PC 03/14/84 - Laserfiche WebLink

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Page 12 Commissioner Lindsey asked Mr. Valley about the traffic analysis and if intersections, cross streets, and driveways were looked at. Mr. Valley said the entire Pang report was reviewed and a different conclusion reached. He indicated that the scope of the amount of units for the area was looked at. He felt that his three traffic engineers presented quantifiable evidence showing there are no traffic problems on Vineyard Avenue. Chairman Jamieson said he was amazed that the applicant didn't have a number concerning the breakdown of the units as requested by Commissioner Lindsey earlier relating to the number of bedrooms per unit. Mr. Valley said this would depend on the market. Mr. Griffin, 3036 Chardonnay, representing the Vintage Hills Homeowners spoke. He indicated that they like the quality of the project being proposed and they support it. They support also a reduction of park dedication fees to compensate for the park proposed. He felt that the park area would be used. He said on any given evening 20 people are jogging on Vineyard Avenue. He felt trafifc was a problem, particulary since he can't get through on a first signal light on First Street. Commissioner Doherty asked if this opinion was the offical one of the homeowners association. Mr. Griffin said an official vote was taken before the traffic report was out and at that time the homeowners association voted to allow the first 50 units only before Bernal Avenue is connected to Valley Avenue. Now with the results of the study, they don't feel any part should be built until the connection is made. Commissioner Doherty pointed out that this is covered in Condition No. 2 of the staff report. Commissioner Doherty asked Mr. Griffin if he understood that this would delay the project. Mr. Griffin indicated that they are aware of this. Commissioner Doherty asked Mr. Griffin if he and others would be willing to lobby to get the connection. Mr. Griffin said they would. Frank Belecky, stated they were urged to work with the developer on the proposal and that is what they did. The developer agreed to put in a park at the neighbors request. The Park and Recreation Commission agrees a park is needed. They recommend that a partial park dedication fee be waived. Jim Bruno, 4410 Wells Street, explained the position of the Park and Recreation Commission. They felt the development was well planned. Contrary to popular belief, senior citizens like active activities. They don't just like to sit in a park. He said if it was felt a reduction of fees were necessary, they would support this. Commissioner Wilson asked that kind of active uses would be held in the park. Mr. Bruno indicated, not much at all, it is real narrow and the retaining wall takes up a lot of area. Commissioner Wilson asked what the elevation on the property is. Mike Valley reviewed the elevation and asked Larry Bartelson, MacKay and Somps to comment. Mr. Bartelson said there is an 18-20' difference in elevation with a 3-8% slope. There is one acre that is relatively flat. Mike Valley indicated that the park would be similar to the park on Kottinger. Commissioner Getty then asked Mr. Bruno if he thought Kottinger Park was a passive one. Mr. Bruno indicated that the Park and Recreation Commission didn't feel it would be in the best interest of the citizens of Pleasanton to take in lieu of fees for the park in the plan. -12-