My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 09/26/84
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
PC 09/26/84
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 10:29:15 AM
Creation date
4/26/2007 4:53:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/26/1984
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 09/26/84
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
A motion was made by Commissioner Innes, seconded by Commissioner <br />Lindsey that the Planning Commission su <br />their interpretation of the use permit conditione with Staff in <br />relationship to the flag pole installation at the Barratt Homes <br />complex on Valley Avenue in that it is an attention getting <br />device and is to be removed or appealed to Council. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: commissioners Innes, Lindsey, Wellman and Chairman <br />Doherty <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: Commissioners Getty and Wilson <br />ABSTAIN:None <br />Resolution No. 2526 was entered and adopted supporting City staff <br />in that the flag pole installed at the Barratt model home and <br />sales complex is an attention getting device in that it is 40 ft. <br />tall and that this flag is installed in conflict with the <br />conditions of approval of their conditional use permit regarding <br />the sales and model home complex. <br />Chairman Doherty told the applicant that hey have 15 days in <br />which to appeal their decision to the City Council. <br />Chris Kinzel, TJKM, 4637 Chabot Drive, Pleasanton, discussed that <br />status of the traffic study assumptions requested by the Planning <br />Commission. He stated that it is a three step process prior to <br />the assumptions going to the Planning Commission for adoption; <br />recommendations made to staff; review by their traffic engineer <br />Wilbur Smith and Associates, then to the Commission for review. <br />It has taken longer to put the assumptions together than <br />originally anticipated. At an early meeting the Planning <br />Commission will be presented these assumption for action. <br />Chairman Doherty asked Mr. Okamura what the status of the review <br />is with regard to Wilbur Smith and Associates. Mr. Okamura <br />indicated that comments from them should be coming back to staff <br />within approximately one week. Commissioner Innes asked if Mr. <br />Okamura would guarantee this. Mr. Okamura said that if Wilbur <br />Smith lives up to their commitment, the Commission will have them <br />at their next meeting. Commissioner Innes then asked Mr. Okamura <br />to convey the Commission's concern for these assumptions. <br />REVISIONS AND OMISSIONS TO THE AGENDA <br />Mr. Harris asked that case PUD-84-6, <br />10/10/84 and that the a Item 5c, be continued to <br />continued at the requesppoflthe applicantsto~thatmsamebmeeti <br />The Commission granted these continuances. ng' <br />MATTERS INITIATED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS <br />Commissioner Lindsey stated That there is a house in the Del <br />Prado area with banners and streamers hanging from it. Mr. <br />Harris indicated that they have now been removed. Chairman <br />- 3 - <br />__ .~_ <br />r-- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.