My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 11/28/84
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
PC 11/28/84
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 10:28:46 AM
Creation date
4/26/2007 5:00:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/28/1984
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 11/28/84
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 Commissio: <br />11/28/84 <br />Commissioner Innes suggested that Condition No. 2 be eliminated. <br />Mr. Harris indicated that staff is in agreement with this <br />statement. <br />Commissioner Lindsey would like to see adequate lighting placed <br />for access on Dolores Drive. He would like to see staff and the <br />applicant work this out. <br />Commissioner Getty asked why final design plans for carports <br />would be submitted later. Mr. Harris indicated they were not <br />included in the development plan and are not major structures. <br />Commissioner Lindsey felt that perhaps the parking issue needed <br />to be addressed. Commissioner Innes felt it would be easy enough <br />to restripe the parking spaces and provide 80 spots if it was <br />necessary at some future date. Mr. Goldsworthy indicated that <br />the ordinance allows 400 of the spaces to be compact vehicles and <br />since this would be a PUD one could reasonably reduce the size of <br />the spaces and get more. <br />Commissioner Innes was in favor of Alternate Parking Plan, <br />Exhibit B as posted. <br />Commissioner Lindsey then brought up the <br />access road. Mr. Inderbitzen stated the <br />the bottom of the open space area but he <br />objections to a condition which requires <br />road. They have no objection to putting <br />for access to Dolores Drive. <br />issue of the emergency <br />re is an access road at <br />didn't have any <br />an emergency access <br />in sufficient lighting <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Innes, seconded by Commissioner <br />Getty that case PUD-84-16 be recommended for approval subject to <br />the conditions shown in the staff report, amending Condition NO. <br />1 to show the development plan dated 11/28/84, deleting Condition <br />No. 2, and adding new Conditions 10 and 11 reading as follows: <br />"That lighting acceptable to the staff shall be installed on the <br />Dolores Drive access road;" and <br />"That parking shall be designed consistent with Exhibit B." <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES• Commissioners Getty, Innes, Lindsey, <br />• Wellman and Chairman Doherty <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN• Commissioner Wilson <br />Resolution No. 2570 was entered and adopted recommending approval <br />of case PUD-84-16 as motioned. <br />- 5 - <br />_._ ._ __ __ _. __ _ ___.-- _.. .. _. _ ___ .. _ _ _ it <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.