Laserfiche WebLink
4y$~s"N~°y CITY of PLEASANTON <br />~ ~ '~/ . ~ <br />~~o. Planning Commission <br />~xrsv s <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />DCte : October 17, 1972 <br />Time : 8:22 P.M. <br />PIOCe; Pleasanton Justice Court <br />Chairman Pons inquired what Mr. Hanse <br />obligations would be should there be <br />problems and the schedules cannot be <br />met. Mr. levy stated that with a <br />project such as under the non-profit <br />236, either the contractor builds the <br />project or it never gets started. <br />Secretary Castro then indicated that <br />the new site plan before them is con- <br />siderably improved over the previous <br />one. However, he is still of the sam~ <br />opinion that the architecture looks <br />like an afterthought. He felt the co. <br />mission's attention should be devoted <br />to this. <br />Mr. Joseph Madden, owner of property <br />on Vineyard Avenue adjacent to this <br />project, wished to know if Vine Stree <br />is to be improved. The answer was in <br />the affirmative. There will be about <br />50 ft. of road with full improvements <br />to go in. <br />Mr. Madden explained that he was at <br />Council meeting when Rev. Vogt receiv <br />approval for the sewering of the pro- <br />ject and at that time it was stated <br />that construction would occur in thre <br />phases. The City Manager was to writ <br />a letter to HUD and Mr. Madden wished <br />to know what happened to the building <br />of the project in three phases? <br />'s <br />Secretary Castro explained that at th <br />time building permits were being allo <br />Gated there were several projects ap- <br />proved prior to the Cease & Desist Or e <br />and there was a consensus of agreemen <br />among the various developers, that <br />because some were not ready to go ahe d <br />and others were, they were given the <br />building permits at that point and th <br />r <br />-22- <br />