PC 06/10/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

the two areas. He urged the Commission to consider this. In respo se to Commissioner Mahern's question, he went to the map and showed where he felt a tbridge should be located. This appeared to be in the area of where the older section f Pleasanton Meadows ends and where the newer section of Pleasanton Meadows begins, or in other words, terminating at the Arroyo. He further noted that the neighborhood i in favor of such a bridge and they are not opposed to foot traffic. Further discussion e sued between Mr. Haynam and Commissioner Mahem. ~ Brad Hirst, 6280 W. Las Positas Blvd., Suite 220, spoke in favor of the application. He noted that his proposed project is adjacent to the one being discussed tonight, and that the applicant has worked with him very well. He commented that staff as asked him if he would consider relocating their north/south street to be adjacent to r. Hulett and he had no problem with that. Staff then asked Mr. Hirst if they would object t smaller lots immediately north of their 15,000 sq. ft. lots. Mr. Hirst said they a reed to that, as long as there was an 8 ft. masonry wall separating them. Then staff asked . Hirst if they would object to a 6 ft. masonry wall rather than 8 ft. because the ChulG mat project is 2-3 ft. higher than his own project. He stated he was agreeable to all those things. Today Mr. Gahrahmat called and asked if he would be agreeable to a 6 ft. redw fence with landscaping on both sides, rather than the masonry wall. Mr. Hirst so agreed with that. However, Mr. Hirst asked that single-story homes on the proposed p oject back up to his own project. He also requested that his own project be granted a te porary emergency vehicle access so that his property can get out onto Stoneridge at suc time as the north/south street is constructed. He noted that is not in the conditions presen tonight. Larry Bartelson returned to the podium. He noted that a number of ew items have been brought up tonight and addressed them: (1) Open fencing - He indi ted they are not hung up either way on fencing, and he thought open fencing would work i that is what is desired. He noted that if Mr. Hulett agrees to open fencing on his sideyard back, that he had no problem with it. (2) Flag lot - He did not think that the rear yard v rsus front yard had a real bearing on the situation. He felt it could be discussed, but did t think it was a "make or break" item. (3) He responded to a comment from the audience at the neighbors have been "thrown to the wolves", and felt that the staff and the applicant has worked hard with the neighborhood to give them what they want. He further noted th the staff's final responsibility is to the City and it is hard to look at both sides of the picture. (4) Utilities - He noted that utilities have been discussed with the neighbors several times, but it appears that they now realize it may cost them some money. He stated that mewhere in the future the neighbors may be asked to form a benefit district and the neighb rs would need to provide some funds. (5) Footbridge - He thought that the footbridg is a good idea; however, he felt this idea should have come up a long time ago as th s project cannot afford to install a footbridge at this point. He estimated a footbridge to cos around $750,000. _ Planning Commisaion Minutes June 10, 1992 Page 6