My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 042705
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
PC 042705
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 3:20:43 PM
Creation date
3/9/2006 9:12:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/27/2005
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 042705
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
Commissioner Arkin believed the motto of the City should be Commissioner Blank's suggestion_ <br />He liked Commissioner Roberts' narrative. <br />Chairperson Maas believed that becoming lcnowledgeablc about the word "redevelopment" <br />would reiriove the fear of the word. She liked the inclusion of families, small-town character, <br />seniors, enhancing quality of life, prosperity for all, trails, and recreation_ <br />Commissioner Roberts noted that the Energy Element has not been seen or discussed yet, acid <br />that she was concerned about this process. She supported writing a brief Vision Statement that <br />could be considered by City Council. She believed the outreach to the community had been <br />accomplished already. <br />Commissioner Blank supported the concept of a general summary statement, which could be <br />modified further. <br />Commissioner Maas moved to direct staff to incorporate the public comments with the <br />Planning Commissiou comments and to present it to City Council_ The Commission did <br />not favor carrying the process fu rtber on the Commission level_ <br />Commissioner Arkin seconded the motion_ <br />ROLL CALL VOTE= <br />-"~-- AYES= Commissioners Arkin, Blank, Fox, Maas and Roberts. <br />NOES- None. <br />ABSTAIN= None. <br />RECUSED_ None_ <br />ASSENT: None. <br />The motion carried_ <br />b_ PUD-99-O1-3 M, Alameda New Communities <br />Application for a Planned Unit Development major modit3cation to allow solid fencing <br />along the side and/or rear yard property lines of 4476 Tosca Court, 4462 Tosca Court, <br />8012 Oak Creek Drive, 8024 Oak Creek Drive, 8015 Oak Creek Drive, 8031 Oak Creek <br />Drive, 8045 Oak Creek Drive, 4526 River Rock Hill Road, and 4538 River Rock Hill <br />Road, all located in the Westridge Subdivision ~foi-nierly the l..emoine property. Zoning <br />for the property is PUD-RDR/LDR Planned Unit Development -Rural Density <br />Residential/Low Density Residential District. <br />Ms_ Decker presented the staff report and described the layout and background oi` this <br />application. The fencing had been a concern with respect to open versus solid fencing; the <br />Commission recommended open fencing only for this subdivision. Staff recommends that the <br />Plar~rting Commission recommend approval of this case to City Council, subj cet to the conditions <br />of approval in Exhibit B. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 27, 2005 Page 5 of 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.