My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
RES 90172
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
RES 90172
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2012 2:12:56 PM
Creation date
8/12/1999 8:06:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
9/18/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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).
View images
View plain text
WHEREAS,. <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 90-172 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF DOUGLAS <br />HARVEY AND ROBERT MARTIN AS FILED UNDER CASE <br />AP-90-10 (PUD-89-19) <br /> <br />at its meeting of June 27, 1990, the Planning Commission, <br />unable to make the required findings as provided in the <br />City's Zoning Ordinance, denied the application of <br />Douglas Harvey/Robert Martin for planned unit development <br />rezoning and development plan to construct a five lot, <br />single-family residential development to be located on an <br />approximately 3.8 acre site at 2818 Foothill Road; and <br /> <br />within the time specified by the Pleasanton Municipal <br />Code, Douglas Harvey/Robert Martin filed an appeal with <br />the City Clerk of the City of Pleasanton; and <br /> <br />a public hearing was held before the City Council on <br />September 4, 1990 and September 18, 1990 at which time <br />all pertinent testimony was considered and relevant <br />documents were reviewed; and <br /> <br />based on the preponderance of evidence, the City Council <br />finds as follows: <br /> <br />ae <br /> <br />The proposed plan has a building setback line <br />substantially less than the minimum 150' setback <br />from Foothill Road, as provided in the Foothill <br />Road Corridor Overlay District standards; <br /> <br />be <br /> <br />The proposed plan does not make provisions for <br />either a frontage road or other internal <br />circulation system to serve properties to the <br />south, as provided in the Foothill Road Corridor <br />Overlay District standards; <br /> <br />Ce <br /> <br />The proposed amenity (a landscaped scenic easement <br />along the frontage of and entry to the project) to <br />compensate for a density increase is inadequate and <br />is not consistent with the Land Use Element of the <br />General Plan; <br /> <br />de <br /> <br />The proposed plan does not meet the noise policy of <br />the General Plan except by the construction of a <br />soundwall. A soundwall along Foothill Road is not <br />consistent with the standards of the Foothill Road <br />Corridor Overlay District; and <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.