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 Commissio. <br />2/13/85 <br />Doherty asked Ms. Hadley if she knew <br />would be the dividing line and that <br />cul-de-saced. Ms. Hadley indicated <br />still had concerns. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />that the railroad tracks <br />the street is going to be <br />she is aware of this but <br />Mr. Harris indicated that there had been quite a bit of <br />discussion as to whether the winery property should be commercial <br />or residential. Most of the committee agreed that this would be <br />a poor site for commercial property because of the proposed <br />cul-de-sac and the difficulties in getting the traffic in and out <br />of the commercial property. Most buildings on the site are not <br />worthy of preservation. Mr. Harris had a meeting earlier in the <br />week with individuals who asked about having the area for a <br />senior housing complex, but the nature of the small units that <br />would be needed would necessitate a density of more than 29 units <br />per acre. He thought that the applicant would be asking for <br />PUD-High density Residential. He was surprised that these <br />individuals are not present tonight in the audience to speak on <br />the matter. <br />Commissioner Getty asked if this area was in the Downtown <br />Guidelines. Mr. Harris indicated he didn't think it was. <br />Commissioner Getty indicated that many of the concerns expressed <br />can be addressed at the time a development comes before the City. <br />Commissioner Innes disagreed with the comments of Commissioner <br />Getty and felt that issues should be addressed at the time of <br />zoning and not development plan approval. The die would be cast <br />whether the property is zoned commercial or residential. <br />Mr. Harris indicated that the staff is recommending High Density <br />Residential. Commissioner Lindsey was concerned with increasing <br />the density for senior citizens complex and then another user <br />comes in. Mr. Harris explained that PUD High Density Residential <br />sets the density at not lower than eight units per acre. <br />Commissioner Getty stated that for the downtown area to be <br />viable, it needs to be supported by the people living in the <br />area. She didn't like the assumption that it would be ideal for <br />a senior citizens complex. Chairman Doherty would like to see <br />the property rezoned RM-1500 until such time as the development <br />is known. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by <br />Commissioner Getty that the negative declaration prepared for <br />Cases GP-85-1 and RZ-85-O1 be recommended for adoption inasmuch <br />as the General Plan land use change and rezoning would not have a <br />significant effect on the environment. <br />- 7 - <br />., T <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.