PC 03/25/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ Boulevard. In regard to density, he feels there is simply too many lots for the project and that the rural area should definitely be preserved. He concluded t he would be willing to look at another plan, but cannot support the project as it is now. Chairman Mahern thanked both the developer and the neighbors fo their comments. She felt that the developer has come a long way in agreeing to put on! 46 lots on the site, but felt there were still too many problems. She suggested the follo . g: That some lots be taken out and the plan be redesigned; that the creek not be redirec and that it stay in the state that it is now, whether manmade or not. She noted that the ighbors did not say so, but she did not think they are in opposition to a cul-de-sac coming from the Carriage house area. In regard to the number of lots, she did not suggest that 22 ots is the magic number, but felt that something must be designed that is more in keeping w th the natural topography. In regard to traffic issues, she did not think the project itself woul add that many trips per day, but felt that Arlington Street could become impacted with the density as it stands now. She concluded she could not support the project as it is now. Commissioner Michelotti said her main concern is the amount of rading on the ridges that will be done and the resulting visual impact to the topography. S e felt there has to be some mitigating measures, particularly from the Pleasanton view point. She felt the Mavridis property with the present soundwall is a little example of what the might end up seeing with this project and she was not in favor of that. She concluded that e could not support the project as it is now and suggested the developer come back with other plan for less density and be redesigned. She could not support a General Plan Amend ent at this time. Commissioner Hovingh thanked the public for their presentation d participation. He said it is clear to him that the three previous Commissioners were not in favor of the project. He was not sure whether they should deny the project or continue it allow staff and the developer to continue working on it. He indicated that he would avor a continuance for staff to have time to analyze the latest plan. Some discussion too place on this topic. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Mr. Hirst stated that rather than continuing the application, he wo Id prefer that the Commission simply vote as they see fit. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A motion was made by Commissioner Michelotti, seconded by C mmissioner McGuirk recommending denial of Case GP-91-03/PUD-9l-03 and that the eveloper come back with a redesign of the project. Minutes Planning Commission March 25, 1992 Page 19