Laserfiche WebLink
The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Ayala, Brozosky, Campbell, Hosterman, and Mayor Pico <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Item 6e <br />PUD-27~ Ray and Michele Peterson. (SR 03:219) <br />Application for PUD development plan approval to subdivide an existing 1.67-acre site into <br />two single-family residential lots located at 2201 Martin Avenue. <br /> <br />Brian Swift presented the staff report. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell inquired about the increase in square footage of the house from 5,000 to <br />5,500 sq. ft. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said staff originally recommended 5,000 sq. ft. for this lot, but the Planning <br />Commission allowed the increase to 5,500 sq. ft. Staff believes that is a reasonable floor area <br />ratio for the lot. <br /> <br />Mr. Campbell asked for clarification for the improvements to Dennis Drive. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said the issue is how much of the street should be widened at this time. There <br />is agreement the Petersons should widen the eight feet across the frontage of their property. The <br />question is what happens to the frontage of the two lots south of the Petersons, which would <br />allow the street to ultimately be widened to 28 feet. Those two properties have no plans for <br />subdivision at this time. There are trees and outbuildings in the way of the proposed street <br />widening. If the widening were to take place at this time, either the property owners would have <br />to dedicate the land needed for the right of way or the City would have to condemn the property. <br />That portion of the road would have to be constructed by either the City or the Petersons. If the <br />Petersons did it, they would be eligible for a reimbursement agreement, assuming Council found <br />their development justified widening the whole street. Staff does not support that. The other <br />way to widen the street would be as part of a capital improvement program project, so the <br />Petersons would pay for their part and the City would pay for the remaining portion. The City <br />could recoup the cost should the other properties subdivide in the future. At least, the whole <br />street would be widened at once. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell did not understand why the Petersons should pay for it. He asked if that <br />were consistent with other small developments? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swirl said it was consistent with all City policies to have development pay for the <br />streets that serve them. In this instance, the street was designed so that only the parking lane <br />would be required to be paid for by the Petersons or other property owners. The 20 feet of <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 24 08/05/03 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />