My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 02/13/85
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1985
>
PC 02/13/85
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 10:59:03 AM
Creation date
4/23/2007 4:52:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/13/1985
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 02/13/85
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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 />2/13/85 <br />area would be destroyed by the inclusion of any more apartment <br />units. She would like the area to continue to reflect the <br />character of the downtown. Commissioner Innes asked Mrs. Moore <br />what her feelings would be concerning two units per lot vs. one <br />unit per lot. Mrs. Moore reiterated that changing the density of <br />the area would change the character of the area but that given a <br />choice she would prefer one to two units per lot vs. eight. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />The Chairman then asked the number of units which could be <br />applied to various lot sizes. Mr. Harris indicated that one <br />could conceivably get 3 units on 7500 sq. ft. Mr. Swift then <br />cited various lots in the immediate area which do and do not have <br />more than one unit on the lot. <br />Commissioner Lindsey felt that RM-2500 would be appropriate <br />zoning for the area. <br />Commissioner Wilson asked about the proposed change. Mr. Harris <br />explained that RM-2500 zoning would be in conformance with the <br />General Plan. Commissioner Wilson suggested that perhaps the <br />General Plan should be changed instead of the zoning. He <br />indicated he could probably support RM-2500 zoning. <br />Commissioner Getty indicated she could support RM-2500 zoning <br />also. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by <br />Commissioner Getty that the negative declaration prepared for <br />Case RZ-85-2 be recommended for approval inasmuch as approval of <br />Case RZ-85-2 would not have a significant effect on the <br />environment. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Getty, Innes, Lindsey, Wilson and <br />Chairman Doherty <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />Resolution No. 2608 was entered and adopted recommending approval <br />of the Negative Declaration prepared for Case RZ-85-2 <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Getty, seconded by Commissioner <br />Wilson that the entire subject area exclusive of the Amaral <br />property be recommended for rezoning from the R-1-6500 District <br />to the RM-2500 District. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />Commissioners Getty, Lindsey, Wilson and Chairman <br />Doherty <br />Commissioner Innes <br />- 12 - <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.