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
Commissioner Jamieson suggested staff should look into the City <br />and County plans for Foothill Road as it was unclear how many <br />lanes are planned for the future. <br />Chairperson Getty felt the density of development was too great for <br />the area and that it would take away from the rural atmosphere of <br />Foothill Road. <br />Commissioner Doherty moved to deny PUD-81-7, seconded by Commissioner <br />Jamieson. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />Ayes: Commissioners Doherty, Jamieson, Lindsey, Wilson and <br />Chairperson Getty <br />Noes: None <br />Resolution No. 2019 was then entered and adopted denying Case PUD-81-7. <br />There was then a three minute break with the meeting called to order <br />again at 9:20 p.m. <br />PUD-81-6, Vinta e Associates, Ltd. <br />App ication o Vintage Associates, Ltd. for Planned Unit Development <br />zoning and development plan approval for a 108 unit townhouse project <br />located on a 7.19 acre site immediately behind the shopping center on <br />Pico Avenue between Tawney and Palomino Drives. The property is <br />zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development-High Density Residential) District. <br />A negative declaration of environmental impacts was also considered. <br />This matter was before the Commission on May 20,.1981, and at that <br />time, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Heaton asked for a continu- <br />ance to July 15, 1981 to further think about the condition requiring <br />completion of the Pico Avenue connection. <br />Mr. Harris stated that when the City Council adopted the new budget <br />on July 14, 1981, the Pico Extension project was moved a year ahead <br />and funding was increased to $600,000. Mr. Harris also raised the <br />point that the Park and Recreation Commission had passed a resolution <br />that no major project be approved unless it provided recreation <br />facilities and this project did not do so. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />Mr. Doyle Heaton, 2291 Via Mercados, requested that the project <br />be approved without the street extension, but that if the Planning <br />Commission wanted it, they will accept the condition. <br />Commissioner Jamieson asked Mr. Heaton what his idea of affordable <br />:lousing was. Mr. Heaton responded between high $60,000's and low <br />$90,000's. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />-6- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.