Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />June 8, 1983 <br />Mr. Grazadei stated that the recreational area proposed is too small to <br />handle the tenants and related conditions for the Pleasanton Meadows pool <br />where they have had to hire three admission guards to keep condominium non-members <br />out because their pool cannot handle this use. <br />Commissioner Lindsey referred to the Valley Business Park conditions being <br />changed and the fact that there were numerous public hearings over these <br />changes. Commissioner Wilson concurred with the speaker concerning the <br />Valley Business Park and stated the reason this was done because the project <br />sold and the new owners desired to change it. <br />Commissioner Doherty told the audience that a General Plan is not just <br />a matter of zoning but consists of many elements and one of those elements <br />is the Housing Element and this document is available for review and reading <br />by any interested person. <br />Al Wiemken, Trenery Drive, stated that .the proposed street alignment for <br />Trenery Drive is reasonable, but has asked the City Manager to have the <br />Santa Rita Road portion of Trenery Drive changed and he hoped that the <br />apartment units proposed would not be called "Trenery Drive Apartments". <br />He asked that Low Density Residential be clarified. He expressed his <br />understanding. Mr. Harris explained that this comes from the text <br />of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. <br />Discussion then ensued concerning parking requirements for the development <br />by the Commissioners. The Assistant City Attorney explained that PUD has <br />no parking requirements in itself but that staff uses the straight zoning <br />parking requirements as a guide to the developers in providing sufficient <br />parking to the apartment complex in a PUD situation. He indicated that the <br />Planning Commission could recommend increased parking if they so desired <br />because this is a PUD request. <br />Chairman Jamieson asked Mr. Simmons if he would be willing to sit down and <br />talk. to the homeowners of the area regarding the comments made. Mr. <br />Simmons replied that he would be happy to do so but that the differences <br />are not small things which they would be happy to mitigate and that a <br />development such as this is not possible with a large reduction in the number <br />of units. He indicated that whether this project is recommended for approval <br />or not he intends to sit down and talk to the residence in a positive manner <br />and wished to be a good neighbor. Chairman Jamieson then asked Mr. Simmons <br />whether or not the density would be negotiatable. Mr. Simmons asked <br />for direction by the Planning Commission if they feel it is too dense, he <br />would like to hear their comments. r <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Commissioner Getty didn't feel the project to be too dense and that it has <br />ample open space. She stated that people are going to have to start living <br />in smaller more efficient units. <br />Commissioner Lindsey agrees that this is a good project and that his major <br />concern was with the size of the recreation area and recommended that <br />-8- <br />