My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 2001-19
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
PC 2001-19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2006 9:32:41 AM
Creation date
3/8/2002 9:53:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
1/24/2001
DOCUMENT NO
PC 2001-19
DOCUMENT NAME
PUD-88-16-2M
NOTES
RICHARD & TRACY LU
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. PC-2001-19 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION OF <br />RICHARD AND TRACY LU FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A PUD <br />DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS FILED UNDER CASE PUD-88-16-2M <br /> <br />Richard and Tracy Lu have applied for a major modification to PUD-88-16 to allow <br />the retention of a solid privacy fence along a portion of the rear property line of an <br />existing residence located at 8031 Bethel Lane; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, zoning for the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development) - LDR (Low Density <br /> Residential) District; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, projects of this nature are categorically exempt from the requirements of the <br /> California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />at its duly noticed public heating of January 24, 2001, the Planning Commission <br />initially approved the proposal for solid fencing, but at its meeting of February 14, <br />2001, the Planning Commission voted to reconsider this matter; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />at its March 14, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission directed the applicant <br />and the adjacent neighbor to meet and work out a compromise to be brought back <br />to the Planning Commission within 30 days; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />at its duly noticed public hearing of April 25,2001, the Planning Commission was <br />advised that a compromise could not be reached between the parties, whereupon <br />the Planning Commission determined the solid fencing should be allowed to <br />remain, with the addition of lattice work and landscaping. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.