My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 01/22/1992
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
PC 01/22/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2017 4:24:23 PM
Creation date
5/25/2005 1:44:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/22/1992
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 01/22/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />~ (4) A curb and gutter will also be installed which should further p event accidents. (5) He <br />felt that traffic was definitely not an issue. <br /> <br />Commissioner Michelotti responded to a comment that the residen might be increased <br />beyond the 90 residents. She pointed out that the applicant is only licensed for 90; should <br />she wish to go beyond that number, further state requirements wou d have to be cleared. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh discussed with Mr. Swift Condition 2 of E hibit A concerning the <br />statement that at least 25 percent of the on-site parking spaces sho d be unused at anyone <br />time. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CWSED. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk asked staff what kind of evaluation would be done in the six month <br />period. Mr. Swift replied they would be looking at the delivery sc edules; traffic changes <br />would be monitored; the parking would be monitored as well as th number of trips made <br />with the van. All traffic accidents on Mohr Avenue would be tab ated; and the neighbors <br />would be contacted to give their impressions. <br /> <br />Commissioner Horan commented that all the pros and cons have b n heard on the <br />application. He estimated that by not allowing the residents to hav cars they could eliminate <br />about 50 car trips per day. He stated that the City desperately n s a facility such as the <br />~ proposed project and that he urges Council to support the applicati n at 90 residents, as he <br />did. He also urged staff to point out to the Council that 90 reside ts at the offset is feasible. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk stated that he also supported the applicati when it originally came <br />before them as 90 residents and will do so again. He added that h feels more comfortable <br />with the project now that residents will not have cars, and did not eel that traffic should be <br />an issue. <br /> <br />Chairman Mahern agreed with both Commissioners Horan and Mc uirk's support of the <br />project. She felt the project is badly needed in the City and that e Council should be urged <br />to support it at 90 residents. She noted that she and Commissione s Michelotti and Hovingh <br />had gone to the Council meeting and were totally shocked when th y changed the conditions <br />of approval. She added that she is not even in favor of staffs rec mmendation that the <br />project start out at 70 residents and possibly go to 90 after a six-m nth evaluation period. <br />She supported going with the original proposal of 90 residents wi no waiting period. <br /> <br />Commissioner Michelotti agreed with the above comments. She a ded that when she visits <br />her mother-in-law in a similar facility with 300 residents that the king lot is nearly always <br />empty. Furthermore, she did not agree with Council's decision to not allow autos for the <br />residents and would favor at least three car spaces for residents w 0 might have cars. She <br />felt that Council should be urged to allow 90 residents at the offse of the project. <br /> <br />Minutes Planning Commission <br />January 22, 1992 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.