PC 02/11/87 - Laserfiche WebLink

Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of February 11, 1987 Commissioner Hoyt discussed the traffic report previously done by Pang addressing traffic on Vineyard Avenue. Mr. Swift stated that the Pang report indicated that with the development of the projects contemplated at that time, the interior streets would reach LOS E because of the cross traffic. Commissioner Innes asked why TJKM didn't address this issue. Commissioner Hoyt stated that the problem is with the driveways and not necessarily the intersections of the area. Mr. Swift stated that traffic is such that staff feels the moratorium should stay and nothing TJKM would say could change this opinion. Commissioner Innes did not feel that the traffic reports adequately address the impacts of the LOS of the area. One of the reports prepared looked at the interior streets and the other at the impacts of the intersections. The public hearing was opened. Ken Gooch, One Peters Avenue, Pleasanton, stated that they had received the staff report and agree with the conditions recommended. The only item he would like clarified is how much detail will be required on the drawings for the proposed condition relating to patios and spas. Mr. Swift said the drawings should be general, made part of the CC&Rs, and show how close to property lines one could come for covered patios, spas, etc. A site plan showing only the dimensions would be fine. Mr. Gooch indicated they agree to provide the necessary site plan for this purpose. Mr. Gooch stated that the traffic report shows that just with the extension to Stanley Boulevard, traffic would be reduced appreciably. Commissioner Michelotti stated that with the current traffic projections there is no way which she could support lifting the Vineyard Avenue area moratorium. Commissioner Innes discussed the elevation of two story structure shown as plan B-3 and felt that perhaps a single-story structure would be more appropriate for the location. Commissioner Innes felt the width as shown on the plan is exaggerated and that people looking out would see blank walls if the two-story structure was to remain as sited. Mr. Gooch stated that the lot depth differential is about 12 feet and that perhaps the backyards on Lot 15 which is now 25 feet could be reduced. Commissioner Michelotti asked if the existing Arroyo Village I is the same configuration as the proposals. Mr. Gooch said it is. Commissioner Michelotti said she had no problem with the layout as proposed. Commissioner Hoyt asked if the Caldwell residence would be included in the homeowners' association. Mr. Gooch said it is preferred that it be left out. Commissioner Innes then asked if it is part of the PUD. Mr. Swift said it is and was included in the staff analysis. The existing house is proposed to remain and - 5 -