My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 10/12/83
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
PC 10/12/83
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 10:24:03 AM
Creation date
4/27/2007 4:15:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/12/1983
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 10/12/83
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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 />10/12/83 <br />Page 6 <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Lindsey, seconded by Commissioner <br />Getty that case PUD-80-16-2D, Center Park Associates, be approved <br />subject to the conditions shown in the staff report. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Doherty, Getty, Lindsey <br />and Chairman Jamieson <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: Commissioner Wilson <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />Resolution No. 2366 was entered and adopted recommending approval <br />of case PUD-80-16-2D as motioned. <br />Commissioner Lindsey announced that he would step down and not <br />participate in case GP-83-9 because of possible conflict of <br />interest. <br />GP-83-9, City of Pleasanton <br />Application of the City of Pleasanton to amend the general plan <br />land use designation for the tier of lots adjacent to the western <br />right-of-way line of Peters Avenue between St. John Street and <br />Bernal Avenue from High Density Residential to Commercial and <br />Offices or to any other designation deemed in the public interest. <br />A negative declaration of environmental impacts will also be <br />considered. <br />Commissioner Getty stated it has been determined that she would <br />not have a conflict of interest in sitting in on decisions concerning <br />this case. Commissioner Doherty announced that he has no interest <br />any any properties in the area. <br />Mr. Harris presented the staff report. He said the staff has <br />analyzed the situation and has arrived at the same conclusion <br />they have the other three or four times this matter was discussed, <br />i.e., staff recommends no change be made. He had a recent discussion <br />with a realtor who had a client who was interested in putting <br />a new residential structure on the property. He asked that <br />if the Planning Commission recommends the general plan be changed <br />as described that they clearly state for the record that the <br />zoning is to be for offices only. <br />Commissioner Getty asked how many units could be built on 2.4 <br />acres. Mr. Harris stated it would depend on whether it was <br />zoned R-1-65 or RM-15. The portion on St. Mary is R-1-65 and <br />the remainder RM-15. He said if the property is RM, theoretically <br />one could put approximately 58 units. Commissioner Getty stated <br />that the Board of Adjustment has granted variances to everyone <br />in the area making the properties more dense. Mr. Harris stated <br />that special standards have been set in the area. Commissioner <br />Getty felt that if one puts high density residential in the area, <br />it would have to be buffered just as much as any other use. <br />Mr. Harris said this would depend upon the type of office use <br />allowed. <br />-6- <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.