My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 05/08/74
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1970-1979
>
1974
>
PC 05/08/74
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2017 11:53:29 AM
Creation date
4/30/2007 3:28:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/8/1974
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 05/08/74
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
""""4 CITY of PLEASANTON <br />Planning Commission <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />Dp1e ; May 8, 1974 <br />Time : 8:15 P . M. <br />PICCA~ Pleasanton Justice Court <br />Mr. Jim Quick, 554 Hamilton, owner <br />of the Ice Company and lessee of tha <br />property directly from S.P.R.R. <br />Company spoke. He explained that <br />the railroad company will not extend <br />the lease beyond one year, which <br />limits its potentiality for being <br />upgraded. He felt that this pro- <br />perty is isolated from the downtown <br />.area and perhaps should be exempt <br />'Ifrom uniformity of design with that <br />~Is,ector. He-did not see how sale <br />and storage of firewood could be <br />I~detrimental. He also cited the <br />sewer impasse, which would pretty <br />much relegate the use of the pro- <br />perty to warehousing and storage, or <br />other small scale uses. <br />Both Chairman Pereira and Commis- <br />sioner Pons had real concerns re- <br />garding this use on the site re- <br />quested. <br />A motion was entered and adopted <br />conditionally allowing firewood sales <br />and storage in the C-C District, <br />which was passed by three votes, the <br />two dissenting votes coming from <br />Pereira and Pons, who felt that they <br />could not support this proposed <br />ordinance amendment. <br />'ity Attorney Ken Scheidig empha- <br />ized that the uses being requested <br />n the last two items considered <br />ere not permitted or conditionally <br />ermitted in the Code. In such <br />ases, the Code allows the Planning <br />ommission to interpret whether it <br />hould be allowed automatically or <br />onditionally permitted, but in <br />ither case, it would mean an amend- <br />ent to the Zoning Ordinance . <br />-13- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.