PC 12/09/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. PC-98-92 was entered and adopted as motioned. Mr. Iserson noted that the applicant has 15 days to appeal in writing to the City Council the decision of the Planning Commission. (Recess taken from 9:00 p.m. to 9:10 p.m.) c. PUD-98-06, Braddock & Loan Application for: (1) PUD rezoning of a one-acre parcel from the A (Agriculture) zoning district to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) -MDR (Medium Density Residential) zoning district; and (2) PUD development plan approval for 31 lots, ranging in size from approximately 10,000 square feet to 12,900 square feet, on 13.3 acres located at 1635, 1777, and 1851 Rose Avenue, generally at the westerly terminus of Rose Avenue. Zoning for the property is A (Agriculture) and PUD (Planned Unit Development) -MDR (Medium Density Residential) District. The Planning Commission will also consider the Negative Declaration prepared for the project. Mr. Plucker referenced the staff report and highlighted key azeas contained in the report including background information, project description, density, lotting patterns, Mr. Jones' existing driveway easement, circulation, design guidelines/development standards, infrastructure requirements, grading, tree report, landscaping, soundwall landscaping, creek trail and fencing. In conclusion, he stated that staffs recommendation is that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the attached draft Negative Declaration, find that the proposed PUD rezoning and development plan aze consistent with the General Plan for the property, adopt the PUD findings for the proposed development plan as listed in the staff report, and recommend approval of the PUD rezoning and development plan to the City Council subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit "B." Discussion ensued between the Commission and Mr. Plucker and Mr. Iserson relating to whether the proposed trail will be dedicated to the City, liability for the proposed trail, location of the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA), material used for the trail, reasons for staffs recommendation to remove Lot 23, location of sewer lines, legal issues relating to school amenity fees, developer's responsibility for installing the soundwall, floor azea ratio, timeline for approval of the project, landscaping for the proposed right of way, street width in the project, the type of trees being planted, the type of gutters being installed, and the timeline for issuance of the new traffic study. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Fred Musser, Braddock & Logan, stated they have worked closely with the Planning Commission and the Park and Recreation Commission to accommodate changes to the original plan. He noted that they have already removed various lots and would like to retain Lot 23. Further, he noted they agree with staff s conditions except the elimination of Lot 23, the material being used on the creekside trail, the requirement to work with the Alameda County Fair Boazd to discuss access of EVA, and the requirement for the homeowner's association to provide maintenance of traffic circles. He noted that homes will be in the range of 2400 - 3600 squaze feet. In conclusion, he stated that it is the applicant's desire to discuss school amenity fees with the school district. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 December 9, 1998