My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 09/21/82
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1982
>
PC 09/21/82
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:26:02 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 1:55:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/21/1982
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 09/21/82
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
Ply <br />Mi z <br />Pac <br />nning Commission <br />utes <br />e 5 <br />Mr. Harris stated that Starnes is the applicant. Mr. Barbee argued <br />th t he is only the applicant because he is a landowner and that the <br />He pys have the right to repurchase the southern portion of the Starnes <br />pr perty. Mr. Harris indicated that the proposed condition applies <br />to Starnes as well. Mr. Harbee indicated that unless there is something <br />of which he is unaware the Hempys cannot commit the Starnes to this <br />co dition. <br />Co issioner Wilson asked if there is any reason to think the owner <br />wi 1 not cooperate in obtaining a parcel map and approval of this <br />pr posal. He indicated that there must be some conditions in the <br />He py-Starnes agreement wY~ere it mentions cooperation in filing of <br />a legal parcel map. ', <br />Co issioner Wilson then Ilsked who owns proposed Lots A, B and C. <br />Af er looking at the prop sed development, Mr. Harry Hempy indicated <br />he did not own them. Mr. Hempy said the Planning Commission wouldn't <br />allow the development of hat portion of the Starnes property which he <br />pr iously owned so they ntered into a sales agreement and that he <br />can purchase the property back at any time and now they are coming <br />back to renegotiate on wh t they started with when they sold the pro- <br />perty. <br />Mr. Harris reported that <br />pur base. Mr. Hempy said <br />sit but that the Hempys ] <br />Sta nes house is located <br />the direction recommended <br />pur base agreement system <br />he property needs to be subdivided prior to a <br />Starnes has nothing to do with the subject <br />.ave nothing to do with the land on which <br />nd that the Hempys have been trying to follow <br />y the Planning Commission and they used the <br />to accomplish this. <br />Mr. Harris stated that Mr. <br />rep rt and if he objects, <br />lea t before a decision is <br />an pplicant and the condi <br />Hem ys. He said if for no <br />tin ed so the Starnes can <br />Co issioner Wilson asked <br />nor kern turn onto Foothi <br />indicated he didn't know <br />sai that there are other <br />to tarnes (one of which <br />dri eway as now structure <br />Starnes should be sent a copy of the staff <br />t should be known at this time or at <br />made on this proposal. He said Starnes is <br />ions would effect him as well as the <br />other reason the meeting should be con- <br />0 over the conditions proposed. <br />f Lot B could be changed to include a 33 ft. <br />Road for future street widening. Mr. Barbee <br />Starnes would object or not. Mr. Harris <br />onditions, i.e., 46 and 4"7 which relate <br />rtains to his driveway). He said the <br />is dangerous. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.