Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />February 22, 1984 <br />Page 5 <br />Mr. Swift reported that Prudes <br />Mobil Oil and Warren Avenue A: <br />side of Hopyard Road. He ind: <br />for this but it is preliminar; <br />by staff. <br />.al has been negotiating with <br />~ciates concerning the eastern <br />~ted a plan has been prepared <br />end has not yet been reviewed <br />c <br />Commissioner Doherty asked ab u the I-580/Hopyard Road interchange. <br />Mr. Warnick stated that the s aff knows what Caltrans needs <br />for the right-of-way and is t k'ng this into consideration. <br />Chairman Jamieson asked Mr. T <br />their property. Mr. Terrill <br />been completed. Chairman Jam <br />buildings in the project. Mr <br />have tenants for about 95% of <br />r ill about the Par Course on <br />x lained that it has not yet <br />e on then asked about the empty <br />errill explained that they <br />t e spaces. <br />Mr. Goudreau, 5451 Corte Palon <br />defer a decision on this appli <br />to be voted on in April is suc <br />have to be reduced in scale. <br />of any specific building but w <br />size of the development. Chai <br />really think recommending appr <br />effect on the election in Apri <br />probably would not start const <br />felt this could cause a proble <br />should it be approved and then <br />felt that eliminating this pot <br />choice. Chairman Jamieson tha <br />and asked the Assistant City A <br />Mr. Swift stated this project <br />general plan. He said, howeve <br />construction prior to April 17 <br />were defeated in the election, <br />not be required to be scaled d <br />asked if the project were to s <br />would be. Mr. Warnick stated <br />could be started before that t <br />and subsequent checking involy <br />a asked that the Planning Commission <br />c tion inasmuch as if the referendum <br />c ssful all developments will <br />H had nothing against the design <br />a concerned about the overall <br />r an Jamieson stated he didn't <br />o al tonight would have any <br />1 inasmuch as the developer <br />r ction before then. Mr. Goudreau <br />n between the City and the developer <br />e required to scale down and <br />e tial problem would be a wise <br />n ed Mr. Goudreau for his comments <br />t orney to comment. <br />clearly consistent with the <br />if Reynolds and Brown started <br />nd if the general plan change <br />his particular project would <br />n. Chairman Jamieson then <br />rt before April what the status <br />didn't believe the project <br />e because of plan submittal <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Referring to the traffic study <br />asked if a condition should be <br />of the traffic study. He furt <br />the Commission is proceeding c <br />concerning the business park. <br />r this project, Mr. Lindsey <br />t in to cover the requirement <br />stated that in his opinion <br />iously with regard to decisions <br />Commissioner Doherty said he a~s <br />is prudent in their planning. <br />felt that the Commission <br />_. r__- , a . i _, <br />