevocably de- dicated for that right-of-way so that it would be available if it is ~',ever needed. In the meantime it will be a part of the property owners parcel and will be main- tained by them. Mr. Bowers asked that Conditions 1 and 35 be deleted and that item 13 be amended to allow for irrevocable dedication of the right-of-way for Foothill Road widening for use at such time as needed. Mr. Burke Critchfield, attorney, asked Council to consider this proposal of 81-lots, widening of two lanes on Foothill Road with future widening of two addi- tional lanes if and when warranted, and dedication of the park area. No one in the audience spoke in opposition to this item. There being no further testimony, Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing closed on the appeal and the negative declaration. After discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Wood, and seconded by Council- member~l~Kephart, that Resolution No. 81-262, determining on the basis of a review of initial environmental study done for this project, that no significant environmental impact would occur as outlined in the City's guidelines and that a negative declara- tion is appropriate for a development plan for an 81-lot single-family residential 3. S/ll/Sl