My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 08/26/1992
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
PC 08/26/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2017 4:26:42 PM
Creation date
5/25/2005 3:12:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/26/1992
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 08/26/1992
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 />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> <br />In response to Chairman Hovingh's question, Mr. Swift stated th Mr. Madden's <br />interpretation of Condition 17 was agreeable to staff. In regard the request to delete <br />Condition 23, Mr. Higdon did not wish to delete it as there is a sed right-turn lane for <br />southbound Valley Avenue onto Stanley Boulevard, and there are difficulties in trying to <br />differentiate between intersection improvements as opposed to S ley frontages. <br /> <br />In regard to Mr. Madden's question on Condition 26 and the utili lines, Mr. Swift <br />explained that when it gets to this project, there will be a riser th t will go up to the existing <br />overhead lines that go over the Union Pacific track. <br /> <br /> <br />Chairman Hovingh noted for the record that a letter from Public torage Management was <br />presented tonight requesting that the Commission consider their ncerns. <br /> <br />Commissioner Michelotti noted that normally the Commission d ides on one design plan, <br />not two. However, she concurred that the architect has done a g job. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Commi"Sioner Mahern, seconded by ommissioner Michelotti <br />recommending approval oC the draft Negative Declaration pre ared Cor Case PUD-92-06 <br />inasmuch as project approval would not have any significant a verse effects on the <br />environment. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br />ABSTAIN: <br /> <br />Commissioners Mahern, McGuirk, Michelotti, Wri ht, and Chairman Hovingh <br />None <br />None <br />None <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC-92-74 was entered and adopted recommending approval of the draft <br />Negative Declaration prepared for Case PUD-92-06 as motioned. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Commi.....oner Mahern, seconded by omrni..~ioner Michelotti <br />recommending that the proposed PUD development plan is co istent with the General <br />Plan and purposes of the PUD ordinance; and recommending pproval of Case PUD-92- <br />06, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B, with the follo ing modifications: <br /> <br />o Add Condition 31 that if containers are used on he 25 ft. strip that some <br />kind of Coating be used to protect the asphalt; <br /> <br />o That Condition 23 should not be deleted; and <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />That the business machine servicing be allowed <br />Plans 1 and lA, whereas the commercial prlntin <br />conditional uses. <br /> <br />a pennitted use Cor both <br />and auto upholstery be <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1992 <br /> <br />Page 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.