PC 10/10/79 - Laserfiche WebLink

Planning Commission October 10, 1979 Page 10 Art Dunkley, 844 Division Street, the applicant, spoke. He addressed two main issues: street width and traffic as a unit, traffic on Vineyard at First and at Tawny. He stated that 10,000 sq. ft. lots on the single-family portion of the property allows turnarounds for both driveways. He further stated that where appropriate all driveways could be reviewed with staff before they are built. He stated this is an expensive project for him. He further stated he is attempting to provide dedications necessary for good traffic flow. He stated his condominium townhouses are the largest in Pleasanton when compared to either existing or proposed units. He stated that people will own the land the units are on; that there are 18 visitor parking sites located at the townhouse area and that there are two-car covered garages for each unit. He stated there will be very little dirt moved and that most dirt moved would have to do with the street widening. Persons speaking in opposition to this project Art Nichols, 3632 Vineyard Avenue. He stated the neighbors opposed the Hindu Temple, mobile homes and other projects because of traffic and didn't feel this development should be treated differently. He stated that on any Sunday afternoon because of the traffic the noise was loud and it was difficult to hear in your own house. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Getty stated she feels this plan is a good one and that some of the problems have been properly mitigated. She stated she lives on Kottinger and is aware of the traffic which might be generated, but feels it is not significant. Commissioner Jamieson stated the project is well designed and that it would probably be longer than three years before the roads are finished. Mr. Campbell stated that money is budgeted for the street right of way and money is proposed to be budgeted the following year to start street construction so this could probably be done in three years. Commissioner Jamieson stated he prefers the 84 foot alternate street plan with the median as described earlier by Mr. Campbell. Commissioner Doherty then presented a copy of a letter which he received from Mrs. Johnson, a property owner in the area, concerning this case. A motion was then made by Commissioner Jamieson, seconded by Commissioner Getty to approve this project per the staff report of October 10, amending Condition X61 to read "That the development be substantially as shown on the development plan, Exhibit A, on file with the Planning Division except that Pico Avenue in front of the subject property shall be 84 feet. with a median, in width." " ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes Noes Absent Commissioners Getty, Jamieson and Chairman Doherty None Commissioners Geppert and Wilson Resolution No. 1809 was then entered and adopted recommending approval of PUD-79-9. PUD-79-10, Flying "J" Oil Company Application for planned unit development (Industrial and Commercial) zoning for the 60 acre site located immediately south of Johnson Drive and about 700 ft. west of Hopyard Road and for development plan approval for a motel proposed to be located on the northwesterly approximately 8 acres of the site. The property is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development- Industrial District). A mitigated negative declaration of environmental impacts will also be considered. Mr. Harris explained the staff report. As there were no questions of staff, Chairman Doherty opened the public hearing. -10-