PC 03/09/83 - Laserfiche WebLink

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/$3 Page 3 He indicated that by eliminating one unit, it would provide seven additional parking areas and increase the guest parking facilities considerably. Concerning Condition No. 62 they have also agreed that in the CC&Rs they will elimi-Hate boats and other recreational vehicles from being parked on the site unless parked in individual garages. Mr. Kierstead further added that they have attempted to address the parking and density problems and addressed screening. The project also proposes to have 'gingerbread' treatment on the south wall. Mr. Kierstead indicated they have made every effort to have a quality project and intend to see that this is carried out. It was requested that Condit ions No. 60 and 61 be eliminated as they were eliminated at the time of consideration of the General Plan by the City Council. Mr. Harris concurred that these two conditions should be eliminated. Commissioner Doherty referred to the updated landscape plan. Mr. Kierstead responded. Commissioner Jamieson asked about fencing behind units 5, 7, and 9. Mr. Kierstead said that the entire project will have fencing around it. Mr. Harris stated that the landscape plan shows the fencing. Commissioner Jamieson then asked how close units 4 and 5 come to each other. George Allen, William Black and Associates responded. Chairperson Lindsey asked about proximity of stairwells to other structures within the development. Mr. Allen explained. The public hearing was opened. Joe Dahm, 3184 Weymouth Court, spoke in opposition to this proposed project and spoke on behalf of all of the residents on Weymouth Court. He said they have collected all of their thoughts and rather than have all of them speak, he would present their concerns as follows: Negative impact on current lifestyles, lack of parking, density of the proposed project, traffic, pedestrian traffic, theft, vandalism, lighting and security, possible convenience store use of the property, elimination of existing trees, location of proposed swimming pool because of potential noise, location of garbage containers, height and style of masonry wall and dust problems. Mr. Dahm presented a signed petition defining their concerns and which offered suggestions to the developer and Commission for the City's file. Commissioner Getty asked Mr. Dahm if he was aware that an acoustical study will be done which will address the height of the proposed masonry wall. She asked Mr. Dahm if the. neighbors would have rather had a shopping center vs. the high deniity residential proposal. Mr. Dahm said they were very happy with a proposed shopping center. _3_