My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 05/27/81
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1981
>
PC 05/27/81
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:17:16 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 9:19:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/27/1981
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 05/27/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
that he is comfortable with 21 lots but that five lots near the cul-de-sac <br />would be crowded and that he supports staff recommendation concerning Con- <br />dition No. 1 and would like to see the lots reduced to 21 in number. <br />Commissioner Jamieson says if this is approved, there would be nothing <br />stopping Long or Boatright from coming in and asking for the same treat- <br />ment. He said calculations, without a density adjustment, would only <br />allow Castlewood nine and from what he understands lots are selling for, <br />he is sure Long and Boatright will be back. He said he would be willing <br />to give Castlewood 18 lots so that Boatright and Long would have no re- <br />course. He said he would support 18 lots or less. <br />Commissioner Getty said that the project is aesthetically pleasing and <br />that 21 lots would be favorable. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Lindsey, seconded by Commissioner Doherty <br />that case PUD-80-12 be recommended for approval subject to the 74 conditions <br />(amending No. 68 and 69 as suggested by staff but adding "or as otherwise <br />approved by the City Engineer" to Condition No. 69 and changing Condition <br />No. 10 as proposed tonight by the developer, and that findings as shown as <br />A through G on the staff report dated 5/20/81 can be made and that in <br />accordance with subsection 2-2.320g(2)(v) of the HPD Ordinance "the exist- <br />ence of a topographic feature, including but not limited to a cliff or deep <br />ravine or a magnitude which causes the WIS to be significantly greater than <br />would be the case if the topographic feature was not considered" is found, <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />Ayes Commissioners Doherty, Getty, Jamieson, and Lindsey <br />Noes None <br />Abstain Chairperson Wilson <br />Resolution No. 2009 was then entered and adopted recommending approval of <br />case PUD-80-12. <br />There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 pm by <br />Vice Chairperson Getty. <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />Robert J. Harris, Secretary <br />-7- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.