My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 10/10/84
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
PC 10/10/84
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 10:29:08 AM
Creation date
4/26/2007 4:56:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/10/1984
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 10/10/84
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
/ institutional." They are requesting that this condition be <br />art of their current application. Mr. Harris stated <br />removed as p Commission at <br />that this matter could be reviewed by thlanlanning <br />the time they consider the development p <br />Commissioner Getty asked what the intent of this condition was. <br />Mr. Harris stated that to years ago there was quite a bit of <br />undeveloped officethisperoperty out tossomplementethetusesof <br />necessary to hold P <br />medical offices. <br />Commissioner Innes ineac~oemakeasureethedpropertyGwasrusedlto <br />Review Committee want <br />support the hospital. Mrmembershof thetCityhCouncilawholscusse <br />this matter with severa <br />indicated that their objeno~vtheirlintentionotonprohibit hospita <br />could develop and it was ro erty. <br />development of the surrounding p P <br />Chairman Doherty asked if this matter goes to Council and they <br />say this condition is no longer appropriate and the hospital gets <br />delayed if Mr. Callahan would hold the property for medical <br />office use. Mr. CallahenarddncathastPrOPerty and areoinaaccord. <br />with the hospital now r g g <br />Mr. Callahan stated that nalrenvironmentaldreview wouldrbeerty <br />which stated that additi ical. Beyond <br />necessary as the property developed and this is typ <br />the condition concerning development, the balance of the <br />conditions n Ordinance No. 792 and in the staff reports are <br />typical. <br />Mr. Swift asked that the Planning Commission make it very clear <br />whether they consider this submittal a new PUD for the property <br />or whether it is amended and incorporaConditionsecannbetputson <br />previously attached to the property. <br />e at the pleasure of the Commission <br />later at the development stag <br />and Council. Mr. Callahan indicated it was his purp°sHeto have a <br />new PUD and he ltlistfiscally importanthto haveoCondition No. 3 <br />indicated that <br />of Ordinance No. 792 removed regarding the Morici property. <br />Commissioner Innes addressed the possibility of working out an <br />option with the hospital thethos9italcto have controlnoftthesuse. <br />corner which would allow P <br />Mr. Callahan intended to have this done on a short-term basis. <br />Commissioner Wilson suggested that the Commission consider <br />ro osal subject to the existing conditions and <br />approving the p P ro ert <br />allow a one year option to the Hospital for their p p Y <br />immediately north of their proposed hospital. <br />Larry Bartelson stated th~heVaTOpertymforaofficeluse.1SThe longer <br />concerned with retaining P <br />Hospital intends to put their own medical office building on <br />their own site and doesn't care about the peripheral property. <br />- 12 - <br />_ _~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.