Laserfiche WebLink
CITY of PLEASANTON <br />Planning Commission <br />MINUT~~ ~0~ REGU _AR MizCTINQ, <br />~Gte ~ May 8, 1974 <br />Time ~ $ :15 P . M. <br />Ptacej Pleasanton Justice Court <br />The consensus of feeling among 'the <br />Commissioners was that they were not <br />entirely opposed to the mortuary <br />locating on the parcel, but that <br />the uncertainty of how the remaining <br />acreage would develop if amended to <br />commercial, should be seriously con- <br />sidered. <br />Commissioner Wood had concerns re- <br />garding the adopted 1968 General <br />Plan showing the area as high <br />density residential, and also on <br />the present one. He conceded that <br />mortuaries are a necessity, but that <br />nobody wants it next door. <br />Commissioner Carrigan felt that high <br />density "garden apartments" were <br />a compromise acceptance on the part <br />of the Commission to obtain amenities <br />for the subdivision in question, but <br />that people also don't want high <br />density residential next door. He <br />had concerns about the balance of_ <br />the commercial. <br />,Commissioner Pons cited the con- <br />valescent hospital on Second and , <br />Neal. There were serious concerns <br />'Ithere too at the time it was being <br />'proposed, but now, he felt it was <br />far preferable to apartment develop- <br />ment. <br />Some discussion followed on a com- <br />promise solution of allowing com- <br />mercial for development of the <br />mortuary with the balance remaining <br />in multiple residential, but with <br />reduced density. <br />At present at the RM-2500 density, it <br />would yield about 17 units per acre, <br />but at RM-4000, this would drop to <br />10 units per acre. <br />\\\\ <br />.111111 <br />-4- <br />