My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 10/24/84
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
PC 10/24/84
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 10:29:02 AM
Creation date
4/26/2007 4:57:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/24/1984
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 10/24/84
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 Commissi <br />10/24/84 <br />Resolution No. 2557 was entered and adopted recommending approval <br />of PUD-81-20-23D as motioned. <br />PUD-81-30-24D Prudential Insurance Co. of America for Marriott <br />Hotels, Inc. <br />Application of the Prudential Insurance Co. for design review for <br />a three story, 148 room hotel and restaurant on an approximately <br />5.34 acre site located on the east side of Hopyard Road 350 ft. <br />south of Gibraltar Drive in the Hacienda Business Park. Zoning <br />for the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development)-Industrial, <br />Commercial and Offices District. <br />This item was continued to 11/14/84. <br />PUD-79-2-4M, Victor Weber <br />Application of Victor Weber for a modification to case PUD-79-2, <br />the PUD governing the Twelve Oaks Residential subdivision located <br />on the west side of Foothill Road immediately north of Longview <br />Lane. <br />Mr. Harris reviewed the staff report. <br />Commissioner Wilson asked about required permits for fencing. <br />Mr. Harris stated that fences under six feet in height do not <br />require building permits. Mr. Harris further explained that <br />before the fence was ever installed he went up to the Weber home, <br />met with Mr. Weber and explained in great detail the requirements <br />of the PUD. This explanation was totally ignored. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />No one addressed the COMMISSION and the public hearing was <br />closed. <br />Commissioner Wilson indicated he was in favor of upholding <br />conditions and removing the entire fence. <br />Commissioner Lindsey asked if the staff report compromising the <br />fencing was suggested because it is aesthetically pleasing or <br />because of conflict. Mr. Harris explained that the fencing is <br />probably okay on the northern property line but staff does not <br />believe it would be anywhere else. <br />Commissioner Getty made a motion go approve case PUD-79-2-4M as <br />suggested by the City staff. This motion was seconded by <br />Commissioner Lindsey. <br />Commissioner Lindsey asked what would happen if the modification <br />is approved as motioned. Mr. Swift stated it would go on to City <br />Council for final decision. <br />Commissioner Wilson <br />blue rather than as <br />Commissioner Wilson <br />imposed in PUDs and <br />asked if this is the house which was painted <br />required in the PUD. Mr. Harris said it is. <br />could see no point to having many conditions <br />then not require adherence. <br />- 11 - <br />-. _ __ . _._.,.. _ _ ._ - - rr <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.