Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes <br />Planning Commissioi <br />4/24/85 <br />Mike Harris rebutted the negative comments made on his proposal. <br />He reiterated that the battle is with the costs and not the <br />people. They looked at the cost of various densities. He stated <br />that the median income in Pleasanton is $37,000. They will have <br />to charge a minimum of $100 per sq. ft. If the size of the units <br />are increased the median family income will not qualify. They <br />have tried to compromise. He indicated that the landscaping and <br />amenities will correspond to the size of the lots and be on scale <br />with the surrounding neighborhoods. He said the homes do not <br />face onto Muirwood because of the grade. They have had three <br />meetings with the neighbors before the development was ever <br />submitted to the staff for review. Commissioner Lindsey asked <br />Mr. Harris if he sees any hope that the neighbors and he will <br />realistically reach a compromise. Mr. Harris stated that the <br />neighbors would have to answer that. <br />Commissioner Innes asked if Mr. Harris had talked to staff about <br />this proposal before making an offer on the land. Mr. Harris <br />stated they had not. <br />Chairman Doherty asked Mr. Harris if he could get 4.7 to five <br />units ~,er acre. Mr. Harris indicated he could not. <br />Mr. McGrath spoke again indicating they want to welcome their new <br />neighbors but feel that the density should remain similar to that <br />surrounding the site. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Chairman Doherty stated that the Commission would now discuss the <br />matter. <br />Commissioner Lindsey stated that there doesn't appear to be <br />anyway to get a compromise between the existing neighbors and <br />developers so feels that a decision should be made on this <br />matter. He stated that personally he didn't agree with <br />everything said in opposition tonight as some of the statements <br />were emotionally made. He is an advocate of higher density <br />housing in Pleasanton but feels that the location of the proposal <br />is not appropriate. He believed the project itself to be an <br />outstanding one. <br />Commissioner Getty spoke in favor of high density housing and <br />that this project is a PUD which has special circumstances. She <br />liked the private streets of the project, the landscaping control <br />by the home owners association. She didn't believe it would be <br />extremely detrimental to the area. <br />Commissioner Wellman agreed with the comments of Commissioner <br />Lindsey. She supported keeping the site R-1-6500 <br />Commissioner Innes addressed the comments of an early speaker <br />that promises were made which would keep that property R-1-6500. <br />He assured the public that no promises can be made which limit <br />future Planning Commissioner or Council relating to zoning. He <br />found this out when he started to become involved with the City. <br />- 6 - <br />_. ._. _ .... .. _._ .. .............--._._. _. _. _.. _....~__. _...~.. .. ._ __. ... T <br />