My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 05/20/81
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1981
>
PC 05/20/81
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:18:36 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 9:21:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/20/1981
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 05/20/81
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
to modifying this condition. Mr. Warnick then itemized the reasons <br />why rolled curbs are not recommended. <br />Chairperson Wilson stated he doesn't feel these are "estate" size lots. <br />Mr. YJarnick stated that if these were all one-half acre lots you could <br />consider parking on one side, but with 10,000 sq. ft. lots, there is <br />a problem. <br />Commissioner Lindsey stated he agrees with the current General Plan for <br />the area and that they should stay Low Density. Commissioner Getty <br />stated that she agrees with the statements of the other two Commissioners <br />but agrees with the developers that rolled curbs would be fine as would <br />wooden light poles and she stated it is her opinion that the 8 ft. walk- <br />way maintenance would be a problem if the path and bikeway were <br />separated. She further said that many times the City has had home- <br />owners come in and complain about noise and wherever possible the City <br />wants to eliminate this concern. Chairperson Wilson stated that before <br />a vote is taken, it might be well to ask the applicant if they would <br />like to work on the project further with staff, have the meeting con- <br />tinued to another time so that some of the items of contention can <br />be worked out. After further discussion concerning the size of lots, <br />the applicant and Planning Commission agreed to continue this matter <br />to the Planning Commission meeting of June 10, 1981. <br />PUD-81-6, Vintage Associates, Ltd. <br />Application of Vintage Associates, Ltd. for Planned Unit Development zoning <br />and development plan approval for a 108 unit townhouse project located on <br />a 7.19 acre site immediately behind the shopping center on Pico Avenue <br />between Tawny and Palomino Drives. The property is zoned PUD (Planned <br />Unit Development-High Density Residential) District. A negative declar- <br />ation of environmental impacts will also be considered. <br />Mr. Harris reviewed the staff report and recommendation of approval. <br />Commissioner Getty asked what was proposed for the corner of Norton and <br />Palomino. Mr. Harris stated that between Concord and Pico, south of <br />Palomino would be an extension of the shopping center. Commissioner <br />Lindsey addressed traffic concerns on Vineyard Avenue. Discussion then <br />ensued concerning adding conditions on developments restricting con- <br />struction until Pico goes through and City Council removes them. <br />Chairperson Wilson said the fact that it may provide affordable housing <br />makes the project somewhat favorable, but we don't know what affordable <br />housing is. <br />Commissioner Getty asked that the traffic committee look into putting <br />a stop sign at Pico and Kottinger as there is a white fence there <br />and when it is raining you could drive across the park, and she feels <br />widening of the area is just as important as the extension and some- <br />thing should be done about it. <br />They then discussed the difference in the size of the units and between <br />A and B sections as shown on the plan. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />-7- <br />_ . T ._. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.