My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 03/14/84
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
PC 03/14/84
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 10:41:05 AM
Creation date
4/24/2007 5:02:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/14/1984
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 03/14/84
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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 />Page 12 <br />Commissioner Lindsey asked Mr. Valley about the traffic analysis and if intersections, <br />cross streets, and driveways were looked at. Mr. Valley said the entire Pang report <br />was reviewed and a different conclusion reached. He indicated that the scope of <br />the amount of units for the area was looked at. He felt that his three traffic <br />engineers presented quantifiable evidence showing there are no traffic problems <br />on Vineyard Avenue. <br />Chairman Jamieson said he was amazed that the applicant didn't have a number concerning <br />the breakdown of the units as requested by Commissioner Lindsey earlier relating <br />to the number of bedrooms per unit. Mr. Valley said this would depend on the market. <br />Mr. Griffin, 3036 Chardonnay, representing the Vintage Hills Homeowners spoke. <br />He indicated that they like the quality of the project being proposed and they <br />support it. They support also a reduction of park dedication fees to compensate <br />for the park proposed. He felt that the park area would be used. He said on any <br />given evening 20 people are jogging on Vineyard Avenue. He felt trafifc was a <br />problem, particulary since he can't get through on a first signal light on First <br />Street. Commissioner Doherty asked if this opinion was the offical one of the <br />homeowners association. Mr. Griffin said an official vote was taken before the <br />traffic report was out and at that time the homeowners association voted to allow <br />the first 50 units only before Bernal Avenue is connected to Valley Avenue. Now <br />with the results of the study, they don't feel any part should be built until the <br />connection is made. Commissioner Doherty pointed out that this is covered in Condition <br />No. 2 of the staff report. Commissioner Doherty asked Mr. Griffin if he understood <br />that this would delay the project. Mr. Griffin indicated that they are aware of <br />this. Commissioner Doherty asked Mr. Griffin if he and others would be willing <br />to lobby to get the connection. Mr. Griffin said they would. <br />Frank Belecky, stated they were urged to work with the developer on the proposal <br />and that is what they did. The developer agreed to put in a park at the neighbors <br />request. The Park and Recreation Commission agrees a park is needed. They recommend <br />that a partial park dedication fee be waived. <br />Jim Bruno, 4410 Wells Street, explained the position of the Park and Recreation <br />Commission. They felt the development was well planned. Contrary to popular belief, <br />senior citizens like active activities. They don't just like to sit in a park. <br />He said if it was felt a reduction of fees were necessary, they would support this. <br />Commissioner Wilson asked that kind of active uses would be held in the park. <br />Mr. Bruno indicated, not much at all, it is real narrow and the retaining wall <br />takes up a lot of area. Commissioner Wilson asked what the elevation on the property <br />is. Mike Valley reviewed the elevation and asked Larry Bartelson, MacKay and Somps <br />to comment. Mr. Bartelson said there is an 18-20' difference in elevation with <br />a 3-8% slope. There is one acre that is relatively flat. Mike Valley indicated <br />that the park would be similar to the park on Kottinger. <br />Commissioner Getty then asked Mr. Bruno if he thought Kottinger Park was a passive <br />one. Mr. Bruno indicated that the Park and Recreation Commission didn't feel it <br />would be in the best interest of the citizens of Pleasanton to take in lieu of <br />fees for the park in the plan. <br />-12- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.