Laserfiche WebLink
°s CITY of PLEASANTON <br />Planning Commission <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />DGte March 10 , 197 6 <br />Time ; 8 :00 P.M. <br />PIGCe; Pleasanton Justice Court <br />Commissioner Garrigan agreed that the <br />matter of landscaping, etc., could be <br />put off until a later time. He was <br />still concerned regarding the problem <br />of the recreation vehicle storage <br />yard and its relationship in both <br />homeowners' groups . However, if the <br />developer retains the townhouse <br />development and is unable to market <br />them, perhaps the end result would <br />be even more serious. He felt that <br />single family homes had advantages <br />such as lowered density, especially <br />since Stoneson is a quality developer <br />He felt a decision should be made in <br />this matter. <br />Chairman Wood felt a 30-day con- <br />tinuance would not hurt matters. <br />After some further deliberation, <br />a resolution was offered by Com- <br />missioner Garrigan, seconded by Com- <br />missioner Butler to approve RZ-76-2 <br />as petitioned. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />Ayes: Butler, Garrigan. Noes: <br />Shepherd and Wood. Doherty: Absent. <br />This action constituted denial of the <br />application, since it failed to <br />receive a majority vote. <br />The Chairman advised the Stoneson <br />representatives that they had 15 <br />days in which to appeal this de- <br />cision. <br />At this point in the proceedings, <br />newly elected Council member Frank <br />Brandes, Jr., was introduced to the <br />Commissioners. <br />-6- <br />