My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC-98-24
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
PC-98-24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2006 9:33:00 AM
Creation date
12/16/2003 11:11:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
4/8/1998
DOCUMENT NO
PC-98-24
DOCUMENT NAME
PUD-97-22
NOTES
TRUMARK COMMERCIAL
NOTES 3
SUBDIVIDE INTO 9 LOTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
<br />PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. PC-98-24 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION OF TRUMARK <br />COMMERCIAL FOR PUD PLAN APPROVAL, AS FILED UNDER CASE PUD-97-22 <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Trumark Commercial has applied for Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan <br />approval to allow the subdivision of a 3:!: acre site (two existing parcels) into nine <br />lots ranging in size from approximately 11,000 square feet to 12,500 square feet <br />located at 1605 and 1609 Rose Avenue; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, zoning for the property is PUD-MDR (Planned Unit Development - Medium <br />Density Residential) District; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, at its duly noticed public hearing of April 8, 1998, the Planning Commission <br />considered all public testimony, relevant exhibits, and recommendations of the <br />City staff; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, a negative declaration was approved in conjunction with the previous PUD <br />development plan for this site and the proposed application is consistent with the <br />document; therefore, no additional environmental document was prepared for this <br />project; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings: <br /> <br />1. The plan is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general <br />welfare. <br /> <br />The proposed project, as conditioned, would be consistent with all <br />applicable City standards concerning public health, safety, and welfare. <br />The applicant will contribute to master planned infrastructure <br />improvements which are needed in order to ensure adequate circulation, <br />water, sewer, and other infrastructure in accordance with General Plan <br />standards. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.