Laserfiche WebLink
Item 6b <br />Reeonsideratlon of Ordinance No. lg91~ approving the application of Ray and <br />Miehele Peterson for PUD Development Plan approval~ as f'fled under Case PUD-27 <br />(SR 03:254) <br /> <br />Brian Swirl presented the staffreport. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hosterman said Councilmembers had received a lengthy petition dated <br />August 30, 2003 and she asked Mr. Swit~ to address any additional optional conditions <br />the neighborhood is requesting, such as installation of a barrier on Dennis Drive where <br />Walnut Glen Estates and the Peterson property end. If this is something Council decides <br />to do, does it then return to the Planning Commission for consideration? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swirl said that if there is a complete street closure on Dennis Drive this <br />becomes a completely different issue than an issue tied to this particular PUD. They <br />could be tied together, but it is a different process to close a city street. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hosterman asked if the Traffic Committee entertained this possible additional <br />option, how long would it take to make a recommendation and how long would that delay <br />the Petersons fi.om being able to start their project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swirl said he did not know exactly how long it would take. The issue of a <br />street closure would include a neighborhood outreach process that would possibly take <br />one to two months, then to the Traffic Committee and then to the City Council. At the <br />earliest it would be three to four months before it would come before City Council. <br />Whether or not that is something Council would want to tie to the Peterson project would <br />be a Council decision. The Petersons project and a street closure do not have to be tied <br />together. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell stated the reason he requested reconsideration was because it did <br />not seem like it was a very safe passage for the students in the area. Getting to the <br />elementary school fi.om Newton seemed very dangerous. He felt the sidewalk that was <br />approved on the Peterson property was not a very good idea, unless the sidewalk on <br />Dennis Drive would go in at the same time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky said he supported the reconsideration because of the process and a <br />disconnect from what the neighborhood thought they were saying and what was <br />represented at the last Council meeting. He wanted the neighbors to have an oppommity <br />to speak. He heard that they thought things were going to happen in a certain way and <br />were totally shocked arler the meeting that is not what happened. Mr. Brozosky has <br />talked with the neighbors since that council meeting and would like to hear more from <br />the individual neighbors. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 10 <br />Minutes <br /> <br />09.02.03 <br /> <br /> <br />