My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 12/12/84
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
PC 12/12/84
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 10:28:28 AM
Creation date
4/26/2007 5:02:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
12/12/1984
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 12/12/84
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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 />12/12/84 <br />Resolution No. 2581 was entered and adopted recommending approval <br />of the negative declaration prepared for case RZ-84-18 as <br />motioned. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by <br />Commissioner Lindsey recommending that the properties described <br />in case RZ-84-18 be prezoned PUD (Planned Unit <br />Development)-Medium Density Residential District. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Getty, Innes, Lindsey, Wilson and Chairman <br />Doherty <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN:None <br />Resolution No. 2582 was entered and adopted recommending approval <br />of case RZ-84-18 as motioned. <br />PUD-84-7, John and Joan Caroline <br />Application of John and Joan Caroline for development plan <br />approval for a 19 unit detached single-family residential project <br />proposed for the approximately 2.0 acre site located on the north <br />side of Vineyard Avenue opposite Mavis Drive. This site is <br />currently being prezoned PUD (Planned Unit Development)-Medium <br />Density Residential District. A negative declaration of <br />environmental impacts will also be considered. <br />Mr. Harris presented the staff report. Staff is recommending <br />that this matter be continued for the Vineyard Avenue study, but <br />if it is the Commission's desire to approve it, conditions are <br />attached to the staff report. <br />Commissioner Wilson then asked about the study. Mr. Harris <br />indicated that they are not expecting the results to be too <br />terribly startling. <br />Mr. Swift requested that the Commission at least act on whether <br />or not the negative declaration should be a mitigated one or not. <br />The State now requires that the applicant agree to mitigating <br />measures imposed, or that they not be required or that an EIR be <br />prepared on the project. The time frame for this consideration <br />will have run out by the next Planning Commission meeting. Staff <br />is of the understanding that Caroline does not agree to the <br />mitigated conditions imposed. <br />Commissioner Wilson indicated that <br />always required that Valley Avenue <br />further development of the area an. <br />conditions remains on is Kottinger <br />this particular project should now <br />It is a very small one. <br />the Planning Commission has <br />be extended prior to any <br />3 that the only one the <br />Ranch. He didn't know why <br />have this condition imposed. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />- 16 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.