My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 04/08/87
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
PC 04/08/87
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 11:11:08 AM
Creation date
4/19/2007 4:15:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/8/1987
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 04/8/87
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
Minutes <br />Planning Commission <br />April 8, 1987 <br />Mr. Swift stated that staff has talked to Mr. Ward several times. <br />The property was trespassed and when the house became empty the <br />situation became worse. Mr. Swift said it is his understanding <br />that water would be given, even without annexation but he <br />couldn't speak to the sewer.. Mr. Swift suggested that perhaps <br />this matter be continued for two weeks so some of the questions <br />can be answered. If paving over a septic tank or leach field is <br />a problem, it should be addressed to Ridgewood. Mr. Ward said he <br />couldn't come down here every two weeks and if this item is to be <br />continued asked that it be continued for 90 days. <br />Chairman Lindsey asked staff if the issues are ones which should <br />be addressed at the Planning Commission stage. Mr. Swift said <br />the parking lot over the septic tank should be addressed at this <br />level. Mr. Ward said he is perfectly willing to come back and <br />work out the details with Ridgewood and staff. Mr. Ward <br />complimented Mr. Swift, and his staff as well as the City <br />attorney in working with him. <br />Chairman Lindsey stated the choices of the Planning Commission <br />are 1) deny the project, and let Ridgewood appeal the decision to <br />City Council or continue the matter. Commissioner Hoyt commented <br />he would just like to see the project denied flat out as the <br />developers didn't even come to the meeting. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Hoyt, seconded by Commissioner <br />Tarver to deny Case UP-87-5. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Berger, Hoyt, Michelotti, Tarver and <br />Chairman Lindsey <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />Resolution No. PC-87-39 was entered and adopted denying Case <br />UP-87-5 as motioned. <br />Chairman Lindsey then announced there is a 15 day appeal period <br />on this negative decision. <br />PUD-81-30-39D, Northern Group <br />Application of the Northern Group for development plan approval <br />for a 354-unit apartment complex, to be located on an <br />approximately 14.7 acre site, located at the southeast corner of <br />he intersection of Stoneridge Drive and Nest Las Positas <br />Boulevard. Zoninq for the property is PUD (Planned Unit <br />Development) - High Density Residential District. <br />Mr. Swift presented the staff report <br />recommending approval of this project. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />and addendum thereto <br />- 10 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.