My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 10/09/1991
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
PC 10/09/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2017 4:20:22 PM
Creation date
6/8/2005 12:31:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/9/1991
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 10/09/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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 />Chairman Mahem noted for the record that she would not support a road going through the <br />Frost property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Horan requested Mr. Rasmussen to meet with Mr. Spotorno for his input. <br /> <br />For the record, Commissioner Hovingh said he would be opposed to any road going through <br />the stream bed. <br /> <br />PARK <br />The majority of the Commission concluded that if the School District does not need the 10 <br />acre school site, then it should be used for a five acre park or public institution use and five <br />acres of housing. This to be utilized in the event a school is deemed unnecessary. <br />Commissioners Hovingh and McGuirk favored ten acres for the park or public institution <br />use. <br /> <br />SHOULD INDEPENDENCE DRIVE BE EXTENDED TO INDIRECTLY CONNECT <br />TO THE E/W COLLECTOR ROAD? <br />After some discussion, the Commission concluded that Independence Drive should be <br />indirectly extended to the E/W Collector Road. <br /> <br />SHOULD SAN ANTONIO STREET BE EXTENDED TO INDIRECTLY CONNECT <br />TO THE E/W COLLECTOR ROAD? <br />The majority of the Commission concluded that San Antonio Street should be extended to <br />indirectly connect the E/W Collector Road, like Independence Drive. <br /> <br />DENSITY <br />Discussion ensued regarding density. The Commission indicated that Medium Density with <br />no more than three lots would be appropriate in the area of Lot 29. <br /> <br />DENSITY OF OVERALL PROJECT <br />Commissioner Horan favored Low density as proposed in the Specific Plan. Commissioner <br />Hovingh agreed with that proposal. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk favored Alternative 6 density. <br /> <br />Commissioner Michelotti favored minimum lot size of 15,000 sq. ft. <br /> <br />Chairman Mahern stated that if she actually had her dream wish she would favor a minimum <br />lot size of one acre or 40,000 sq. ft. lots. At a minimum, she would want a 30,000 sq. ft. <br />lot. She would not support a plan that would be less in size than that. She would encourage <br />the Commission, if she did not have support on her wishes, that they support a minimum of <br />15,000 sq. ft. <br /> <br />The final conclusion was that Commissioners Hovingh, McGuirk, and Horan favored the <br />Alternative 6 density, with minimum lot sizes to be 10,000 to 15,000 sq. ft. <br /> <br />Minutes PlanniOJ Commission Meeting <br />October 9, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.