PC 03/25/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

might be able to come up with something more agreeable. She ad ed 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 implica '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 surro 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 representa 've of the neighborhood committee and as chairman of the Carriage Homes Architectural view Committee. He noted that most lot sizes in the Carriage Homes project are 20,000 . ft., with a few going from 25,000 sq. ft. to one or two acres. He expressed concern tha the proposed project "jams" in side by side, rooftop by rooftop, the maximum number 0 homes that will fit into the site. He felt the developer is giving little consideration to the i pact of this project on the adjacent neighborhoods. With the current lot proposal, he felt e developer fails to fit the project to the adjacent rural environment of south Pleasanton. e, too, felt this would take future development in the same direction. Richard Parejo, 609 Blossom Court, spoke in behalf of the neighbo in Carriage Heights and Rosepointe. He put a rendering on the bulletin board showing hat has transpired in the area from 1967 through 1984. He noted that decisions made in 19 are pertinent to the group of people here tonight. In 1984 he said there were several h ndred people protesting development in the Sycamore area. What transpired in meetings th the Council, the Planning Commission, and himself was that in future developments the smallest lot would be slightly over 30,000 sq. ft. with a one acre minimum. He then attention to the 15,000 sq. ft. lots which he said the developer seems to think blends with e Happy Valley area. He urged that the Commission adhere to the standards set for those 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 addressed density and showed a comparison of net densities for comparative projects. In response Chairman Mahern's question, Ms. MacGregor said the neighborhood's proposal is not fi r a specific number of lots, but for density similar to that shown in the EIR, as close to 0 acre in Happy Valley as possible. Their major concern is for a design more sensitive to hat is already in the area. /"""- Minule8 Planning Commission March 25, 1992 Page 16