Laserfiche WebLink
4y$ASA"~°y CITY of PLEASANTON <br />~~ •~/. ~ <br />,~ <br />`~~~° Planning Commission <br />rrao t <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />DCte ; January 25, 1972 <br />Time : 7 ,00 P.M. <br />PIGCe; Pleasanton Justice Court <br />for 80 spaces, <br />In his closing remarks, he stated that for <br />over two years, Morrison has worked very <br />closely with the City staff to plan for <br />a total community under this PUD to over- <br />come the objections expressed regarding <br />this particular property and in regard to <br />growth in general. This concept is low <br />in density with fully improved parkland <br />and walking and bike trails, and to take <br />a phrase from Mr. Bailey, was conceived <br />"with the benefit of people in mind." <br />The developer's architect, Chas, Delk and <br />his engineer, Bissell ~ Karn, were also <br />present. <br />Commissioner Wood wished to clarify that <br />the same type of roofing materials would <br />be used for both the single family and the <br />Garden Court homes. <br />Mr. Chuck Seymour, 492 San Gabriel Court <br />expressed his viewpoints on design and <br />planning. He did not feel this final plan <br />has overcome the objections of Commissioners <br />expressed originally. The style and design <br />of the homes is not innovative. The <br />development is still faced with problems of <br />circulations especially down Morganfield <br />Road to Santa Rita Road on unimproved <br />roads which will remain so until Phase II <br />is completed. <br />As far as restricting of growth is concerned <br />with 203 building permits allowable for this <br />development, 300 permits for Mackay and <br />H.C. Elliot, he feared that the summer of <br />1973 would mean an acceleration of growth. <br />Since VCSD is also facing similar problems <br />to Pleasanton's plant, he felt that this <br />matter should be deferred until the City <br />has had the advantage of the General Plan <br />review scheduled to begin shortly. <br />10. <br />