Laserfiche WebLink
4~$~$""~°y ASANTV N <br />CITY of P~.~ <br />~~ ~~~ <br />`~ ~~~° Planning Commission <br />~ M t0 <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />DOfie : May 12, 1976 <br />Time : 8:35 P.M. <br />PIOCe: Pleasanton Justice Court <br />could do at their next meeting. This <br />item, in that case, could be contin- <br />ued pending that action. He also <br />read to the Commission the options <br />left to them after a property is <br />placed in such a zone, specifically <br />the "demolition" section of the code. <br />Commissioner Butler shared some of <br />Commissioner Shepherd's feelings. <br />He disagreed with the statement heard' <br />that evening that the church's his- <br />torical significance could not be <br />maintained on another site. He <br />believed what the applicant is pro- <br />posing is merely a means to retain <br />this value and represents a better <br />solution to the problem. He too <br />felt Sharab Court should not be an <br />exit point; also visual screening <br />would need to be provided. <br />Commissioner Carrigan echoed these <br />comments and offered a motion to the <br />effect that no access be allowed <br />from Sharab Court, and that proper <br />landscaping to aid in both accousti- <br />cal and site preservation between <br />the church property and the single <br />family homes be effected, this in- <br />tended to preserve both the homes <br />and the church site itself. This <br />motion was seconded by Commissioner <br />Shepherd and unanimously carried. <br />Chairman Wood spoke of the 15-day <br />appeal period. In that time span, <br />if a historical committee were formed <br />perhaps something could be done along <br />those lines. <br />The Chairman proposed a resolution <br />denying this request based on the <br />feeling that a precedent might be <br />started with attaching new structu <br />in an attempt to-blend it .with an <br />-8- <br />