CCMIN092005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Fialho said the applicant could pre-sell his property to prospective buyers. Mr. Sullivan said if the applicant had buyers lined up, he could sell. However, if investors requested to purchase the property, the applicant would not be allowed to say no. Mr. Roush said it would be difficult to restrict that kind of sale of property in the absence of having a City regulation regarding monetary involvement where the City would have a say in how the property is marketed or sold. Ms. McGovern referred to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Apperson Ranch that included regulations governing local worker purchase incentives. Mr. Sullivan said that he was in favor of the concept of the planned property. He believed the City needs high-density, small lot housing in the downtown, as it benefits the Downtown and people that can afford this type of housing. He believed the density and tandem parking was appropriate as it fits into the Specific Plan and what the City is trying to accomplish. He agreed with the Planning Commission on the architecture and heritage tree. He disagreed with the design of the homes and would prefer more architectural diversity. He also supported the removal of the heritage California black walnut tree, but believed it had value. He believed it would be appropriate for the applicant to make a contribution to the Urban Forestry Fund. Mr. Brozosky asked Mr. Sullivan if he believed the architectural design should be returned to the Planning Commission or if direction should be given to staff. Mr. Sullivan believed the architecture should be redone. Mr. Iserson said it would depend on the direction from Council and if the applicant was agreeable to a revision. Mayor Hosterman supported the project and believed it fit in with the Downtown. She supported the density and the affordability by design and did not have any concerns related to the parking issues. She asked staff if the applicants would be required to make a contribution to the Urban Forestry Fund for the loss of the tree. Mr. Iserson said the way in which the project is conditioned the applicants would not be required to make a contribution to the Urban Forestry Fund as the applicants are contributing to the Parking In-Lieu Fee Fund. It was moved by Mr. Brozosky, seconded by Ms. McGovern to uphold the appeal and approve Case PUD-37; find that the proposed PUD development plan is consistent with the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and the purposes of the PUD ordinance; find that thee were no changes to the environmental circumstances and impacts from the time that it certified the Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Specific Plan area in December 2004 and that a high density residential project would be located on the site. therefore, no other environmental document is required; introduce Ordinance 1926, an ordinance approving the application of Ron and Kimberly Winter for PUD Development Plan approval as filed under Case PUD-37 with modifications that require the developer to: (1) work with the City to promote the City's Down Payment Assistance Program to eligible buyers; (2) add a condition that is consistent with the Apperson Ridge Development which gives preference to Pleasanton residents; and (3) add landscaping enhancements consistent with Council comments. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 29 09/20/05