CCMIN120881 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Dean Wagerman, 2333 Martin Avenue, one of the property owners, stated he is asking for R-1-20,O00 sq,.ft, zoning, and urged approval of this zoning district. The following persons spoke in opposition to this item: Mr. Bob Cooper, 3711 Trenery Drive, asked Council to give serious consideration to the prezoning and its ramifications, and to look at development plans before making a decision on this matter. Mr. Albert J. Wiemken,'~. O. Box 969, Pleasanton, presented a letter to Council dated December 2, 1981, expressing his concerns regarding the proposed annexation. He stated that one of the concerns of allowing prezontng of the parcels at this time without a development plan is that each of the parcels requested for annexation are individually owned five acre ranchettes with large homes and barns on the majority of the parcels. Because of the uniqueness and beauty of the area, the area should not be given a blanket zoning whereby any one individual small owner could sub-divide his parcel without considering the overall affect on the other individuals adjacent or nearby parcels. Mr. Wiemken presented pictures of the type of homes in the area, all being large expensive rural houses. He requested that the rural atmosphere be retained. He advised that Mr. Selway, a property owner in the area, is also opposed to this annexation. Mr. Wiemken suggested the following proposal: (1) change the General Plan of the area from medium to low density as recommended by the Planning Commission and the residents of the area; (2) do not approve the annexation at this time; (3) annex the 7 parcels at their present size after the General Plan has been changed and approved; and (4) if any individual owner wishes larger density at a later date--require a development plan that is reviewed by the Planning Commission, City Council and residents of the general area to assure the.development is compatible with the area and the preservation of its natural beauty. Mr. Harris stated the proposal is a logical one. Mr. John Montgomery, 3800 Trenery Drive, stated he felt development in this area should be restrained because of the rural atmosphere. He advised that the majority of the people in the area are opposed to this annexation. Mr. Wagerman stated that the R-i-20,000 zoning that he is requesting can be considered both medium and low density, and is within City guidelines. There being no further testimony, Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing closed on the application and the negative declaration. It was moved by Councilmember Kephart, and seconded by Councilmember Butler, that Resolution No. 81-421, 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 declaration is appropriate to prezone Annexation No. 91, an approximately 35 acre site located on the west side of Martin Avenue at its intersection with Mohr Avenue to R-1-20,O00 District, be adopted. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Kephart, Mohr, and Mayor Mercer NOES: Councilmember Wood ABS~7: None It was moved by Councilmember Kephart, and seconded by Councilmember Butler, approving the application of the City of Pleasanton to prezone Annexation No. 91, an approximately 35 acre site located on the west side of Martin Avenue at its intersection with Mohr Avenue to R-i-20,000 District. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmember Kephart NOES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Mercer ABSLNT: None 5. 12/8/81