PC 03/10/82 - Laserfiche WebLink

PUD-82-2, Meadow Plaza Associates Application of Meadow Plaza Associates for PUD (Planned Unit Develop- ment) zoning and development plan approval for a commercial and office project consisting of five structures totalling approximately 88,000 sq. ft. on an approximately 8 acre site located at the southeast corner of West Las Positas Boulevard and Santa Rita Road. Included in the project is a list of proposed uses for the site. Zoning for the property is C-N (Neighborhood-Commercial) District. The Planning Commission may recommend any action relative to the proposal consistent with the General Plan. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environ- mental impacts will also be considered. Mr. Harris presented the staff report and recommendation stating that the applicant did not bring any color plans with him. Commission Lindsey asked Mr. Harris if the new proposal would increase or decrease traffic in the area. Mr. Harris said there would be about a 5~ area increase over the originally approved shopping center and that increase in traffic should be minimal. Chairperson Getty asked if this would be true regardless of the use. Mr. Harris explained that the previous plan showed a savings and loan or a bank facility on the property. He indicated that if the office area of the free- standing building would be doctor's offices there would be an increase but not when used for administrative offices. Mr. Harris said the applicant doesn't have tenants signed yet so the uses are not known. He said the property evidently does have sewer. The public hearing was opened. Glenn Kierstead, Meadow Plaza Associates, 2836 Sombrero Circle, San Ramon, the application explained their proposal. He said the project has come before the Planning Commission so many times because of economic condi-~ions. He said to solve their problem with this regard they plan to build in phases and syndicate 50~ of the project with a loan on the balance. He said he is very concerned about the conditions imposed on this PUD. He said they agree with the majority of them but do not agree with the protection requirement because they believe this would be the responsibility of the tenant. He said it would be difficult without tenants to even determine where the detection devices would be installed (condition #35). He further addressed conditions 43, 44 and 45 and objected to them. He said he realizes that they have been imposed on other projects in the north Pleasanton area but that this property has special considerations, i.e. would cost them more than the property cost when they purchased it; the project has been previously approved without these conditions; the project is not designed to draw freeway traffic, as well as other reasons. He further said assessment districts should go before public hearings. -3-