My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 03/31/82
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1982
>
PC 03/31/82
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:27:33 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 2:21:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/31/1982
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 03/31/82
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
Commissioner Jamieson addressed public vs. private streets. He <br />stated in his opinion they should remain private. Mr. Harris <br />stated that the developer will be requesting public streets this <br />evening which would eliminate Conditions No. 33, 37 and 38 if <br />approved. Mr. Jamieson felt this would be a burden on the <br />citizens of Pleasanton and that the Planning Commission turned <br />down this same request made by Valley Business Park. Mr. Warnick <br />pointed out that the City Council overruled this decision and <br />Valley Business Park now has public streets. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />Bill Hirst, 147 Bernal Avenue, spoke representing the applicant. <br />He stated they have reviewed the staff report in considerable <br />detail and the staff has summarized the changes made from the. <br />previous proposal. He stated all of the lots would have 23 ft. <br />setbacks with the exception of each block end and that those <br />properties would have automatic roll up garage doors. He said <br />they agree with the conditions imposed with a couple of reserva- <br />tions. He stated that with regard to Condition No. 9, addressing <br />landscaping of individual lots, they would like to leave this up <br />to the homeowners and that this matter is sufficiently covered <br />under their proposed CC&Rs where they are suggesting landscaping <br />be done in 90 days. He requested the condition be modified to <br />allow the developer flexibility with this regard. He asked that <br />Conditions No. 33, 37 and 38 be eliminated. He said they have <br />changed the width to the streets from 28 ft. and now they are <br />consistent with the City's subdivision requirements. He requested <br />the streets be public. He stated they have met with the citizens <br />of the Vintage Hills area and their principle concern has been <br />with lack of open space or provision of parks. He stated they are <br />willing to commit to additional area for park in addition to the <br />recreation facilities to the front of the project. He stated <br />he would like the mechanics of this to be worked out at the sub- <br />division process because it is extremely important for them to <br />dispose of this application this evening as they plan to partici- <br />pate in the Growth Management Process and in order to be eligible <br />to participate they have to get their development plan approved. <br />He said they will not submit their subdivision map until after <br />they have gotten further along in the process and at that time <br />they would like to consider the additional park space. He said <br />they would, however, expect some credit against park dedication <br />fees if they dedicated park area. He said the idea behind this <br />would be to better serve residents in that project to serve some <br />of the people who live in the northern portion of the Vintage <br />Hills area. <br />Mr. Hirst stated that Ed Parish as well as his engineer Vaughn <br />Shahinian are to address any concerns or to respond to any <br />questions concerning the development. <br />Commissioner Jamieson said he doesn't understand why Mr. Hirst <br />doesn't want to discuss the park tonight. Mr. Hirst stated he <br />has no problem in discussing the matter but would like to avoid <br />getting bogged down. He said they have discussed adding two <br />or three more lots to what they already have shown on the map <br />(turfing two or three lots for a play or softball area). He <br />said they don't have any problem in putting in a park but do not <br />want to increase the cost for the units and request that the park <br />dedication fees be credited for any dedication of land for parks. <br />-11- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.