My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 07/22/87
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
PC 07/22/87
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 11:09:53 AM
Creation date
4/19/2007 4:36:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/22/1987
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 07/22/87
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
AYES: Commissioners Hurt, hla~tern, Michelotti, Tarver, and Chairperson <br />Ltnd~y <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: Consnissbner Berger <br />ABSTAil~ None <br />Resoiuttat No. PC-87-?8 was entered ar-d adopted recommending approval of the <br />negative declarstion prepared for case PUD-a7- t as motioned <br />Chaitpet'son Lindsey said he felt the this is an appropriate use for a difficult <br />piece of land and has t#-e least effect on the netgt~vrhood and on area traffic. He <br />believes the applicant aAd the Ctty h~ made a best effort to give appropriate <br />notification. <br />Commissioner Mshern agreed that this is a difficult piece of property. She prefers <br />a root similar to those hotr-es to the area. A strip center would have been <br />tnapproprtate. She favors this project as staff has recommended it. <br />Commissioner Hart agreed that the pro,}eCt has the least impact on the area and is <br />in favor of the application. <br />Commissioner Michelottl noted that the homeowners' have been asked what they <br />would pr+etter and there have been no specific suggestions. Th1s application is <br />probably a good car~promise. It is not a high traffic generator. A root-line should <br />be adjusted Shoe noted that the Commission will be looking very closely at <br />development in this area as it approaches the residential area She prefers a <br />m~anument st+gn at this time because of the nearness to the residential areas but <br />feels that the Cisston 9f-ould be consistent and allow the pylon sign as has <br />been done in the past under similar circumstances. The public should give their <br />names to the Clerk to assure notittcatton. She supports this application. <br />Commissioner Tarver agreed that the public should give their names to the clerk <br />for notification and suggested that the developer and the homeowners meet prior <br />to the City Council consideration of this application. He suggested that no PA <br />system be allowed as a condition of approval. He feels that a pylon sign is not <br />appropriate. Consistency is less of a concern because of the nearness to the <br />residential areas. The point was made that traffic data is based upon an outdated <br />study and the data base should be updated. <br />Planning Commission <br />Minutes 6 July 22, 1987 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.