Laserfiche WebLink
CITY of PLEASANTON <br />Planning Commission <br />MINuT~~ `pF REGULAR MEETING, <br />pate ~ November 14 , 19 7 3 <br />Timed 9:15 P.M. <br />~I~Rp~ Pleasanton Justice Court <br />(The Public Hearing was opened. <br />IMr. Jack Bras, representing the <br />applicant, spoke to the conditions <br />,noted in the staff report. <br />'No. 1 - Regarding the fencing to be <br />(provided, would like to compromise <br />to use pre-cast concrete on westerly <br />property line and on the north, use <br />redwood fencing. <br />No. 18 - provision of burglar alarm <br />system - if this is going to be a <br />standard condition, perhaps it <br />should be so noted in the ordinance <br />for consistency . <br />No. 23 - that building #6 be fully <br />sprinklered, etc. This requirement <br />would entail a cost of about <br />$1 per square foot. However, in <br />reexamining the condition, the <br />applicant feels that it would pro-. <br />~bably be money well spent. <br />Their main point for discussion woul <br />be the type of material used for the <br />fencing. <br />Senior Planner Harris explained that <br />the property to the west is master <br />planned for single family residentia <br />Therefore, they would like some <br />definite delineation between the <br />two uses. The question of the <br />burglar alarm system is not a <br />standard condition. It was specifi- <br />cally requested by the Police Depart <br />ment. The requirement for building <br />sprinklers is a requirement of the <br />Fire Department. <br />Commissioner McLain had a concern <br />regarding the precast concrete fence <br />and cited an example in San Jose <br />-2- <br />\\ <br />\\\ <br />~I <br />1 ~ j <br />3 i <br />