PC 03/25/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ might be able to come up with something more agreeable. She ad that things such as grading also are a great concern; however, she did not wish to go' to detail at this point. Chuck Meier, 6597 Lansing Court, also spoke in opposition to the roject. He addressed the aesthetic quality of the project and felt the developer is only lookin at the project from the point of view of those who live on the site itself, not from the vie point of the adjacent neighbors. He expressed concern that the direction being taken on this project is simply setting the stage for other projects in that area, and he felt there sure to be some. For that reason, decisions on this project will have far-reaching impli 'ons. He went into some detail describing the present structures in the area, noting that the . ser Research Center is the dominating structure in the area, which gracefully fits the surr ndings. In contrast, will be the 52 or 46 rooftops being presently proposed. He felt that ho sing developments of this nature will be seen driving by on 1-680 and be very unattractive. e urged that the Planning Commission look carefully at the issues before them. Ron Pestana, 7021 Corte Del Oro, Pleasanton, spoke as represen 've of the neighborhood committee and as chairman of the Carriage Homes Architectural R view Committee. He noted that most lot sizes in the Carriage Homes project are 20,000 sq. ft., with a few going from 25,000 sq. ft. to one or two acres. He expressed concern th t the proposed project "jams" in side by side, rooftop by rooftop, the maximum number f homes that will fit into the site. He felt the developer is giving little consideration to the . mpact of this project on the adjacent neighborhoods. With the current lot proposal, he felt the developer fails to fit the project to the adjacent rural environment of south Pleasanton. He, too, felt this would take future development in the same direction. Richard Parejo, 609 Blossom Court, spoke in behalf of the neighb rs in Carriage Heights and Rosepointe. He put a rendering on the bulletin board showin what has transpired in the area from 1967 through 1984. He noted that decisions made in 1 84 are pertinent to the group of people here tonight. In 1984 he said there were several undred people protesting development in the Sycamore area. What transpired in meetings .th the Council, the Planning Commission, and himself was that in future developmen , the smallest lot would be slightly over 30,000 sq. ft. with a one acre minimum. He then ed attention to the 15,000 sq. ft. lots which he said the developer seems to think blends with the Happy Valley area. He urged that the Commission adhere to the standards set for tho lots back in 1984, that they be kept to a minimum of one acre and rural in nature. Melanie MacGregor returned to the podium. She further addres density and showed a comparison of net densities for comparative projects. In response to Chairman Mahem's question, Ms. MacGregor said the neighborhood's proposal is not for a specific number of lots, but for density similar to that shown in the EIR, as close to ne acre in Happy Valley as possible. Their major concern is for a design more sensitive what is already in the area. Minule8 Planning Commission March 25, 1992 Page 16