My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC-91-93
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
PC-91-93
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2006 9:34:15 AM
Creation date
6/15/2005 2:53:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
11/13/1991
DOCUMENT NO
PC-91-93
DOCUMENT NAME
PUD-81-30-53D
NOTES
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO./ROBERTSON HOMES
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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-91-93 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CASE PUD-81-30-53D, THE <br />APPLICATION OF ROBERTSON HOMES/PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Robertson Homes/Prudential Insurance Company has applied <br />for planned unit development (PUD) development plan <br />approval for an 878 unit apartment complex composed of 35 <br />three-story buildings on an approximately 27 acre site in <br />the Hacienda Business Park located at 5675 stoneridge <br />Drive, bordered by Tassajara Creek on the east, and <br />stoneridge and Owens Drives on the south and north; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, at their duly noticed hearing of November 13, 1991, the <br />Planning Commission, after considering all public <br />testimony, relevant exhibits, and recommendations of the <br />city staff concerning this proposal, recommended approval <br />of General Plan Amendment and rezoning for Case GP-91-04/ <br />PUD-81-30-24M; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, at their duly noticed hearing of November 13, 1991, the <br />Planning Commission, after considering all public <br />testimony, relevant exhibits, and recommendations of the <br />City staff concerning this proposal, recommended approval <br />of the proposed negative declaration for Case <br />GP-91-04/PUD-81-30-24M/PUD-81-30-53D; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Planning commission makes the following findings: <br /> <br />1. The plan is in the best interests of the public <br />health, safety, and general welfare: <br /> <br />The proposed project adds to the City'S mUltiple- <br />family housing stock, provides mUltiple-housing <br />close to employment centers and locates housing <br />along major streets. The project has been designed <br />to provide sufficient open space and recreational <br />amenities for future tenants. Pedestrian paths are <br />distinct from vehicle paths. The provision of low- <br />income housing units provides affordable housing <br />opportunities to the general public. <br /> <br />2. The plan is consistent with the City's General <br />Plan: <br /> <br />In conjunction with the PUD development plan, <br />Prudential Insurance Company has applied for a <br />General Plan amendment which includes this 27 acre <br />site. staff feels that the plan, with its proposed <br />density of 32.4 units per acre, conforms to the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.