PC 11/29/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

between the houses. He disagrees that the 350 foot apartment building is equivalent to his five houses. Mr. Glanville does not like to be the "bad guy" and feels this type of housing is needed in Pleasanton. He thinks it is a good project but in the wrong place. He feels a high density project next to his single family project is wrong. He would support the project if the architectural immensity didn't destroy his property values. He feels it will be impossible to get bank financing with a high density project next to his property. Mr. Glanville does not support the change in zoning, does not feel this project is consistent with the General Plan or the existing housing in the area, and he feels no mitigation measures have been taken. Further, he will demand compensation if the project is approved. He challenges the Negative Declaration on the environmental impact report. Mr. Glanville feels the density has been packed along his property line. He feels there is not enough parking and fears people will park on Del Valle Court (a private street). He feels the sky will not be visible from the back of his houses. He also disagrees with staff's comment that this project emulates existing traditional development in the area. Except for two projects at 14 units per acre, everything else in the area is 6 units per acre. To Mr. Glanville, 33 units per acre is very different. Also, he feels this project is very controversial to him, and it will have a negative impact to the owners of his homes. Mr. Glanville's perceives the staff report to be one-sided and fits because staff and the City want it to fit. Mr. Glanville stated he has been told that the developer cannot lessen the number of units. He now questions how the developer could reduce the rental rates. To make this project livable to Mr. Glanville, he is suggesting the developer decrease the number of units and make the buildings one-story along their mutual property line with the larger setback. He feels this change will mitigate the parking problems. He does not understand why the project could not lose approximately 20 units and still be financially viable. Lastly, Mr. Glanville suggested the City could contribute fmancially to this project. Mr. Glanville would rather have this project built in an area already zoned for high density apartments. Commissioner Barker stated the developer will agree to the 11 foot courtyard which provides for the 22 foot setback as would be the case in an R-6500 zoning. Mr. Glanville disagreed in that a massive apartment building is very different than having single family homes behind his property. In response to Commissioner Hovingh, Mr. Glanville advised that his property was always zoned at 2 to 8 units per acre and a Negative Declaration was approved. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 November 29, 1995