My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 09/11/74
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1970-1979
>
1974
>
PC 09/11/74
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2017 11:53:07 AM
Creation date
4/30/2007 3:21:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/11/1974
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 09/11/74
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
qy$~g""~~~ CITY of PLEASA TON <br />N <br />.~, . <br />`~~*° Planning Commission <br />ro <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />DCfe : September 11 , 1974 <br />Time : s:o9 P.M. <br />PIGCe; Pleasanton Justice Court <br />District. The only restriction which <br />would be put on the trailer park is <br />that they could not increase the size <br />of the trailer park. <br />The Public Hearing was opened. <br />Mr. Frank de Leon Perez, owner of <br />the trailer park, was present. He <br />reiterated his position that the <br />trailer park be allowed to continue <br />in the C-F District. <br />The Chairman explained that initially <br />when this matter came before the <br />Commission, and if the zoning were <br />changed, this trailer park would <br />become nonconforming. Consequently, <br />this application was deferred until <br />such time as an ordinance amendment <br />was passed to conditionally allow <br />trailer parks in the C-S District. <br />However, when this was reviewed by <br />Council, they did not endorse the <br />recommendation, and now, it is back <br />before the Commission for review of <br />the original rezoning of the entire <br />area. <br />The Commissioners felt that it is th <br />City's obligation to assure that <br />property owners would not be deprive <br />of their right to continue operation <br />of their businesses. Some discussio <br />ensued on ability of the property <br />owner, under a nonconforming situ- <br />ation, to rebuild if more than 500 <br />of the property is burned. Also, <br />there-are other problems of finan- <br />cing involved with properties opera- <br />ting under a nonconforming status. <br />There are hardship factors which <br />must be considered in order to take <br />an equitable position on this re- <br />zoning review. They felt that there <br />-2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.