My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 06/12/85
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1985
>
PC 06/12/85
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 10:57:51 AM
Creation date
4/24/2007 4:19:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/12/1985
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 06/12/85
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
September. This meeting will be the fourth Wednesday of each <br />month. Mr. Harris indicated that the agendas for one meeting <br />would be long. Chairman Wilson indicated it was preferable to <br />stay very late to get the business done vs having two meetings <br />during the summer months. The other Commissioners agreed with <br />Chairman Wilson and the one meeting per month schedule for July, <br />August and September. <br />Commissioner Michelotti had a telephone call from a resident <br />concerning a 'no through truck traffic' sign on Stoneridge Drive <br />just before Springdale Avenue. The concern was that truck <br />traffic may continue south on Foothill Road because of this sign. <br />She asked if there should be a similar sign on Foothill Road. <br />Mr. Okamura was not aware of the sign but Stoneridge Drive is a <br />haul route assigned to a project in the area. He would check <br />into the matter. <br />PUD-84-20, Puri <br />Application of Hari Puri for development plan approval for a six <br />parcel single-family residential development on an approximately <br />4.1 acre site located at 3885 Foothill Road. Zoning for the <br />property is PUD (Planned Unit Development)-Low Density <br />Residential District. <br />Commissioner Innes asked Mr. Harris about Condition No. 6. Mr. <br />Harris stated it is for appearance sake as it is most certain <br />fences will be desired in the future. The 30' reserve is for the <br />future widening of Foothill Road. <br />Commissioner Innes asked Mr. Harris to explain Condition No. 19. <br />In walking the area, Commissioner Innes didn't feel there would <br />be sufficient footage for future road lanes. Mr. Harris <br />explained that this would be similar to Foothill Knolls <br />concerning the width of the street. Commissioner Innes didn't <br />feel the Foothill Knolls area had sufficient room for Foothill <br />Road. Chairman Wilson indicated that the width allowed is 96 <br />feet and Mr. Okamura commented that this should be sufficient <br />room. Commissioner Innes stated that while he is no expert he <br />didn't see how Foothill Road could be widened without using the <br />30' reserve. Chairman Wilson commented that the drawing <br />presented does not show improvements required of this project. <br />Mr. Okamura stated that normally improvements are shown on the <br />tentative map. Commissioner Innes then addressed Condition No. 6 <br />regarding the tree removal. Mr. Harris explained that tree <br />removal would be further addressed that the subdivision stage. <br />Chairman Wilson agreed with the staff report concerning the <br />combining of Lots 3 and 4. He was uncertain about Lot 5. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />Richard Glenn, Planning Consultant, 205-D Main Street presented <br />their proposal. He addressed the concerns expressed by staff <br />regarding the slope of Lots 2 and 3, leach field on Lot 2 and <br />unengineered fill. The seismic report indicates that the slope <br />can be secured. The applicant and representatives are satisfied <br />- 3 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.