My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 03/25/1992
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
PC 03/25/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2017 4:24:59 PM
Creation date
5/25/2005 2:02:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/25/1992
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 03/25/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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 />Commissioner Michelotti said her main concern is the question of <br />possible effect it may have on the trees. She is not sure of the effi <br />design of the project if it is changed around. In regard to parking <br />would go along with staffs recommendation and felt that changes <br />in the future. <br /> <br /> <br />tbacks on a project; <br />job that the normal <br />would allow the <br />ould leave the rest of the <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh stated that ordinarily he would want large <br />however, he felt in this case that the architect had done such a g <br />amount of setback was not necessary. In regard to Condition 4, h <br />landscape architect to work it out with the Planning Director. He <br />conditions as staff recommended. <br /> <br />e setbacks and the <br />t it might have on the <br />d Condition 23, she <br />uld be made sometime <br /> <br />Chairman Mahem said she also would delete Condition 2 and feel at this point the trees will <br />not be endangered. However, in regard to Condition 6 and the bo d, she would rather leave <br />it in tact for additional protection. In regard to parking, she woul not feel comfortable with <br />changing Conditions 22 and 23 as desired by the applicant, as the 'tuation could change if <br />the applicant decides to sell the building. <br /> <br />. Commissioner McGuirk commented that in regard to the building tback he would go along <br />with the opinions of the architect and arborist, and felt that the tr would be protected. <br />However, he did have some difficulty with the request by the app cant in regard to parking, <br />and he would want to go along with staffs recommendation. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Hovingh, seconded by Co missioner Michelotti <br />recommending approval of Case PUD-89-14-lD subject to the co ditions contained in <br />Exhibit "B", with the following modifications: <br /> <br />o That Condition 2 be deleted; and <br /> <br />o That Condition 4 be modified to allow the landsca architect to work with the <br />Planning Director in regard to the choice of plant aterials. <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br />ABSTAIN: <br /> <br />Commissioners Hovingh, McGuirk, Michelotti, an Chairman Mahern <br />None <br />Commissioners Horan and Wright <br />None <br /> <br /> <br />ROU, CALL VOTE <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC-92-26 was entered and adopted recommendin approval of Case <br />PUD-89-14-lD as motioned. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Minutes Planning Commission <br />March 25, 1992 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.