Laserfiche WebLink
4y~~$""~°y CITY of PLEASANTON <br />~~ ~~~ <br /> <br />*° <br />.o <br /> <br />Planning <br /> <br />Commission <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br /> DG18 ; February 13, 1975 <br /> Time : 8 ~ oo P.M. <br /> <br />Place; Pleasanton Justice Court <br />Acting Chairman McLain then advised <br />the Commissioners the three alter- <br />natives noted in the staff report; <br />1) sustain previous action; 2) <br />concur with the request of the pro- <br />ponent; and 3) formulate an alter- <br />nate revision based upon increased <br />setback, reduced area, etc. <br />Commissioner Butler wished to know <br />if the applicant were interested in <br />revising the plan to show a differ- <br />ent setback, would he be required <br />to come back with another revision? <br />Secretary Harris stated that the <br />Commission would make their recom- <br />mendation to Council, who in turn <br />would make the adjustments they <br />deemed necessary. <br />A resolution was then entered by <br />Commissioner Butler, seconded by <br />Commissioner Doherty and carried, <br />approving the applicant's request <br />to allow a second-story addition <br />on Building #4 with the six condi- <br />tions noted in the staff report <br />dated November 13, 1974, and with <br />the requirement that the second <br />story be setback a total of 10 ft. <br />After the action was taken, Commis- <br />sioner Carrigan suggested to staff <br />that they look into the question of <br />approving commercial development <br />adjacent to (residential) develop- <br />ments that some consideration be <br />given to wider setbacks than what <br />shows on this particular PUD. He <br />cited other areas in the City where <br />this issue would probably be repeate <br />and felt that the City take a long <br />hard look at the situation now. <br />Acting Chairman McLain thought that <br />the distance in back of the building; <br />-17- <br />