Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes <br />Planning Commission <br />May 13, 1987 <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />Martin Inderbitzen, 62 West Neal, represented Stoneson <br />Development Corporation, urging approval of their application. <br />They completely agree with the conditions proposed by staff <br />except they would like "or as otherwise satisfied by the City <br />Engineer" added to Condition No. 12. Staff indicated they find <br />no problem with this request. <br />Gregg Randall, Gazardo and Associates, San Francisco, made a <br />presentation covering the elevations, site plan, landscape plan <br />and amenities of the project. The curvilinear walkway will be <br />straightened out per the staff request. <br />Commissioners Michelotti and Berger discussed various features <br />such as trees, fountains and other project amenities with the <br />architect. <br />Commissioner Michelotti has specific concern relating to <br />aesthetic characteristic of the wall surrounding the property. <br />Mr. Randall explained that this would not be a soundwall but <br />would help deflect some noise from the living areas. Further if <br />it was setback into the property, one would see an expanse of <br />asphalt when looking at the project. The amount of landscaping <br />in the outside of the area is extensive, especially when compared <br />to other areas of Pleasanton such as Valley Avenue. <br />Chairman Lindsey felt the development to be a very attractive, <br />unique project which would be an asset to the City. <br />Commissioner Hoyt felt the development would appeal to an <br />economically different group than had been addressed in the past. <br />Commissioner Tarver asked the proposed selling price of the <br />units. <br />Art Schumacher, replied they hope to sell the units for <br />$165-185,000. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Commissioner Michelotti complimented the architect on the <br />project. <br />Commissioner Tarver felt that an expiration date should accompany <br />the approved development plan. This would allow the project to <br />come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for <br />review. <br />Mr. Inderbitzen said while he didn't disagree with an expiration <br />date for project approval, he questioned whether this project <br />should have an expiration date on the development plan, he would <br />like to see the expiration date tied to building permits. <br />Mr. Swift stated that this project already has growth management <br />approval in that there is an approved 180 unit project on the <br />- 3 - <br />r <br />