My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 10/17/72
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1970-1979
>
1972
>
PC 10/17/72
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2017 11:44:58 AM
Creation date
4/30/2007 4:05:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/17/1972
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 10/17/72
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
"""'°~ CITY of PLEASANTON <br />Planning Commission <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />Dote October 17, 1972 <br />Time : 8 :22 P.M. <br />PIQCe; Pleasanton Justice Court <br />centers run between six and ten acres <br />The recommendation for this center <br />would be not more than 10 acres, with <br />the balance being placed in the RM- <br />2500 District, or perhaps RM-1500. <br />Mr. Edward Dienstag, attorney for the <br />interests of the estate of Morris <br />Stulsaft, owner of the C-F parcel, <br />spoke in opposition to this proposed <br />rezoning, stating that his clients <br />would be losing considerable invest- <br />ment with the down-zoning of this <br />property. <br />ommissioner Pereira joined the meetir~ <br />t 8:35 P.M. <br />Mr. Dienstag indicated that he had <br />talked to Mr. Castro regarding the <br />proposed rezoning of these parcels <br />and was told that the 14 acre com- <br />mercial site was too large. Mr. <br />Dienstag made some reference to land <br />swapping. <br />Secretary Castro stated that land <br />swapping was not the City's intent. <br />He recognized that there is multiple <br />area fronting Vineyard Avenue and <br />recognized that the C-C zoning is too <br />large at 14 acres and that some <br />switching of the C-C to RM would be <br />necessary but that this would have <br />no bearing on the recommended zoning <br />change of C-F to R-l. <br />Mr. Dienstag indicated the reason <br />the testamentary trust had retained <br />this C-F parcel was because it was <br />commercial. He presented cost analyst <br />sheets of the development of the par- <br />cels should they go single-family. I~ <br />addition, he had MacKay & Somps give <br />them a fairly accurate estimate of <br />g <br />Is <br />-3- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.