My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 04/13/83
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
PC 04/13/83
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 10:25:54 AM
Creation date
4/27/2007 4:44:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/13/1983
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 04/13/83
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Page 17 <br />4/13/83 <br />Commissioner Doherty indicated he just plain doesn't like the <br />change from garages to carpots and that if the matter hadn't been <br />appealed by City Council, he would have appealed it. He said <br />garages are needed for storage and the security of vehicles. <br />Commissioner Getty felt that a van might be better served by a <br />carport as such vehicles do not fit into standard garages. <br />Chairperson Lindsey asked if the applicant would have any problem <br />in having the units stay as rentals for five, seven or ten years. <br />Steve Morgan, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He said <br />they feel that the markets in this area are conducive to rental <br />units as there just isn't enough housing. He stated that for the <br />small amount of added rent involved in a three bedroom unit, it <br />doesn't really substantiate the extra bedroom. <br />Commissioner Doherty asked Mr. Morgan if he had <br />projects like this in the East Bay. rZr. Morgan <br />Concerning parking, he stated the garages would <br />storage and that cars would be parking in spots <br />for parking causing some problems. He said thi <br />his experience in other developments. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />done any other <br />said he has not. <br />be used for <br />not designated <br />s is based on <br />Mr. Swift indicated that we need a clarification from the developer <br />as to whether or not he just plans to build the apartments and <br />abandon the tentative map and not file a final map. He said if <br />the map is abandoned, there would not be a need for the CC&R's and <br />their reference could be eliminated as a condition. He stated if, <br />on the other hand, the applicant wishes to file a final map, he <br />would not later have to go through the City's condominium conversion <br />process at the time he wished to sell the units. He further indica- <br />ted that, from a Building Division standpoint, it also makes a <br />difference as to whether or not these are condominiums or apartment <br />units. He asked the applicant for clarification on this matter. <br />Mr. Owyoung stated they wished to continue with the tentative map <br />and build to condominium standards, but would like to defer the <br />CC&R submittal. <br />Mr. Morgan didn't have any problems with recording the CC&Rs at <br />the time of filing the final map but they do not wish to record <br />the final map prior to construction of the complex. <br />Mr. Swift explained the local subdivision ordinance which allows <br />for a maximum of two one-year extensions. <br />Mr. Morgan says there are IRS problems if you file a final map <br />as condominiums. He said it would make them 'dealers' and the tax <br />structure is different than that of apartment units. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.