Laserfiche WebLink
4y~~$""~°y CITY of PLEASANTON <br />~~~ 'ssion <br />~MMS9 Planning Comma <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />OQtB ; March 10, 1976 <br />Time ; 8:00 P.M. <br />PIQCe; Pleasanton Justice Court <br />Mr. Rich St. John, resident of the <br />townhouse development and member of <br />the Board of Directors of the home- <br />owners group spoke. It was the.con- <br />sensus of opinion. among those resi- <br />dents that the townhouses are mar- <br />ketable, that the many problems con- <br />fronting their group should be re- <br />solved prior to rezoning action bean <br />taken. If the. number of members is <br />reduced, perhaps it would be diffi- <br />cult for them to support the common <br />areas; their budget contains no re- <br />serve for replacement values. More- <br />over, the homeowners in those town- <br />houses which face Gold Creek area <br />would - if rezoning goes through - <br />overlook the backyards of the single <br />family homes. This is one of their <br />prime points of consideration. It <br />was imperative to them that the fenc <br />and landscaping questions be settled <br />before rezoning is acted on. To <br />date, one letter of intent has been <br />received from Stoneson's attorney <br />which was answered. <br />Commissioner Garrigan asked whether <br />the common areas within the town- <br />house development were scheduled to <br />serve the full 240 units or the now <br />reduced number of 95? After Mr. <br />Harris pointed out the common areas <br />on the development plan, Commissioner <br />Garrigan expressed concern over the <br />changes in the open space and what <br />guarantees the City would have re- <br />garding their responsibility for the <br />common areas, should the townhouse <br />association become defunct. Deputy <br />City Attorney Levine stated that it <br />is possible the City could become <br />involved financially. He suggested <br />that it might be possible to inte- <br />grate both homeowners groups sharing <br />-3- <br />