My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 06/25/86
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1986
>
PC 06/25/86
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 11:05:11 AM
Creation date
4/23/2007 4:19:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/25/1986
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 06/25/86
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
Minutes <br />Planning Commission <br />June 25, 1986 <br />proposing only two. She also asked that with 25% being set aside <br />for low income what the rent standards would be. Mr. Steinberg <br />said he is not quite sure and this is usually set by local law. <br />Mr. Swift then gave an example of another development in town <br />where two-bedroom units are going for $660. Commissioner Berger <br />didn't feel that a single mother raising children could afford <br />these prices. Mr. Swift explained that the GMP lower-income <br />exemption rules would mean that a family of four would have to <br />make approximately $22,000 a year to pay approximately 30~ of <br />their income for rent, the $660 figure. <br />Commissioner Michelotti discussed with Mr. Martinetti the main <br />entrance being on Andrews Drive and how one would determine this <br />to be the main entrance, whether or not there will be a second <br />entrance. <br />Setbacks of the project were then discussed between Commissioner <br />Innes and staff with staff indicating that, although the three <br />story height in some cases has a small setback, there is no <br />problem from staff's point of view with the proposed <br />configuration and lot layout. Andrews Drive will not be <br />travelled generally by other City residents; tall,l vertical tree <br />planting planned would soften the apparent height; the <br />three-story buildings are stepped to two stories at both ends, <br />have patios breaking up the facade, and a sloping roof. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Commissioner Wellman expressed enthusiasm with the project <br />design. <br />Commissioner Michelotti complimented the developers for their <br />outstanding job. She felt the project would be real tone-setting <br />and the environment is beautiful. <br />Commissioner Berger complimented the architect. <br />Chairman Lindsey asked the applicant if he had any objections to <br />any of the conditions. Mr. Steinberg said they do not have any <br />objections but would like to clarify some of the items as <br />follows: <br />Page 9, No. 20 - he felt there is no issue but they had <br />talked about a 5' sidewalk on both sides and asked Mr. Swift <br />what size it would have to be on Owens. Mr. Swift said <br />possibly 6', it cannot be 5'. It needs to be 6' on both <br />sides or 8' on one. <br />Condition No. 13 - he asked the exact extent of the work <br />required. Mr. Swift stated there is an existing median strip <br />on Old Santa Rita Road. The condition is required to enhance <br />stacking room to get onto Andrews without having to back up <br />through traffic on Santa Rita Road, this is a standard <br />requirement. Commissioner Innes felt the cost should be <br />shared by the benefactors. <br />- 9 - <br />.. .._. .y.... _.... _ ... <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.