My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 05/09/84
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
PC 05/09/84
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 10:31:03 AM
Creation date
4/26/2007 4:38:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/9/1984
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 05/9/84
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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 />May 9, 1984 <br />Page 6 <br />PUD-84-3, Lee Amaral <br />Application of Lee Amaral for PUD (Planned Unit Development) zoning and development <br />plan approval for an eight unit multi-family residential project on an approximately <br />0.28 acre site at 404 St. Mary Street (southwest corner of St. Mary Street and Peters <br />Avenue). Zoning for the property is currently R-1-6500 (Single-family Residential) <br />District. A negative declaration of environmental impacts will also be considered. <br />Mr. Glenn presented the staff report recommending approval of the application subject <br />to relatively standard conditions as well as a condition relating to saving several trees <br />on the property if possible. <br />Commissioner Wilson asked if the trees were palm trees. Mr. Glenn indicated they <br />are. Commissioner Wilson felt that palm trees are a nuisance in multi-residential <br />neighborhoods. They draw pigeons and are otherwise a general nuisance. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />No one addressed this item. Commissioner Getty expressed concern with this inasmuch <br />as this particular piece of property has always been so controversial. Staff assured <br />her that this item has a very long list of persons who have been notified. <br />Commissioner Lindsey felt uncomfortable that even the applicant was not present. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Commissioner Lindsey asked about the trees. Commissioner Getty said that to move <br />a building around to save palm trees didn't make too much sense. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Lindsey, seconded by Commissioner Getty that <br />the negative declaration prepared for case PUD-84-3 be recommended for approval <br />inasmuch as project approval would not have a significant environmental effect on <br />the environment. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Getty, <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: Chairman Doherty <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />Lindsey and Vice Chairman Wilson <br />Resolution No. 2468 was entered and adopted recommending approval of the negative <br />declaration for case PUD-84-3. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Getty, seconded by Commissioner Lindsey that <br />case PUD-84-3 be recommended for approvalsubject to the conditions of the staff <br />report but that the portion of condition number one relating to saving the trees be <br />eliminated. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br />ABSTAIN: <br />Commissioners Getty, Lindsey and Vice Chairman Wilson <br />None <br />Chairman Doherty <br />None <br />-6- <br />.._____..,_____ __.~_.._..__ _ _ .. .. _._ ._ t_ _ _ _. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.