My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 07/15/81
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1981
>
PC 07/15/81
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:16:54 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 9:13:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/15/1981
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 07/15/81
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
Mr. Earl Mason, civil engineer representing applicant, stated the <br />conditional uses on page 3 of the staff report were in line with <br />what the applicant had planned. He also requested deletion of <br />condition 2 (the water study). He indicated that condition 3 (fire <br />protection study) was covered in item 20 of the staff report presented <br />at the time of the tentative map approval and requested amendment to <br />condition 3 to correspond with item 20. He also requested changes in <br />the minimum yard requirements. <br />Commissioner Wilson indicated that rather than request changes and <br />deletions as listed above, he should be asking how much it will cost <br />per acre as these conditions have been applied to all recent develop- <br />ment approvals. Mr. Warnick elaborated on what will be covered in <br />the water study and some of its requirements such as a reservoir. <br />Mr. Gil Barbee, representing the owners of the 20 acres across the <br />street from the Rheem development, expressed concern regarding the <br />permitted uses. Would like them to be conditional uses, not permit- <br />ted uses, so they would be subject to review by the Commission. <br />Steve Tyler, objected to the proposed uses as not compatible to <br />the area with a few exceptions. <br />Mr. Bill Black, 2372 Martin Avenue, was concerned that the development <br />would devalue his property. <br />Mr. Mason expressed his willingness to meet with the staff and the <br />local residents to discuss the uses acceptable. The decision on <br />this case was continued to August 12, 1981 at 8:00 p.m, at the <br />Fairgrounds Cafeteria. <br />PUD-81-15, M.A.I. Industries, Inc. <br />App ication o M.A.I. Industries, Inc. for development plan approval <br />which would allow the construction of a 48,000 sq. ft., two-story <br />office building to be located at the southeast corner of Stoneridge <br />Drive and Foothill Road. The property is zoned "PUD-Commercial/ <br />Office." A negative declaration of environmental impacts will aslo <br />be considered. <br />Mr. Harris reviewed staff report. <br />Mr. Charles Krinard appeared for applicant to answer any questions. <br />The Commission had none, nor were there any from the audience. The <br />public hearing was closed. <br />Motion was made by Commissioner Jamieson, seconded by Commissioner <br />Lindsey to approve the mitigated negative declaration. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />Ayes: Commissioners Doherty, Jamieson, Lindsey, Wilson and <br />Chairperson Getty <br />Noes: None <br />-15- <br />_. __._._ <br />r~~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.