My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 07/28/82
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1982
>
PC 07/28/82
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:26:49 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 2:10:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/28/1982
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 07/28/82
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
OLD BUSINESS - Public Hearings <br />There was no old business. <br />NEW BUSINESS - Public Hearings <br />UP-82-11, Alderwood Associates <br />Application of Alderwood Associates for a conditional use permit for <br />the establishment of a model home sales office for a 34-unit resi- <br />dential development located at the northeast corner of the intersection <br />of Black Avenue and Crestline Road. Zoning for the property is PUD <br />(Planned Unit Development)-High Density Residential District. <br />Mr. Harris reviewed the staff report and recommended approval subject <br />to conditions of approval. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />Jim Price, developer for Alderwood, stated that he had questions about <br />some of the conditions, but that Richard Glenn of the Planning Depart- <br />ment had explained them to him and he is now satisfied, with the <br />exception of condition number 7 of the staff report. He stated that <br />condition number 7 requires an aerial photograph. He further stated <br />that they contracted for their office layout with a commercial concern <br />that puts these offices together, including a rather elaborate colored <br />map of the area. They did not anticipate needing an aerial photo. <br />Mr. Price requested that this condition be eliminated or that it be <br />amended to substitute an alternate plan which could be approved by <br />the Planning Director. <br />Mr. Harris stated the latter suggestion would be fine with him. He <br />further stated that his only interest was that he show land uses <br />around the site and public facilities so that later on if anyone <br />should question anything, we would feel we had at least tried to <br />inform them of what was going on. <br />Mr. Price stated he felt their present map would show these things <br />better than an aerial photo. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner <br />Getty, that case UP-82-11 be approved in accordance with the 12 <br />conditions of the staff report and modifying condition number 7 <br />to read "That developer post an aerial photo or an alternative <br />illustration showing the project and the surrounding area acceptable <br />to the Planning Director." In addition to the 12 conditions and <br />amendment of condition number 7, it was also noted that the Com- <br />mission made the findings A, B and C enumerated in the staff report. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />Ayes: Commissioners Doherty, Getty, Jamieson, Vdilson and <br />Chairperson Lindsey <br />Noes: None <br />Absent: None <br />Abstain: None <br />-2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.