Laserfiche WebLink
Pl <br />Mi <br />Pa <br />nning Commission <br />utes <br />e 7 <br />Co~rnissioner Wilson askedl,if it is the only sidewalk on Trenery Drive? <br />Mr. Fernald said that morel than likely there building will be up <br />prior to the residential ~roject but would like it installed at the <br />sa a time as they develop for financing purposes. Chairperson Lindsey <br />said the Commission could not speculate with the residential develop- <br />me t and the development f Lot No. 11 and from a planning standpoint <br />a idewalk should be incl ded as requested by the City Engineer. <br />Re arding this same subje t, Commissioner Jamieson asked about the <br />ap roximate cost involved. Mr. Fernald said probably between $2,000- <br />$5,000. Commissioner Wil on then asked if the City would accept a <br />bo for the sidewalk. Warnick said the City wants it built in <br />ti e to coincide with the residential development and that if the <br />residential project doesn't go ahead, then the sidewalk won't need <br />to go in until Lot No. 11',is developed. <br />Mr. Harris indicated the <br />so and that if Lot No. <br />not have a sidewalk in t: <br />de elopment proceed. He <br />wal could be installed. <br />it one all at once. <br />ity expects Homestead to begin construction <br />1 is not built for ten years, people will <br />z's area for ten years should the residential <br />aid that perhaps a temporary asphalt side- <br />Mr. Fernald indicated he would rather have <br />Gil Barbee, Land Surveyor <br />and Associates (Amador Me <br />presented PUD zoning for <br />reb lied. He said most o <br />in the first place. He s <br />it evelop in a manner si <br />this type of development <br />Fer ald rebutted stating <br />of arl Mason previously <br />pro erty I-P but the City <br />fer ble for setback purpo <br />A <br />Wi <br />co <br />RO <br />Ay <br />No <br />Ab <br />Ab <br />147 Bernal, Pleasanton, representing CPK <br />doves), indicated that when Earl Mason <br />his property the residents of the area <br />the people wanted residential on the property <br />id it might be safer to leave it I-P and let <br />filar to buildings on Sonoma Drive because <br />s compatible with residential uses. Mr. <br />hey are very familiar with the application <br />nd that he was quite willing to leave the <br />suggested that PUD zoning might be pre- <br />es. <br />public hearing was closed. <br />tion was made by Commissioner Jamieson, seconded by Commissioner <br />on, that case PUD-82-18 be recommended for approval subject to the <br />itions shown in the s aff report of 9/21/82. <br />CALL VOTE <br />Commissioners <br />Chairperson L <br />None <br />z Commissioner <br />~ None <br />t: <br />in: <br />herty, Jamieson, Wilson and <br />sey <br />Getty <br />