My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 03/10/82
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1982
>
PC 03/10/82
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:27:41 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 2:24:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/10/1982
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 03/10/82
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
Mr. Swift indicated that Reynolds and Brown brought a plan in <br />for the street entering Meyer's PUD and the streets didn't align <br />so they had to amend the plan. <br />Commissioner Lindsey said that agreements among the developers must <br />be reached and that he is not prepared to make a decision on this <br />project until that is done. He suggested that both developers <br />work with the City staff and if they don't agree there is an <br />appeal process. <br />Commissioner Doherty indicated it is difficult to get anything <br />accomplished if the developers don't agree and suggested they sit <br />down and communicate with each other. <br />Tom Terrill, Reynolds and Brown, addressed the Commission again. <br />He stated they have not seen the proposed Meyer condition. He <br />addressed the conditions imposed on their project. He said No. 24 <br />speaks to a signal and they agree to share in the payment of the <br />signal at Denker Drive. He said they had TJKM look at the matter <br />further and their report clearly indicates there will be impacts in <br />this area. He said he has had meetings with Bill Turpie and they <br />have agreed that when the day came there were firm costs that <br />that would be an appropriate time to trade dollars. He said they <br />don't have any estimates of their street costs. It is difficult <br />to agree on a dollar amount. He said they don't feel there has <br />been a lack of cooperation between the two developments. He <br />said you can't pay for something for which there is no cost. <br />Mr. Terrill referred to condition number 69 stating that streets in <br />general have a value to everyone in the City. He said exact costs <br />have never been discussed. He said they have not requested them <br />(Meyer) to pay for our streets and they would be happy to sit down <br />and discuss the matter with them. He apologized for the disagree- <br />ment between the developers and assured the Commission that no <br />feud was going on. <br />Chairperson Getty asked what the hurry is in getting the Reynolds <br />and Brown PUD recommended for approval tonight. Mr. Terrill explained <br />they wanted a total conceptual plan approved for the property so <br />they can proceed with getting development plans approved by the <br />City. <br />Commissioner Doherty said that hopefully the developers can sit down <br />like businsssmen, face to face, and try to work something out as <br />reasonable people. <br />Commissioner Jamieson said he soesn't see why Reynolds and Brown <br />should be held up because there is no assurance that Meyer will have <br />any figures ready in two weeks. <br />Commissioner Wilson indicated that he thinks if the problem is not <br />resolved at this level the developers will end up in court, but did <br />not see any reason not to act on the Reynolds and Brown PUD. <br />-13- <br />_____. _. .__ __ __ _.__._ .,.. .. _...r.. . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.