Laserfiche WebLink
4y~~8Aly?~y <br />CITY ®f ~~~~~~~ <br />PLE <br />*~° Plannin <br />9 Commission <br />.~ ~~ <br /> . o <br /> ~~0 <br />~~~ ~ <br />MIPIUTES OF REGULAR MEET ING. 0 <br />~ <br />~ <br />D018 : :~eptember 8, 1976 <br />Time : 8:45 P.M. <br />FIaCe: Pleasanton Council Chambers <br />the middle parcel (B) for his own <br />home. <br />The steepness of Pine Hill Lane and <br />its varying width was discussed, as <br />well as the fact that it is a privat <br />street, which at the present time, <br />experiences a considerable amount of <br />through traffic. <br />Commissioner Shepherd explained the <br />only reason he proposed access from <br />Pine Hill Lane was because of the <br />narrow 15 ft. street width at the <br />mouth of Spring Street Lane. <br />Mr. Balch's engineer, Gilbert Barbee, <br />147 Bernal Avenue, was present to <br />answer questions. It was his posi- <br />tion that Pine Hill Lane would be <br />more desirable for access to the lot: <br />but that there should be no trouble <br />for fire truck access from both <br />Pine Hill Lane and Kottinger Drive <br />(Spring Street Lane). <br />Residents from Spring Street Lane <br />were present and expressed concern <br />regarding the present width of the <br />street at its mouth, and how the <br />increased traffic would affect their <br />lots. <br />It was Commissioner Jamieson's feel- <br />ing that if the applicant could <br />obtain access from Pine Hill Lane, <br />that the homes could be successfully <br />oriented to Pine Hill Lane, that moss <br />of the problems confronting this <br />minor subdivision could be resolved. <br />However, little could be done to <br />control the traffic problems on <br />Pine Hill Lane. <br />It was concluded by the Commissioner: <br />that they would be willing to go <br />along with staff recommendation of <br />-10- <br />