Laserfiche WebLink
NO CONDITIONS AVAILABLE <br />PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br />RESOLUTION N0. PC-90-69 <br />RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CASES PUD-80-16-3M, <br />PUD-80-16-5D, PUD-80-16-6D, AND PUD-80-16-7D, <br />APPLICATIONS OF PACTEL PROPERTIES <br />WHEREAS, Pactel Properties has applied for the following <br />applications: <br />PUD-80-16-3M, a major modification to amend the zoning <br />and development plan of the approved Meyer Business Park <br />(Signature Center) to relocate approximately 1,250,170 <br />square feet of approved commercial, office, and <br />industrial uses, located on the approximately 82 acre <br />site generally in the northwest quadrant of Hopyard Road <br />and Stoneridge Drive. <br />PUD-80-16-5D, design review approval to construct a <br />three-building, approximately 138,500 square foot office <br />complex, located on an approximately 8.81 acre site, <br />located in the area generally bounded by Johnson Drive, <br />Morse Drive, and Franklin Drive. <br />PUD-80-16-6D, design review approval to construct two <br />industrial buildings totaling approximately 58,770 square <br />feet, located on an approximately 4.28 acre site <br />generally on the northeast corner of Franklin Drive and <br />Morse Drive. <br />PUD-80-16-7D, design review approval for afive-building, <br />approximately 46,300 square foot commercial center, <br />located an approximately 5.4 acre site on the northeast <br />corner of Stoneridge Drive and Hopyard Road; and <br />WHEREAS, zoning for the property is "PUD" (Planned Unit <br />Development) - Industrial, Commercial, and Offices <br />District; and <br />WHEREAS, at their duly noticed public hearing of June 27, 1990, <br />the Planning Commission approved the proposed negative <br />declaration for Cases PUD-80-16-3M, PUD-80-16-5D, <br />PUD-80-16-6D, and PUD-80-16-7D after considering all <br />public testimony, relevant exhibits, and recommendations <br />of the City staff; and <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the development plan <br />for Case PUD-80-16-3M conforms to the purposes of the PUD <br />Ordinance. <br />