Laserfiche WebLink
4y$~s"N~°y CITY of PLEASANTON <br />~ ~ '~i • <br />,~ <br />`~~° Planning Commission <br />+xrao s <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />Date : October 27, 1970 <br />Time : 8:10 PM <br />PIOCe; Pleasanton Justice Court <br />and the balance in two and three <br />bedroom units. This they have not <br />finalized yet. The financ~_ng can <br />be either through condominium prin- <br />ciple or renta.l.s . The exteriors <br />will be maintained by professionals <br />and the tax base will be an advantage <br />to the community. <br />On the question of density, the <br />project will contain 330 units. This <br />property encompasses 40.8 acres, with <br />a density of 6.33. The original <br />272 units originally applied for <br />was on 16 acres. The scope this time <br />is much larger. <br />Mr. Al Lizo, 227 Mission Drive, had <br />a question on the location of the si <br />Mr. Chuch Seymour, 492 San Gabriel <br />Court - spoke for the residents of <br />Mission Park stating that they had <br />sufficient multiples and did not <br />need an additional 330 units. He <br />spoke of the increased traffic and <br />sewer problems. <br />Mr. Joe Chickerella, owner of the <br />property in question, spoke in favor <br />of the application, stating he felt <br />this development would be ideal for <br />the site. <br />Mr. Harry Sweet, 5641 San Luis Court <br />spoke in opposition. Referred to th <br />traffic and sewer problem, the slide <br />problem. Felt the development shoul <br />be placed on some other hill. <br />Dr. Ray Serafin, 1698 Bivar Court - <br />owner of property on Mission Drive <br />now under construction. Spoke in <br />favor of this application. <br />Mrs. Henny Burke, 392 Mission Drive, <br />- 6 - <br />