CCMIN011706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Council. To gain an understanding and in order to implement the desires of his neighbors, he began meeting with Mr. Jones, Sr. and Mr. Alteri in June 2003 prior to beginning his project redesign. Mr. Alteri's concerns were few and he basically desired appropriate infrastructure coordination of Mr. Jansen's project with his future development needs which was accomplished through several written agreements whose contents have now been incorporated into his plans and conditions of approval before Council. Mr. Jones' concerns were also few, primarily related to retaining certain improvements of his current access through Mr. Jansen's property. He believed Mr. Jones appeared to be clear and precise in what he desired regarding his access easement. He said his interaction with Mr. Jones regarding his property and the proposed Roselyn Lane project and the process of establishing and clarifying and improving the specifics of his desired improvements and mitigations continued for over one year which involved many meetings and visits to his property. He drafted, clarified, expanded, improved and ultimately Mr. Jones' requirements culminated in a written agreement and a signed plan prepared in accordance to Mr. Jones' desires, which Mr. Jones reviewed and signed nearly one year ago with the oversight and presence of City Planning and Public Works staff; the agreement terms and plans, as the agreement required, are incorporated into this project's submitted conditions of approval and plans. He wanted Council to know that he worked long and hard to also ascertain and implement the desires of all other nearby neighbors. He personally communicated with and requested feedback from all 315 of his project's 1,000 foot-radius neighbors through multiple mailings and with face-to-face meetings whenever requested. As a result of these interactions, he currently had the indicated support or lack of opposition from over 99 percent of these neighbors, which included letters of support from the Nolan Farms Homeowners Association, the largest and most impacted nearby residential development. Mr. Sullivan referred to Mr. John Nasser's concern relating to the construction of a two- story structure behind his home on the proposed custom lot, Lot Nine. Mr. Nassar contended that constructing a two-story residence to the west of his two-story home would impact his views and privacy. The staff reported indicated that when the home for Lot Nine returns to the Planning Commission for design review approval, there might be an opportunity to mitigate those issues. Mr. Jansen noted that a condition was added by the Planning Commission to further clarify this matter. He empathized with Mr. Nassar and shared the same concerns related to privacy as it is Mr. Nassar's home that will look down onto this new home. At this point, restricting Lot Nine to a single-story residence would be premature. He asked Council to allow him a chance to present a plan, which he believed would address Mr. Nassar's concerns. Peter MacDonald, the attorney representing the applicant, emphasized several points: (1) the contract entered into between Mr. Ernest Jones, Sr. and Lynn Jansen on February 5, 2005 was reached due to a culmination of approximately a year and a half of concerted effort by Mr. Jansen to ascertain the needs and, with careful intervention of City staff, to determine what would be fair to include in this project. He agreed with staff that it was not Council's job to become involved with the details of the contract because the contract is enforceable by the parties and substantive protections have built into the PUD. After the contract was signed, the son of Mr. Jones became involved and believed he could have done better. Mr. Jansen has made additional offers and has continued to try and obtain an agreement with the sons of Mr. Jones, which does not mean the original contract is not fully enforceable. The project does not require the extension of Rose Avenue and Mr. Jansen joins his neighbors on Rose Avenue hoping that Council will remove the Rose Avenue connection to Valley Avenue when it completed its General Plan update. He emphasized the actual impact of approving this project Pleasanton City Council Minutes 9 01/17/06