My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC-96-16
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
PC-96-16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2006 9:33:11 AM
Creation date
12/29/2004 2:25:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
2/28/1996
DOCUMENT NO
PC-96-16
DOCUMENT NAME
PUD-90-7-2M
NOTES
PETER SHUTTS/JAY AND KAY KU
NOTES 3
MAJOR MOD FOR SENIOR CARE FACILITY
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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-96-16 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION OF PETER <br />SHUTTS FOR JAY AND KAY KU FOR A PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) <br />MAJOR MODIFICATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL, AS FILED <br />UNDER CASE PUD-90-7-2M <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Peter Shutts (for Jay and Kay Ku) has applied for a PUD (Planned Unit <br />Development) major modification and development plan approval for a 4 I room, <br />82 resident senior care facility located at 4115 Mohr Avenue; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, zoning for the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development) - C-O (Commercial <br />and Office) District; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, at their duly noticed public hearing of February 28,1996, the Planning <br />Commission, considered all public testimony, relevant exhibits, and <br />recommendations of the City staff concerning this application; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared and adopted for PUD-90-07 in accordance <br />with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the proposed <br />modification is within the scope of that review; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following PUD findings: <br /> <br />1. The plan is in the best interests ofthe public health, safety, and general welfare. <br /> <br />The project conforms to zoning regulations applicable to the PUD (Planned Unit <br />Development) - Commercial and Office zoning for this parcel. The proposed <br />facility would provide parking and amenities similar to that normally required for <br />senior care facilities in other jurisdictions. The project has been attractively <br />designed and would be architecturally consistent with the adjacent office <br />buildings. The traffic generated by this facility would not have any adverse <br />impact on the adjacent public street infrastructure. The noise projected to be <br />generated by the proposed project traffic would be minimal and would not cause <br />the noise level in the neighbors' rear yard areas to exceed the maximum standard <br />established by the City's General Plan. The developer of this facility would be <br />required to obtain the necessary State and County licenses and meet all applicable <br />code requirements. The facility would be required to adhere to all applicable <br />building and Fire Department regulations. The proposed project will not detract <br />from the quality oflife in the neighborhood and will provide a needed service <br />which will benefit the community. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.