My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 06/24/82
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1982
>
PC 06/24/82
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:26:56 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 2:13:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/24/1982
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 06/24/82
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
Mr. Harris stated <br />amendments in the <br />said the develope <br />public hearing is <br />feel strongly one <br />stage. <br />that this condition has been even on general plan <br />past and it puts the developers on notice. He <br />r will probably be addressing this issue when the <br />opened. Commissioner Jamieson indicated he didn't <br />way or the other about this condition at the zoning <br />Commissioner Wilson asked about the change to Condition No. 5. Mr. <br />Harris explained it just means the developer cannot go any lower <br />than 12,000 sq. ft. Mr. Harris indicated that this application is <br />merely to set limits as stated in the staff report and there is no <br />plan at this time. <br />Chairperson Lindsey asked if it would be possible if he came in with <br />20 units per acre if the "A" (Agricultural) District would allow this. <br />Commissioner Doherty indicated that the property to the east of the <br />property described in this application will have 20,000 sq. ft. lots <br />as an absolute minimum. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />No one appeared to represent this project. Chairperson Linsey <br />indicated that perhaps the meeting should be set in abeyance for <br />the arrival of the applicant's representative. Commissioner Wilson <br />said he didn't agree and the staff has indicated that the applicant <br />doesn't agree with No. 8 so the Commission merely has to decide <br />whether or not to leave this item as a condition. Commissioner <br />Doherty concurred that there was no reason to hold this matter up. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner <br />Getty that the negative declaration prepared for case PUD-81-36 be <br />adopted inasmuch as project approval would have no significant <br />adverse effect on the environment. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />Ayes: Commissioners Doherty, Getty, Jamieson, Wilson and <br />Chairperson Lindsey <br />Noes: None <br />Absent: None <br />Abstain: None <br />Resolution No. 2180 was then entered and adopted recommending approval <br />of the Negative Declaration as motioned. <br />A motion was then made by Commissioner Getty, seconded by Commissioner <br />Wilson that case PUD-81-36 be recommended for approval per the staff <br />report as amended by Mr. Harris' request. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />Ayes: Commissioners Doherty, Getty, Jamieson, Wilson and <br />Chairperson Lindsey <br />Noes: None <br />Absent: None <br />Abstain: None <br />-4- <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.