My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 02/13/1991
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
PC 02/13/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2017 4:17:56 PM
Creation date
6/2/2005 11:46:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/13/1991
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 02/13/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Mr. Alborzi stated he felt that four spaces for each resident and <br />12 visitor parking spaces should be adequate. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh asked if the applicant is willing to ban the <br />parking of RV's and boats at the site. Mr. Alborzi had no <br />problem with that. <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Hovingh's questions, Mr. Alborzi said <br />the anticipated price by expected completion is in the $250,000- <br />$270,000 range. Commissioner Hovingh felt that might eliminate <br />the possibility of including any affordable units for low income. <br /> <br />THE PUBLrc HEARrNG WAS CLOSED. <br /> <br />Chairman Mahern noted she is uncomfortable with units 1, 27 and <br />19 facing Santa Rita Road as they appear to be only 10-16 ft. <br />from the road. She said she still has a problem with parking and <br />cited her own townhome where the parking is over the required <br />amount, but they still experience many parking problems. She <br />said this project does not even have in-street parking as they <br />do. Neither can their homeowners association control the matter. <br />She favored eliminating units 1, 27, and 19 to make room for more <br />parking and the tot lot. She liked the architecture and design, <br />but still felt it was too dense. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />commissioner Michelotti said she has the same concerns as <br />Chairman Mahern. She agreed with staff's recommendation about a <br />soundwall. She favored deletion of at least one lot (unit 27) <br />and recommended that staff and applicant work together to move <br />the lots around. She also was concerned about enough parking; <br />she would propose that some type of vines be planted in the open <br />spaces. <br /> <br />commissioner Hovingh said he was not that dismayed about the <br />project as it fills a certain need in the community. He would <br />recommend a condition that no RV or boat parking or storage be <br />allowed. He would also recommend that 4 units be noted as <br />affordable in exchange for allowing the developer to keep one of <br />the units recommended for elimination. He would not allow <br />building permits be issued until the current water shortage <br />problems are alleviated. He does not think it is fair for the <br />residents of the community to suffer for the sake of new <br />development. He wanted the deed of trust to reflect that the <br />noise levels exceed the City standards. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright said he thought the applicant had agreed to <br />the elimination of Condition 27 and is now unsure that the <br />applicant has indeed agreed to that. He said he would condition <br />approval to the deletion of lot 27 and also of lot 5, which would <br />give more room for the tot lot. He could agree to green space <br />near the tot lot rather than sand, but would prefer it near the <br />pool. <br /> <br />MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13, 1991 PAGE 5 <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.