CCMIN102379 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Harris presented his report dated October 11, 1979, regarding this matter. Councilmember Wood asked why this parcel was not considered HPD instead of PUD. Mr. Harris advised that because of the slight slope and other features, the PUD zoning is more appropriate for this property. Mayor Brandes declared the public hearing open on the application and the negative declaration. Mr. Robert Douglass, M & M Consultants, representing Centex Homes, stated he felt the plan presented was a good plan, listing the following reasons; unique open space, large lots, good circulation plan to discourage through traffic, minimum grading, preservation of views and trees, and provision of large back yards. Mr. Douglass stated he was in agreement with conditions set forth by the Planning Com- mission and staff. He added that he had met with the homeowners in the surrounding area and would suggest the following additional conditions to indicate the developer's good will and to provide the homeowners with more protection: (1) Front Yard Package- Mr. Douglass stated that in this price range homeowners should not have a front yard package but he was willing to have an optional package of five 15-gallon trees per lot in addition to the trees that will be planted in the private open space; (2) twenty feet minimum clearance between homes; (3) home sizes as follows, 25% in excess of 2,000 sq. ft., 25% in excess of 2,200 sq. ft., 25% in excess of 2,400 sq. ft., and 25% in excess of 2,600 sq. ft.; (4) perimeter fencing - dedication of public slope easement in back of existing homes, fencing to be open wire mesh at top of slope and subject to Design Review; (5) CC&R's restricting unsightly out buildings; (6) no large trees that might obstruct views on slope below existing homes; and (7) school walkway changed to the satisfaction of all parties involved. Council discussion ensued regarding these conditions. Mrs. Charlotte Severin, 4513 Mirador Drive, representing the homeowners in Pleasanton Heights, stated that their position is one basically supportive of this project, but only with certainwritten guarantees and modifications. She stated that from the very beginning of this project their concern has been centered around the issue of Land Use and the fact that the parcel of property under consideration for rezoning is a very unique hillside property formerly designated to be placed under the Hillside Planned Development Ordinance which is dedicated to preserve the hill- side lands in their natural state, to minimize cut and fill and flat land development and to preserve all heritage trees. Mrs. Severin stated they were concerned about Pico Avenue cutting right across the Pleasanton School Playing Fields and basketball courts, and wondered what sort of concessions or land replacement could be given to the school. Mrs. Severin stated that the homeowners have worked with the developers of this project to minimize their areas of concern and they have agreed tonight to the written guarantees which were omitted in the conditions listed by the City staff. She listed modifications to the conditions as follows: Condition 5. Add after the word approval--"That no fencing higher than four feet ever be allowed on the hillside property lines bordering Angela Street and Mirador Drive". Condition 6. Add after word houses'-"There shall be no two story houses built on the properties bordering Angela Street and Mirador Drive and there shall be architectural design on all sides of all homes, as well as design review by the Planning Commission". Condition 7. "That all heritage trees on the property be preserved in a_ healthy state, with no grading to be allowed within five feet of the drip line of the trees". 6. 10/23/79