Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MATTERS INITIATED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS <br /> <br />..- <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk commented that the trailer advertising Cos Plus is still parked by <br />the Best Plaza. He requested again that this be looked into. <br /> <br />OLD BUSINESS - PUBLIC HEARINGS <br /> <br />PUD-91-13. KottiDl!er Hills lLin) <br />Application Cor Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan approva to construct 122 single- <br />family residential dwelling units and an 18-hole golf course on approximately 562- <br />acre site. Tbe subject site is located generally east of Hearst D 've and south of Red <br />Feather Drive. Zoning Cor the property is PUD (planned Unit evelopment) - Rural <br />Density Residential and Open Space District. Tbe Commi"!lion ill also consider <br />certification oC a Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #91 03068). <br /> <br />Mr. Swift presented the staff report recommending approval of Ca e PUD-91-13 subject to <br />the conditions of the staff report. Copies of letters from Robert E. Grove to Scott Erickson <br />and from Scott Erickson to Robert Monaghan were presented to th Commission for their <br />review before the meeting commenced. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk commented that he has two Exhibit B's wondered what the <br />difference was. Mr. Swift noted that the applicant handed out a c py of Exhibit B tonight <br />which contained the applicant's requested revisions to the Conditio s of Approval. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk expressed concern that development seem to be going in a rather <br />"piecemeal" direction in areas such as the proposed project. Mr. wift acknowledged that <br />development does get progressively more difficult as it goes out 0 the valley area of <br />Pleasanton, and cited the Foley property and the Ruby Hills proj <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk noted for the record that he toured the sit with Mr. Fairfield. <br /> <br />Commissioner Michelotti also noted that she toured the project sit with Mr. Fairfield. She <br />questioned Mr. Swift as to whether a second access is being consi ered for the Vineyard <br />Corridor Study. Mr. Swift indicated that the property owner is n t interested at this time in <br />a second access; however, staff is recommending that a second ro d be added. He added <br />that it is being considered that Vineyard Avenue may be relocated at some point. <br /> <br />Commissioner Mahern also stated that she met with the applicant d toured the property <br />with him, and again with Commissioner McGuirk. She question Mr. Swift about a second <br />access to the proposed site and about possible traffic impacts. Mr Swift further discussed <br />this with her, noting that staff feels Alternatives B and C are not utes that most people <br />would view as a shortcut. He noted that the EIR did not project y more traffic down <br />Vineyard Avenue, because of the proposed project. Staff feels th t the most likely users of <br />the access road would be the golf traffic. <br /> <br />Commissioner Mahern questioned Mr. Swift about a private vers <br />Mr. Swift indicated that staff would favor a public park, whereas <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1992 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br /> <br />a public park for the site. <br />e applicant favors a <br />